Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - hyalinejim

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Ok. Here's the Ektar lut of all luts, the Mother LUT if you will. I'm calling this one ADVANCED:

(Images sourced at kleptography because I'm bored of using my own....

Download ADVANCED lut here:

So what's different about this one? The colour is the same as TWISTED but instead of using a nice, user friendly gamma curve this lut accurately emulates the complex curve of the Ektar scans I found, including how contrast is altered when the exposure is pushed or pulled. This means that it takes a little more work on your part to get a good looking image. When you first apply the lut you probably won't get a nice result - it's very contrasty and may be severely over or under exposed. Think of the lut as part of the development process rather than an end in its own right. I recommend this order of operations:

1. White balance (temperature and tint)

2. Pre Curves - try raising and lowering white and black points and midtones to reveal the tonal information or contrast profile you're interested in. Watch the waveform and notice how contrast and colour shifts at different IRE levels. It might be necessary to over or under "expose" at this stage, or even to send a very low contrast input into the lut - just as you might push or pull an exposure when developing film. Be creative here.

3. ML Cinelog-C to Ektar 100 ADVANCED lut

4. Post Curves - now use curves again to correctly set blacks, whites and midtones.

5. Saturation - this version has a lower saturation than previous versions, so you might want to add a little here.

So basically, the TWISTED lut is the easiest to use and gives most pleasing colour and tonality with only a few clicks. It works great on every clip I've tried it on and I'll probably use it for 99% of my work.

Nevertheless, this ADVANCED lut is actually amazing if you take the time investigate how it works. It can give results that are remarkably similar to film in terms of colour, saturation and contrast, but you have to work at it!

Question about using Arri Log C as your timeline display LUT w/ Resolve - when I go to export files that I've graded this way, the timeline display LUT isn't baked in to the exported image.

I'm not a Resolve expert but I think timeline display luts are only for monitoring and so aren't exported. So that would be normal behaviour.

Hi everybody who's enjoying the Ektar lut. I've made a new version that I've called TWISTED:

Link is here:

Why is it twisted? Not because it's morally deviant, like you. But because there's a subtle hue twist from shadows to midtones to highlights which more accurately models the colour rendition of some of those Ektar scans I found.

In real terms it's subtle and doesn't make a huge difference, but the effect is there. What you will notice, however, compared to the previous LANDSCAPE lut, is that blues are more vivid and reds are ever so slightly less hot. Greens are still psychologically accurate. Also, when you first apply it, the white balance is more neutral - previous versions were skewed towards pink because that's the effect I was trying to recreate. You can still get the pinky pastel look with this version by manipulating tint before the lut. Have fun!

This LUT is the best I've ever tried with ML raw. Gonna use this a lot, thanks so much for sharing!  8) :)

Saw your vid from the Berlinale talks - looks great!

Have you seen this yet re: XC10?

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing it out!

For this lut (and generally any look lut) you need to adjust white balance and exposure before the lut.

So if things are too yellow, lower the colour temperature. Too magenta, change the tint. Underexposed, raise the exposure (I like curves for this one as you can quickly set whites, blacks and midtones). Too saturated, lower the saturation.

These are best done before the lut, but you can try some of them after the lut as well.

Import cDNG into Resolve -> timeline Alexa C-Log -> LUT -> way to yellow image

Import cDng to ACR -> bmd camera setup (payed converter) -> save as tif -> import to resolve -> LUT -> way to dark image
Import cDng to ACR -> VisionLog Camera Settings -> save as tif - import to resolve -> LUT -> kinda ok developed, but not near to the look you show

For Resolve, try a different white balance.

For ACR, forget VisionLog and BMDFilm - you need Cinelog C here. It's not so expensive. The combo of ACR (best debayering) and Cinelog C (retain all dynamic range, keep noise under control and play nicely with Alexa luts) is a winner as far as I'm concerned. But if I'm short on time I use Resolve.

Thanks to everyone for trying this out. For those who are digging it I'll make more soon. I'm in Bali at the moment on holidays. The light is amazing. I brought my XC10 and just befire I left I made an Ektar lut for that as well. It totally brings the XC10's colour to a new level.

Great info, thanks!

Never knew that, squig. How much faster?

@DeafEyeJedi great to see the lut being put to good use! The difference with ACR defaults is striking. Might use this for photos as well.

ACR definitely has best debayering but if I'm in a rush I use Cinelog for Resolve.

Thanks for the DNG via PM! Here's what your DNG looks like in a Rec 709 After Effects project, using Cinelog-C profile via ACR:

And this is with the landscape lut applied:

Now, it's a high dynamic range scene and you've protected the highlights. So I simply added a curve before the lut and lifted the middle quite a bit, and lowered the black point slightly to compensate:

Highlights are preserved, the texture of the tablecloth is preserved in the shadow areas (if you zoom in on a calibrated monitor). The colours are not too saturated, and the red of the anamorphic clamp looks a lot more natural than in the gif you posted above.

Maybe the Cinelog DCP doesn't behave the same in Raw Therapee as it does in ACR?


What is the software you're using to do it?

Adobe Camera Raw to After Effects, and this is what the lut is optimised for. Maybe that's why it's too contrasty on your end. If you have Cinelog-C and After Effects you can try this (from the Cinelog-C 2017 user guide):

Open After Effects and create a new composition

Open the Project Settings panel and set Depth to 32 bits per channel (float). Working Space should be set to HDTV (Rec.709). Compensate for Scene-referred profiles should be ticked. Linearize Workspace, Blend colors using 1.0 gamma and Match legacy After Effects QuickTime Gamma Adjustment should be unticked (no tick). Other settings should remain at their defaults.

Click on OK.

Important: The Cinelog Digital Camera Profiles and OpenColorIO configuration are mathematical and calculations are based strictly on a defined standard. The Working Space ICC profile should always be set to HDTV (Rec.709) when using Cinelog for accuracy.

In Adobe Camera Raw:

Select the Camera Calibration tab (camera icon) and choose the Cinelog-C camera profile for your camera.

If you don't have Cinelog or After Effects, DNGs debayered into an Alexa Log C timeline in Resolve should be more or less similar.

You can see from my earlier before and after shots of the backlit mountain that shadows shouldn't be crushed too much by the lut. So there must be something about the Raw Therapee to PS workflow that gives different input levels than what the lut is expecting. If so, it's easy to raise and lower black points before the lut.

Out of curiousity, why are you using Raw Therapee with Photoshop, when Adobe Camera Raw comes bundled with Photoshop?

Yes, the reds are definitely very hot in my landscape lut, and if there is a lot of shadow noise (like you get from Resolve's debayering) the lut will accentuate that unless you desaturate the shadows after the lut. However, it shouldn't be giving you results that are too contrasty. Are you sure that the input is Cinelog-C or something similar?

Here's a high contrast scene with highlight clipping, Cinelog-C ACR profile in a Rec709 After Effects project:

Here it is with Ektar 100 Landscape. Highlights are now just under 100 IRE and shadows are sitting at 0 but not clipped too much.

So it's quite a mild contrast boost. Thanks for the comparison to other Ektar luts - that's really interesting! Of course each emulation depends on the condition of the film, the processing and the scanning, as well as the emulation technique. I've found another interesting looking Ektar 100 colour chart, this time with very purply blues. I'll give this a go when I get back from hols.

In the meantime, here are some more examples, mainly in mixed lighting (output from Resolve, so shadows might be a bit noisy)

Glad people are enjoying the lut! I had some time this evening to do more tinkering. There are a number of good shots of Colorcheckers using various stocks at this link:

With one of these shots I've created a slightly different version of the Ektar 100 lut, giving a different colour response. I kept the gamma the same as the first one, as I think it works really well, and the white balance is matched between them.

Here's the download:

I'm calling this LANDSCAPE simply because the greens are far more accurate and life-like in this version, while maintaining the rosy pastel hues. That doesn't mean the first lut is obsolete - it's just different. It also doesn't mean that this second lut is only good for landscapes - skin looks great too - I'm just calling it that because greens are actually really muddy brown in the first lut. Also this one is more saturated.

Here are samples of the new ML Cinelog-C to Ektar 100 LANDSCAPE lut:

Have a play with the lut and let me know what you think! There are other film stocks that could be emulated on that page above. I'm off on my hols for two weeks, though. I'll do a few more when I get back.

Good stuff! Love the "no luts" approach. Keep the bits with you in it - it makes it more interesting.

Thanks Andy! I'm trying it out on lots of different clips and it seems to be usable in the majority of conditions, which isn't always the case with look luts. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your profiling. I'm half thinking of buying a roll of Ektar for my once-used, gathering dust, mainly-a-decoration OM-1 body, and shooting a chart in one stop intervals with the 5D side by side.

That's an interesting question! I've spent a lot of time scrolling through different folders, trying out different flavours of the Impulz luts.

This is very simple and it works for me:

1. In general use the Film Contrast luts
2. Arri Alexa luts work really nice with Cinelog straight out of the box

Also check out this lut I made, which I actually think is really nice;topicseen#msg182488

We all know that one of the advantages of shooting RAW is the scope it gives to achieve different looks. LUT solutions such as FilmConvert, Koji and Impulz attempt to emulate popular film stocks with more or less success for different cameras. Part of the problem of using these LUTs for Magic Lantern footage is that it's not always entirely clear how best to prepare the footage before the LUT.

A while back I became very interested in generating my own LUTs. It started with my efforts to match an XC10 to Magic Lantern tonality and colour. I used a ColorChecker and Resolve to get a pretty close match between the two. More recently I've begun searching online for photos of ColorCheckers taken on photographic film. I wanted to share a LUT I made to emulate a particular (scanned) shot taken on Ektar 100 that I found at

This has a nice gentle curve and pastel colours - good for blues and pinks. If you can tweak your white balance at the perfect point on the blue-orange and green-magenta axes, the results can be really nice for skin tones. Here's the LUT:

This is optimised for my workflow, which means Cinelog-C for Adobe Camera Raw. But if you don't have Cinelog for ACR or Resolve you can still use the LUT if you can get your footage into a log gamma. In Resolve color management settings, choose Arri Log C Timeline Colorspace for results very close to Cinelog.

The LUT is very friendly towards footage prepared in this way. There should be no clipping of the highs or lows. All you need to do is set the black point and white point, fine tune white balance and tint and you're good to go. I find that this order works best:

White balance

Magic Lantern has given me a lot over the years. This is one small way in which I can give back to the community.

Also when in 3K mode the image from LiveView is really choppy, have you experienced that? 

Yes! At lower resolutions the preview is in colour and faster. As the bitrate limit is approached LiveView switches back and forth the grayscale preview.

The references to 1:1 mean that every pixel on the sensor becomes a pixel in the image. The "crop factor" depends on the resolution you choose.

 A 1920 x 1080 1:1 central section of the sensor (5760 pixels wide) gives a crop factor of 3.

2880 x 1620 is a 2x crop factor.

I used Komputerbay 256GB 1066x which gives me a maximum of around 96 to 99MB/s depending on what mode I'm shooting in. (based on "expect X frames at XXMB/s" message in RAW menu)

As Walter mentioned, the ultimate bottleneck is the camera.

Actually, the preview is off as well as the file. In 3K mode framing is correct in preview:

But in 4K it's totally off (in the last build it was fine)

I tried altering CMOS[1] lo hi values. At lo 10 the image was centered vertically but with a weird overlay on half of the screen:

It's a transparent overlay of what's actually beneath the frame. I tried playing with different values for CMOS[1] lo but with no luck. In the previous build this problem cropped up (excuse the pun!) from time to time, but I could restart the camera and it was back to normal. With this build UHD is vertically shifted whereas 3K is correct.

TANGENTIAL SUGGESTION: If there's some way to reliably control the positioning of the crop area, this is a great way to turn a wide angle lens into a digital shift lens, for those interested in architectural stuff and precise composition.

Another quick suggestion: It would be nice to have more control of the vertical resolution, if that's possible. Let's say I wanted to shoot in 4:3 using a 2x anamorphic. The max res I can get is 2048 x 1536, even though my card could handle a higher resolution.

So this is full frame mode, just to show the framing:

And this is the DNG from UHD mode:

Hi a1ex, thanks for the new build.

I noticed that the preview framing in UHD seems to be too far up. I tried fiddling with the crop options, to no avail.

Also, for anybody concerned about low light shooting, it looks like I can get continuous 16:9 with around 2.4k horizontal resolution at ISO 3200.

Are you guys running ML off an SD card?

The best I can do @ 100 ISO is 3.3K 2.39:1. ML is on the CF card.

Yes. I was under the impression this frees up more bandwidth for recording to CF. Also, when you change CF cards your settings don't change.

2 things I learned:

1. If you half press shutter button while recording the preview stays in colour rather than alternating between colour and greyscale. Frame rate still lags but it makes things a hell of a lot easier to know what's going on in front of the camera.

2. Filming the moire pattern of a computer screen's pixel array and refresh rate will absolutely kill the compression and stop the recording, even at lower resolutions!

Is there a way of centering the crop? It looks weird not being centered.

It should already be centered. Are you loading the crop_rec module of the latest experimental build and then selecting 3K or UHD? Framing is off in 5x but should be centred in these modes. Sometimes 3x is shifted up for me. I just restart the camera and it's fine.

Did you get the latest experimental build, and load the crop_rec module?

OK, I'm pretty sure that the 14bit lossless compression varies with ISO.

In crop_rec 3K (3072 x 1286 ) I can get continuous recording at ISO 100

But if I whack the ISO up to 6400 I only get eleven seconds.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6