LUT Organization

Is there a way to organize LUTs?. Even though they are organized in coherent folders in the LUT folder, they appear all together inside Resolve. I would love a LUT preview window where one can see the LUTs applied to the pertinent shot. This menu selection can get very cumbersome to try different LUTs. I'm sure I'm not the only one complaining about this. Seems somewhat basic, no?.

I complained about that as well, it's also funny because in certain places you see the folder structure and in other is a big mess.

+1

I would love a LUT preview window where one can see the LUTs applied to the pertinent shot. <snip> Seems somewhat basic, no?.

If you are using a LUT as a Power Grade, then there is a simpler way of doing that, yes.

jPo

I also think he uses a LUT as a "look", and may wish to see panels like Magic Bullet stuff... This way of doing could be achieved using galleries or stills/power grades
[/quote]there is a simpler way of doing that, yes.
jPo[/quote]Curious to read your suggestion

I also think he uses a LUT as a "look"

That was my impression -- in a lexicon/jargon-loaded work environment, sometimes its hard to sort out what the real intent is for interpreting the language being used. To directly address the issue at hand, if a user is using a LUT as a PowerGrade, the absolutely easiest way to implement trading the look in and out of a correction is to have it in directly addressable memory as a still, Mem, or PowerGrade with the last the most universally accessible across all users and projects.

There are those who use the term "font" when they are referring to a graphic element in a timeline -- whether its a chapter title, lower-third, or whatever... and when they send a revision note something to the effect that "the font at time code such-and-such needs to be changed", I know its probably the wording that needs to be addressed and we're not going to change the letter style, because, you know, text like "Later the rebels returned and massacred every man, woman and child" would read so much better in Zapf Chancery than Helvetica Neue Bold. Not that adding the text "... starting with the youngest." doesn't have a different impact... Yes, we were "fonting" that scene.

LUT as a term has been co-opted, I feel, in the same way and LUTting a grade is a buzz term that does not recognize the correct technical implementation or intent for why the LookUpTable matrix was invented. Originally, it was to transform between display spaces so that working in a native space would translate to multiple release media in a predictable way. But in practice someone will grow fond of any correction applied to anything because its a unique, eye-catching treatment, but whatever floats yer boat.

jPo

LUT as a term has been co-opted, I feel, in the same way and LUTting a grade is a buzz term that does not recognize the correct technical implementation or intent for why the LookUpTable matrix was invented.

I think this has more to do with the process of exporting a grade/look to a LUT file to make it portable to other systems and users. There's a real cottage industry of people making look sets, and they are typically available in LUT formats.

LUT as a term has been co-opted, I feel, in the same way and LUTting a grade is a buzz term that does not recognize the correct technical implementation or intent for why the LookUpTable matrix was invented. Originally, it was to transform between display spaces so that working in a native space would translate to multiple release media in a predictable way.

Well-said, Joe -- this is very true. I wish people would realize that there's a need for Technical LUTs to literally change files and put them in the right color space. But if you're just trying to go for a look, the controls are all built in to Resolve already.

if you're just trying to go for a look, the controls are all built in to Resolve already.

thanks for the props...

Haven't been paying much attention to video games lately -- there was a time when there was huge demand for magical "setups" for racing simulations that yielded instant superhuman lap times... not that the games aren't designed to flatter mediocre drivers to begin with... but imagining that tweaking the suspension and gear ratios on any car will suddenly transform anyone into Lewis or Seb or Ayrton, or any of the pilot-gods is plainly ridiculous.

Frankly, people who use the canned looks should not give themselves an end credit as "colorist"... its the ultimate dishonesty that starts with a self-delusion. Credit should be listed as "Color by Magic Bullet" or whatever the plugin or LUT-origin was. Disagree?

jPo

Dont worry, use the autocolor button. ..

I think this has more to do with the process of exporting a grade/look to a LUT file to make it portable to other systems and users. There's a real cottage industry of people making look sets, and they are typically available in LUT formats.

Yep I understand, but it doesn't change anything in the real purpose of a LUT, which is supposed to translate color environments from one "host" to another.

So doing this way (exporting a LUT to be able to reimport it as a "look" in any NLE, or else which can deal with LUTs) results in gross grades in the end, because the LUT won't take the characteristics of the image on which it's applied into account, and because the philosophy itself is "the lazy way", which ends in a user who finally... won't grade anything after the LUT is applied !
Therefore, the LUT made of the analysis of the mood and data of pic A, is applied on pic B which is often very different from pic A. It makes me think about those supposedly wonderful free LUTs for GoPros I sometimes see coming from GroundControl, actually "gained up and full contrast" style with absolutely no feeling.
Moreover, these gross final results are supposed to be trendy ? Come on


But I know you're right : to be available on every platform may be the main reason why the LUT exporting way has quickly spread...
However, I would oppose a statement : Resolve (for example, but Scratch too I think) is available on every OS, so the portability is not really at stake, why not learning before and be lazy after if needed ? Hmmm ?

I was just saying that look presets are commonly available in LUT file formats, and this has led to the misuse of "LUT" to mean "preset."

I'm not in favor of it, just observing how it happened.

It's not unlike the whole 135 "crop factor" thing creeping into digital cinematography.

I was just saying that look presets are commonly available in LUT file formats, and this has led to the misuse of "LUT" to mean "preset."

Very true. I object to companies that claim a certain LUT is going to absolutely make it look it was shot on a given film stock, which is totally nebulous. It's only the claim I object to -- not the process. If they want to sell a fake-LUT and say, "hey, this will make your material look different!", I can't object to that.

The whole issue of LUTs is about to get much more interesting with Resolve 12, particularly in how BMD will be handling color management options within the program.

particularly in how BMD will be handling color management options within the program.

Are you referring to the Media Page pre-assignment of camera profiles? Little bit like a poor-man's IDT, but not ACES.

jPo

Are you referring to the Media Page pre-assignment of camera profiles? Little bit like a poor-man's IDT, but not ACES.

The new daVinci Resolve Color Management (DRCM) will change things. If I believe the advance info, it would seem to be "ACES that works." At the least, the effect of LUTs will be much more predictable, provided they're made for the new color management system.

I still think there might be a place for pre-fab Resolve looks, particularly with the new compound nodes in v12. But if this were to happen, I don't think it'd be fair to say, "this looks like Brand X negative film." I'd merely say, "hey, this is an afternoon look, this is an early morning look, this is a blue color wash, this is a sepia brown look, this is a bleach-bypass look, this is a cyan/teal look," and so on. The whole faux-LUT thing is just such a misnomer. If they distributed the looks as actual nodes, then you could go in and tweak them in a non-destructive way.