Post & the DI

Posted on by

Back to Post & the DI...

Are you sure you want to delete this post and all the replies?

Hello forum!

I am attempting to create my own LUT to be used for on-camera monitoring, as well as a starting point in a grade. Not dissimilar to Roger's method. I have read many of the posts on this forum about LUT creation, and as user "K. Wasley" says in a post in this thread (, there seems to be two ways to create a LUT.

  1. Math. Creating the LUT either from scratch or changing the math of an existing LUT. For example, the standard Arri LogC to Rec.709 LUT from Arri's website.

  2. DI suite. Using a program such as Davinci Resolve to create the LUT. This of course does not allow for the finite control that math allows for, but is much more user friendly.

Roger claims his LUT is very simple, that it consists mainly of contrast and saturation, and that the look comes from the lighting and production design. I completely agree, and am not trying to take away from Roger's skill. But, I am not interested in Roger's LUT for its' "look." I'm more interested in the math behind it that makes it so versatile. The base of it is simple, but the way it was made (I assume) was not.

I have tried to create my own custom gamma curve within Resolve, even using editable splines for a smoother knee, but it is a very clumsy. It works in big strokes, with quick results-- perfect for a colorist, but not someone attempting to create a LUT. The biggest problem is consistency. If I create a LUT in Resolve, it looks excellent on one image, and ridiculous on the next.

So my question is, how is such a versatile LUT made? And how is the math controlled? There seems to be a big gap in available information between advanced Resolve techniques and Steve Yedlin-like math.

There just doesn't seem to be a lot of practical "how-to" advice on this.


Back to Post & the DI...