Impulz LUTs & Westworld

I have been trying to teach myself Color grading and I have been playing with manually adjusting things with an X-rite color chart as reference.

I am a big fan of Westworld and I came across this article

https://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/blog ... 4294999072

detailing the film stocks they use. Inspired I ended up researching and watching many tutorials and I came across the ImpulZ film stock LUTs and multi step grading process.

Ended up even more confused

Below are 4 examples of the same BRAW Q5 clip graded in the following ways

Manually with the color chart
With a one step LUT
With the full ImpulZ two LUT process using the 5203 Kodak emulation
With the full ImpulZ two LUT process using the 5219 Kodak emulation




Feel like I am going crazy comparing them. Can you guess which one its which? Which looks better to you? Which looks more natural? Which looks most like Westworld (shot included below) ?

If you're learning, don't use luts.

I would second what Walter says and also comment that when you shoot on film, you get that look automatically (which is what they do on Westworld). The color correction comes from experimentation, time, and hard work. I'm not convinced that you can make digital images look like film with LUTs or anything else. You can make them look different, but it's not the same thing as shooting on film.

A lot that goes into the look of a big show like Westworld is the art direction (sets, locations, vehicles, interiors, etc.), the costumes, the exposure, the lenses, and most importantly, the lighting. In other words: a lot of that image happens in front of the lens.

I believe Shane Harris at CO3 Santa Monica does the color on the show (aided by the staff there), and I agree it's a great look that tells the story very well. Here's a link to a brief article on how Harris handled the color on a couple of episodes:

https://nofilmschool.com/2018/05/colori ... ogun-world

Thing is the more I do "proper" grading the more I hate it as a concept, feels like I am inventing the information.

I liked the idea of a step wise engineer like process, makes way more sense to me.

I wanted to try this method because I wanted the natural colours of Westworld not because I wanted to emulate film, to me it doesn't even look like film it just looks "right".


Thanks for the link I'll check it out.

Personally, I prefer the bottom left image, regardless of how you got there. (I like the contrast.)

While I agree that it is difficult to learn from LUTs (whatever they are doing is hidden away from the user) I do think both LUTs intended as an initial corrective step and LUTs designed to layer on a final "look" have a place in most workflows. Much of what they do is repetitive, and there's little reason to manually do all of those steps every time. Save your time and effort for the true creative judgements.

More experimenting



1) Is with Tom Antos UMP 4.6K to Rec 709 LUT applied and Black levels set to video on the BRAW settings

2) is just with BRAW settings set to rec 709 color space and Extended Video gamma applied


Skin tones look nicer in the Tom Antos version but the red and the colour of my shirt is more accurate with the out of the box BRAW setting

Much of what they do is repetitive, and there's little reason to manually do all of those steps every time.

that is why stills, mems, gallerys, pre & post groups, and shared nodes exist....

and i would re-write to; "Much of what they do is destructive" - in the case of Impulz, some of the worst i've ever seen, drop over a grey scale to eval for your self

You would be much better off with PixelTool Powergrades than any look LUT package. Jason does a nice job.

While I agree that it is difficult to learn from LUTs (whatever they are doing is hidden away from the user) I do think both LUTs intended as an initial corrective step and LUTs designed to layer on a final "look" have a place in most workflows. Much of what they do is repetitive, and there's little reason to manually do all of those steps every time.

PowerGrades and pasted grades fulfill this for me. When I manually come up with an initial setup for a scene, I re-use that setup throughout the sequence, so that takes care of the repetition. I'm not starting from scratch -- I literally apply that pre-grade to the sequence in under 5 seconds. Everything after that is tailored for each specific shot. But it's not a LUT: the initial "pre" correction (sometimes a series of nodes) is all done by hand and takes into account the exposure, shooting style, and format of what I'm working on. No LUT can anticipate a wide range of material, particularly when the DP encounters challenges that prevent them from shooting under optimum conditions.

Compound Nodes, PowerGrades, Groups, Pre-Clip Grades, Post-Clip Grades, and Shared Nodes are all possible ways of achieving this with a lot of speed. When you're under the gun and working on projects with limited time available, you have to find ways of shaving a few minutes off here and there. I'd rather come up with a custom "look" per project than scroll through a list of hundreds of LUTs that may or may not work for my particular situation.

Sure, Powergrades are non-destructive LUTs on steroids.

Same concept - avoid doing the same thing over and over. I continually come across people that take macho pride in "manually" color correcting.

Sure, Powergrades are non-destructive LUTs on steroids. Same concept - avoid doing the same thing over and over. I continually come across people that take macho pride in "manually" color correcting.

God no. I wouldn't start every shot over from scratch, if that's what you mean. I typically color correct whole sequences, tweak them with later nodes in the node tree, and then (if necessary) apply a look as a Post-Clip Grade. There's a lot of different philosophies you can try, but in the real world, we need to crank through at least 20-30 minutes of material a day. And that's rough with 300-400 shots. Even worse if there's lots of action and/or it's badly shot. I'm up for using any shortcut available provided a) the material doesn't suffer, b) the client loves the results, and c) we get done on time.

oh god i love westworld so much. but i cant understand how you are comparing those images you shot with that particular westworld image. You might come closer if you would pick a more similar lighted scene. apart from that, when i want to match something i always use a reference image directly next to my shot.

oh god i love westworld so much. but i cant understand how you are comparing those images you shot with that particular westworld image. You might come closer if you would pick a more similar lighted scene. apart from that, when i want to match something i always use a reference image directly next to my shot.

That was just the first Westworld screenshot I could find, the lighting I have is more similar to the indoor scenes at the Mesa but even there they get these rich but realistic looking colours, like a moving photograph.

Also, IIRC, Westworld is shot in film, processed, then scanned (scanity FWIK).

That's is a look in itself.

Also, IIRC, Westworld is shot in film, processed, then scanned (scanity FWIK).

That's is a look in itself.

Impulz is specifically designed to replicate the tonality and colour shifts of that exact process, well in theory...I couldn't get it to work right, but some of the examples I've seen of other people using it capture that feel/look very well, I was just hoping to do the same.

Also, IIRC, Westworld is shot in film, processed, then scanned (scanity FWIK).

That's is a look in itself.

Impulz is specifically designed to replicate the tonality and colour shifts of that exact process, well in theory...I couldn't get it to work right, but some of the examples I've seen of other people using it capture that feel/look very well, I was just hoping to do the same.

If you're looking for "film look" like, do something really simple:
1) i assume your color space is blackmagic film or something like that after the debayer
2) put few nodes and the second to last put a ofx color transform from blackmagic to rec709/ cineon log
3) last node put the resolve default Kodak to 709 lut.

So, the idea of to see which colour space the lut is expecting and transform the camera log space into that.

Then there is the grain: in theory you need two layer, one in log space and one after the lut to simulate both negative and positive one, but usually the one in log is sufficient.

Impulz is specifically designed to replicate the tonality and colour shifts of that exact process, well in theory...

My feeling is that the so-called Impulz LUTs are total bullspit. Solely my opinion -- please feel free to use them if they work for you.

Impulz is specifically designed to replicate the tonality and colour shifts of that exact process, well in theory...

My feeling is that the so-called Impulz LUTs are total bullspit. Solely my opinion -- please feel free to use them if they work for you.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate the feedback but was hoping for slightly different news oh well.

Also, IIRC, Westworld is shot in film, processed, then scanned (scanity FWIK).

That's is a look in itself.

Impulz is specifically designed to replicate the tonality and colour shifts of that exact process, well in theory...I couldn't get it to work right, but some of the examples I've seen of other people using it capture that feel/look very well, I was just hoping to do the same.

If you're looking for "film look" like, do something really simple:
1) i assume your color space is blackmagic film or something like that after the debayer
2) put few nodes and the second to last put a ofx color transform from blackmagic to rec709/ cineon log
3) last node put the resolve default Kodak to 709 lut.

So, the idea of to see which colour space the lut is expecting and transform the camera log space into that.

Then there is the grain: in theory you need two layer, one in log space and one after the lut to simulate both negative and positive one, but usually the one in log is sufficient.

Thank you thats quite helpful.

By the same token when I shoot BRAW should I leave the RAW settings as BM colour space or should I switch it to Rec 709 right at the source before fiddling with anything else? When I do that it seems to automatically get pretty decent colour accuracy but I am still not 100% clear on the significance of changing it there.

By the same token when I shoot BRAW should I leave the RAW settings as BM colour space or should I switch it to Rec 709 right at the source before fiddling with anything else? When I do that it seems to automatically get pretty decent colour accuracy but I am still not 100% clear on the significance of changing it there.

To me, if you're delivering Rec709, it doesn't look that bad just to work in Rec709, go to the Raw controls and switch to BMD Film, and then adjust those as a couple of nodes. It's not that difficult.

You can also use a Timeline Color Space, or you can use a Color Space Transform node, but there's a point where you can make things very, very complicated unnecessarily. I'm a big believer in keeping it simple... until it's unavoidable. But the camera makes decent pictures right out of the box that don't need that much special treatment.

There are a couple of possible workflows:
Negative film -> DIT -> chemical print film
Negative film -> DIT -> Technicolor print (no longer possible since 2002)
Negative film -> digital delivery
Digital acquisition -> chemical print film
All digital.

Each of the methods listed above have a unique look to them.

I believe Westworld uses negative film, and is all digital after that. So to recreate the look it's probably more important to use a negative LUT (Kodak VisionT etc) as your very first node and skip the print LUT at the end.

I believe Westworld uses negative film, and is all digital after that. So to recreate the look it's probably more important to use a negative LUT (Kodak VisionT etc) as your very first node and skip the print LUT at the end.

As I said above, speaking as a guy who does a lot of actual film work (120 feature restorations done in the last 4 years), slapping a "film look" LUT on digital camera files does not make them look like film negative. It merely makes them look different. In fact, I could trot out five feature films done within the same time frame -- say, 1990 films all shot on Kodak 5247 or 5248 -- and they all look drastically different. There is no one "film look" that unifies each film, because the exposure, lighting, lenses, and developing are all different.

You can make a better argument that print LUTs sorta/kinda emulate the approximate look that image would have if it were printed to release print stock.

As we've said many times, the look of the final image is largely due to art direction (set design), lighting, lenses, exposure, and all the other stuff that goes in front of the lens. Once it's there, we can push it in different directions in post, but you can't take any image and make it look like a world class $10 million-per-episode TV series like Westworld.

Sure, it's not going to be the same or even nearly as good as film. There's a reason Westworld was shot on film and not digital with a LUT. Just giving some pointers on how to at least approximate the workflow if you wanted to emulate it.

Sure, it's not going to be the same or even nearly as good as film. There's a reason Westworld was shot on film and not digital with a LUT. Just giving some pointers on how to at least approximate the workflow if you wanted to emulate it.

I'm not convinced an "emulation" will do it, because it's kind of like saying, "I want to have a 1990 Chevy but make it feel and look and handle like a 2019 Tesla." It's just not gonna happen. Again: about 80% of it is the lighting, so just get that right and you'll be in that area.

I've been all over the Westworld sets there at Melody Ranch in Newhall (about 25 miles north of downtown LA), and it's very interesting how the show looks vs. how the place actually looks in real life. Sadly, the church exterior set and some of the town streets at the Paramount Ranch burned down back in October in the Woolsey fires, but the show is contributing to help reconstruct a lot of it.

BTW, one thing I've noticed about Westworld is that it's not a straight "normal" look -- they do a little futzing with it, particularly the skies, to make it just a little "off" that I think is deliberate, just to clue the audience in that this is an artificial world. It's subtle, and maybe some of it's my imagination, but it's not an archtypical Western (and I've done a ton of those, including Dances with Wolves and Open Range).

I respectfully disagree: if you know what are you doing (see Steve Yedlin ASC) you can make digital look like film.

You can pick apart "SW: the last jedi" and see out for yourself: film and digital are blended together seamlessly.

However, you cannot just pick two random shot and "make them match" without much pain

As we've said many times, the look of the final image is largely due to art direction (set design), lighting, lenses, exposure, and all the other stuff that goes in front of the lens. Once it's there, we can push it in different directions in post, but you can't take any image and make it look like a world class $10 million-per-episode TV series like Westworld.

Let's take a location outdoors.Most movies make it happen that that looks good. How so if you can't change anything except camera location and wait for weather to change its lighting.
Direct and undirect light. Both light types look gorgoeus in movies and series. Record it with your smartphone and it doesn't look gorgeous. Except if you have know how to make it sexy in post.

1 Point for graiding so far.
0 Points for actively changing what happens in front of lens.

As we've said many times, the look of the final image is largely due to art direction (set design), lighting, lenses, exposure, and all the other stuff that goes in front of the lens. Once it's there, we can push it in different directions in post, but you can't take any image and make it look like a world class $10 million-per-episode TV series like Westworld.

Let's take a location outdoors.Most movies make it happen that that looks good. How so if you can't change anything except camera location and wait for weather to change its lighting.
Direct and undirect light. Both light types look gorgoeus in movies and series. Record it with your smartphone and it doesn't look gorgeous. Except if you have know how to make it sexy in post.

1 Point for graiding so far.
0 Points for actively changing what happens in front of lens.

sooooooo, nobody puts gigantic silk or bouncing lights anymore?

Bob Richardson and Roger Deakins do.

If you want your film or video to look "gorgeous", you have to light it.

Bob Richardson and Roger Deakins do.

I think you misunderstand. You might want to check Walter's credits on IMDB before you lecture him on how A-list cinematographers light. Trust me, he knows.

That was not directed at Walter. I was reinforcing his comment to nedag.

I mean much bigger locations like this

Feel like I am going crazy comparing them. Can you guess which one its which? Which looks better to you? Which looks more natural? Which looks most like Westworld (shot included below) ?

Last one (bottom, right).

For large locations, maybe a few of these HMI Lunar Lights.

I don't think you understand me.
I am not talking about filming at night. Just where there is not enough light. Like between buildings, in forest and so on.
And that light would not be enough to lighten real things up. Thats just for small things.

Impulz LUTs have very complicated look and same time have very poor resolution. They are also not too optimized for digital. A lot of colors overlapping is not fixed. As a result they produce a lot of ugly banding. Their Huge 2.8 GB Library of 1800 LUTs is nothing more than small amount of same low resolution LUTs presets optimized for different cameras sources. As i remember Impulz LUTs where only x17 (or something like that). Not sure if they released them at x64 format or not.

I can suggest to use different commercial film emulation LUTs with better resolution or use free high resolution G'MIC and RawTherapee HaldCLUt packages by converting them to cube format. I also can offer G'MIC and RawTherapee Film Simulation LUTs package converted to x33 and x65 cube format here https://lavky.com/handmade/visual-arts/ ... t=VR243296

Also some old vs new versions tests here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=77553&p=569913#p569913

Film LUTs can not 100% replace real film because they have fixed colors look, same time as real film produce very different color look at different exposure level. There are also a lot of other film optical effects that don't exists in digital: highlights halation, frame micro shake, motion blur look is different. Film dynamic range is also arranged in very different way. Film can not recover endless noisy extra information from shadows similar to digital sensors.
Another problem is that film source colors are formed in CMY film layers and LUTs are process colors in RGB model. This transformation may produce colors overlapping problems in some places if film emulation LUT was not optimized by developer.
But things are not so bad. footage processed with proper film emulation LUT may not look exact like film but it starts to have that "filmic" character and starts to look way better than boring digital image.

Here are some examples of real life film negatives tests shared by photo lab:

Stjepan, the Arri Alexa video example of a large street scene is not lit by anything other than daylight. You would not attempt to light something that vast. If shooting film you would use a fast film and probably push it in processing. Large sensor cameras such as the Alexa 65 and the Panavision DXL2 with their high dynamic range would cope with that scenario,especially when using fast lenses. Panavision have some that are T1.0.
Time for you to do your own research online.

Stjepan, the Arri Alexa video example of a large street scene is not lit by anything other than daylight. You would not attempt to light something that vast. If shooting film you would use a fast film and probably push it in processing. Large sensor cameras such as the Alexa 65 and the Panavision DXL2 with their high dynamic range would cope with that scenario,especially when using fast lenses. Panavision have some that are T1.0.
Time for you to do your own research online.

You probably have to put NDs in front for having to much light problem...

That was not directed at Walter. I was reinforcing his comment to nedag.

You might want to use quotes and write more precisely to avoid ambiguity.

I think a lot of these discussions would be better debated in a Cinematography forum, not one on Resolve per se. Westworld has something north of a $10 million budget per episode, along with award-winning DPs like David Mullen and many others, with union crews of 30 or 40 grips, gaffers, and electricians. They can easily handle big night locations (city or rural) and provide enough fill light as required.

At an indie level, this is a lot more challenging. LUTs alone will not do it. Exposure and choosing the right lenses is tough.

My biggest issue with using LUTs for a look is that the source clip must be perfectly exposed and white balanced to even get close to a decent look. You have no real idea of what sources were used to define the LUT when it was created. LUTs have their place but I always use my eyes and manual tools to create a look and occasionally a LUT blended at about 20% for a slight overall look.

You can use the same LUT on different clips shot on the same day with the same environment and they can look very different.

Exactly. LUT is a fixed math, nothing more. Under/over expose your footage (which in many cases is simply unavoidable) and official LUT can give very bad result.

You can try to 'correct' your exposure before applying LUT. Some people use this technique.

Stjepan, the Arri Alexa video example of a large street scene is not lit by anything other than daylight. You would not attempt to light something that vast. If shooting film you would use a fast film and probably push it in processing. Large sensor cameras such as the Alexa 65 and the Panavision DXL2 with their high dynamic range would cope with that scenario,especially when using fast lenses. Panavision have some that are T1.0.
Time for you to do your own research online.

That's what I am saying. You don't need anything else than a good camera and practicals for a beautiful image. You don't need lighting or cloths or story.

You do need a story to put the shots into a narrative order, otherwise all you will have will be animated snapshots.
Why all of a sudden do you go from asking how to light a large area to saying you don't need lighting? Your posting is becoming very troll-like.

Ya. It's normal. People don't understand me. Sad but funny.

Another try: With no lights needed I meant that for things I have in mind you don't need additional lights. I never had movies in my head.