Topics

ACES LUTs for a non ACES environment

Geoff Boyle
 

ACES LUT's for use in a non-ACES environment

The LUT's attached below were developed by Geoff Boyle of CML and Nick Shaw of Anler Post with the cooperation of the NSC and Netherlands Film Academy.

The reason for these LUT's is to enable low budget and very fast paced productions to have the advantages of an ACES workflow whilst shooting with their "normal"kit.

The LUT's are designed to take the log output of many commonly used cameras and enable you to use a standard rec 709 monitor and reproduce the "look"of having gone through a complete ACES workflow. IE they contain the effect of the relevant IDT, RRT & ODT.

If you use these LUT's when shooting you should be able to use "standard"IDT's & ODT's in post with no LUT and get exactly what you saw when you were shooting.

We are currently working on versions of these LUT's that will load directly into the monitoring of the cameras that are capable of this. Currently you will need to use an external LUT box between the camera and the monitor. I have personally done this with an Odyssey and a Terradeck Bolt, we are testing and talking to manufacturers to establish what their systems need.

Working this way enables you to use a conventional film style workflow, ie no grading onset, no DIT, just a data monkey :-)

It is easy using Prelight to generate this type of file incorporating a "look" if you follow this route you will need to generate 2 LUT's in Prelight, one incorporating the ACES "look"and one without. This is simply clicking 2 buttons withing Prelight.

ACES 1.0.3 LUTs for On-Set Preview 
from CML in association with Antler Post

These LUTs are designed only for use in LUT boxes or LUT capable monitors to preview the "base look" of ACES when shooting. They should not be used in post production. Use software which supports ACES directly.

Each LUT comes in two versions, designated EE or LL in the file name, folowing the convention used by the ARRI LUT Generator. Both versions are designed to achieve the same result, but you need to choose the appropriate one, depending on the way your LUT box works, or has been set up. EE means Extendedrange in and Extended range out, and is designed for LUT boxes which take the 64-940 SDI range (0-100%) and scale it to 0-1 before applying the LUT, then scale the result back to 64-940. LL means Legalrange in and Legal range out, and is designed for LUT boxes which apply the LUT directly to the un-scaled SDI code values. A good double-check of whether you are using the correct version of the LUT is to overexpose an image and look at it through the LUT on a waveform. ACES ODTs roll off to 100%, so if you see "super-whites" in the image, or if the whites peak below 100%, it is likely that you are using the wrong version of the LUT.

The LUTs included in the set are:

  1. ALEXA_LogC_EI800_AWG_ACES_709_EE.cube

  2. ALEXA_LogC_EI800_AWG_ACES_709_LL.cube

  3. CANON_CLog2_CinemaGamut_D55_ACES_709_EE.cube

  4. CANON_CLog2_CinemaGamut_D55_ACES_709_LL.cube

  5. CANON_CLog2_CinemaGamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_EE.cube

  6. CANON_CLog2_CinemaGamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_LL.cube

  7. CANON_CLog3_BT2020_D55_ACES_709_EE.cube

  8. CANON_CLog3_BT2020_D55_ACES_709_LL.cube

  9. CANON_CLog3_BT2020_Tungsten_ACES_709_EE.cube

  10. CANON_CLog3_BT2020_Tungsten_ACES_709_LL.cube

  11. CANON_CLog3_CinemaGamut_D55_ACES_709_EE.cube

  12. CANON_CLog3_CinemaGamut_D55_ACES_709_LL.cube

  13. CANON_CLog3_CinemaGamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_EE.cube

  14. CANON_CLog3_CinemaGamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_LL.cube

  15. PANASONIC_V-Log_V-Gamut_ACES_709_EE.cube

  16. PANASONIC_V-Log_V-Gamut_ACES_709_LL.cube

  17. PANASONIC_V-Log_V-Gamut_ACES_709_LL.vlt (for in camera use)

  18. RED_Log3G10_RWG_ACES_709_EE.cube

  19. RED_Log3G10_RWG_ACES_709_LL.cube

  20. SONY_S-Log2_S-Gamut_Daylight_ACES_709_EE.cube

  21. SONY_S-Log2_S-Gamut_Daylight_ACES_709_LL.cube

  22. SONY_S-Log2_S-Gamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_EE.cube

  23. SONY_S-Log2_S-Gamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_LL.cube

  24. SONY_S-Log3_S-Gamut3Cine_ACES_709_EE.cube

  25. SONY_S-Log3_S-Gamut3Cine_ACES_709_LL.cube

  26. SONY_S-Log3_S-Gamut3Cine_ACES_709_MLUT.cube (for in camera use)

 

These LUTs are built from the CTL IDTs provided by the various manufacturers, as well as CTL transforms from A.M.P.A.S. This should not be taken as an endorsement by either the camera manufacturers or A.M.P.A.S. The LUTs are provided "as is" and you should test that they are suitable for your purposes. Neither CML nor Antler Post can be held responsible, legally or otherwise, for any damages or losses which may arise from their use.

 

The LUT's were created with both Prelight and Lattice. Prelight being a WISWYG system with Lattice being a more technical but contriollable approach.

These CTLs are some custom ones created when building the CML / Antler ACES LUTs. They are provided to help you if you wish to make your own ACES LUTs within Lattice, they are not needed for Prelight.

The CTLs included in the set are:

  1. ANTLERutil.Contrast_85.ctl

  2. ANTLERutil.full_to_legal.ctl

  3. ANTLERutil.legal_to_full.ctl

  4. ANTLERutil.pull_half_stop.ctl

  5. ANTLERutil.pull_one_stop.ctl

  6. ANTLERutil.push_half_stop.ctl

  7. ANTLERutil.push_one_stop.ctl

They can be used in combination with manufacturer supplied ACES IDT CTLs, and the transform CTLs published by A.M.P.A.S. This should not be taken as an endorsement by A.M.P.A.S. of the CML /  Antler CTL files.

Multiple CTL files can be combined in software such as Lattice, LightSpace or CTLrender to produce a transform which may then be saved as a LUT. The order of operations is important. The exposure adjustment operators should be used in a linear space, e.g. ACES 2065-1, and the contrast operator should be used in a logarithmic space, e.g. ACEScct.

The following example sequence of CTL files will produce a legal-to-legal LUT (i.e. one which operates on un-scaled SDI code values) for a Rec.709 / BT.1886 display. It is for an ALEXA LogC signal, reduces exposure by one stop, and contrast to 85%:

  1. ANTLERutil.legal_to_full.ctl

  2. IDT.ARRI.Alexa-v3-logC-EI800.ctl

  3. ANTLERutil.pull_one_stop.ctl

  4. ACEScsc.ACES_to_ACEScct.ctl

  5. ANTLERutil.Contrast_85.ctl

  6. ACEScsc.ACEScct_to_ACES.ctl

  7. RRT.ctl

  8. ODT.Academy.Rec709_100nits_dim.ctl

  9. ANTLERutil.full_to_legal.ctl

The legal to full conversion is applied at the start because the ALEXA IDT expects full range (i.e. with 0-1 representing 0-100% 'IRE') input. Some IDTs (e.g. those from Canon, Panasonic and Sony) expect legal range input (i.e. 0-1 represents the un-scaled 0-1023 SDI code values) in which case no input scaling operation is needed for a legal-to-legal LUT. They would however need a full to legal input scale for a full-to-full LUT.

These CTLs are provided "as is" and you should test that they are suitable for your purposes. Neither CML nor Antler Post can be held responsible, legally or otherwise, for any damages or losses which may arise from their use.

axel.mertes
 





Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.

Amazing!

A big thank you for making this happen and sharing it to Nick and Geoff!

Very interesting workflow option.

>ACES LUT's for use in a non-ACES environment

>The LUT's attached below were developed by Geoff Boyle of CML and Nick Shaw of Anler Post with the cooperation of the NSC and Netherlands Film Academy.

Cheers, I raise my glass to you!

Axel Mertes

Magna Mana Production

Bildbearbeitung GmbH

Jamob-Latscha-Straße 3

60314 Frankfurt am Main

Germany

Broatch Berry
 

What a lovely gift for this weekend :) Thank you very much Geoff, and Nick. XOXOX.
I don't suppose there is one of these LUTs for good old Canon C log.

Broatch Berry
Venice CA


On Feb 10, 2018, at 1:59 AM, axel.mertes <axel.mertes@...> wrote:





Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.

Amazing!

A big thank you for making this happen and sharing it to Nick and Geoff!

Very interesting workflow option.

>ACES LUT's for use in a non-ACES environment

>The LUT's attached below were developed by Geoff Boyle of CML and Nick Shaw of Anler Post with the cooperation of the NSC and Netherlands Film Academy.

Cheers, I raise my glass to you!

Axel Mertes

Magna Mana Production

Bildbearbeitung GmbH

Jamob-Latscha-Straße 3

60314 Frankfurt am Main

Germany

Nick Shaw
 

On 10 Feb 2018, at 09:24, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

We are currently working on versions of these LUT's that will load directly into the monitoring of the cameras that are capable of this. Currently you will need to use an external LUT box between the camera and the monitor.
In fact I have personally tested the EE version of the respective LUTs in an ALEXA SXT and a RED EPIC. The format of the .vlt version of the V-Log LUT has been confirmed as correct for use in a Varicam by Mitch Gross. I believe the MLUT version is formatted correctly for use in a Sony camera, but have not yet had the opportunity to test that.

I am compiling a table of which version of the LUTs I have confirmed is appropriate for various LUT devices. I will post that shortly, and update it as I test more.

Nick Shaw
Workflow Consultant
www.antlerpost.com
London, UK

+44 (0)7778 217 555

Nick Shaw
 

On 10 Feb 2018, at 12:04, Nick Shaw <nick@...> wrote:

I am compiling a table of which version of the LUTs I have confirmed is appropriate for various LUT devices. I will post that shortly, and update it as I test more. 

Here is my initial list:


I will update the file at the same link as I add more devices.

Nick Shaw
Workflow Consultant
Antler Post
Suite 87
30 Red Lion Street
Richmond
Surrey TW9 1RB
UK

+44 (0)7778 217 555

Donald Bryant
 

Thanks so much Geoff, wonderfull share!
Cheers.

Donald Bryant, AMC

Mexico, City


rollingfilm@...
 

Geoff,
As much as I appreciate what you do and what you are offering here, I'm offended by how it is being handled. As a DIT that feeds my children with the income made by my many hours of work on set, and off, I find this statement to be very derogatory: "no DIT, just a data monkey :-)". I realize that in the UK things are done very differently than in Hollywood, but promoting the destruction of a job category goes against everything we should be doing. This article could have very easily been written as: "if your DIT uses these.." whereas promoting more work for others and not disparaging two working classes.

Respectfully,
Scott Stephens
DIT - Los Angeles

Geoff Boyle
 

Hi Scott,

I'm sorry I've offended you but anyone following CML knows I'm not fond of the designation DIT.
It's a position that has largely been invented to fill a need that didn't exist.
Data manager? Fine!
Onset colourist? Fine!
Vision engineer? Absolutely!

Sorry but that's been my personal view since DITs appeared.

cheers
Geoff


From: cml-post-vfx-aces@... <cml-post-vfx-aces@...> on behalf of rollingfilm@... <rollingfilm@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 7:54:58 PM
To: cml-post-vfx-aces@...
Subject: Re: [post-vfx-aces] ACES LUTs for a non ACES environment
 
Geoff,
As much as I appreciate what you do and what you are offering here, I'm offended by how it is being handled. As a DIT that feeds my children with the income made by my many hours of work on set, and off, I find this statement to be very derogatory: "no DIT, just a data monkey :-)". I realize that in the UK things are done very differently than in Hollywood, but promoting the destruction of a job category goes against everything we should be doing. This article could have very easily been written as: "if your DIT uses these.." whereas promoting more work for others and not disparaging two working classes.

Respectfully,
Scott Stephens
DIT - Los Angeles

Keith Putnam
 

Geoff, I'm not clear how the first sentence below fits with the three which follow. Are you arguing that a DIT is somehow *not* a data manager, onset colorist and "vision engineer"? Because those things are certainly included, among others, in the value that I and my colleagues bring to the camera department.

Keith Putnam
Local 600 DIT
New York City

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:
It's a position that has largely been invented to fill a need that didn't exist.
Data manager? Fine!
Onset colourist? Fine!
Vision engineer? Absolutely!

MDLCineFoto
 

Thanks so much Geoff for this! I was looking out to do this in a series of documentaries that I’m mostly by myself and having these LUT’s will help me a LOT while I’m shooting! 

Thanks again!!!

Mariano De Luca
Cinematographer
Los Angeles, CA - USA

On Feb 10, 2018, at 11:01 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

Hi Scott,

I'm sorry I've offended you but anyone following CML knows I'm not fond of the designation DIT.
It's a position that has largely been invented to fill a need that didn't exist.
Data manager? Fine!
Onset colourist? Fine!
Vision engineer? Absolutely!

Sorry but that's been my personal view since DITs appeared.

cheers
Geoff


From: cml-post-vfx-aces@... <cml-post-vfx-aces@...> on behalf of rollingfilm@... <rollingfilm@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 7:54:58 PM
To: cml-post-vfx-aces@...
Subject: Re: [post-vfx-aces] ACES LUTs for a non ACES environment
 
Geoff,
As much as I appreciate what you do and what you are offering here, I'm offended by how it is being handled. As a DIT that feeds my children with the income made by my many hours of work on set, and off, I find this statement to be very derogatory: "no DIT, just a data monkey :-)". I realize that in the UK things are done very differently than in Hollywood, but promoting the destruction of a job category goes against everything we should be doing. This article could have very easily been written as: "if your DIT uses these.." whereas promoting more work for others and not disparaging two working classes.

Respectfully,
Scott Stephens
DIT - Los Angeles

Adrian Hernandez
 

Hello Geoff and Scott, a former DIT here :)

Maybe (just maybe ;) ) Data Manager, Onset Colorist and Vision engineer (instead of Vision I’d write visual) are common tasks in our day by day work.

These tasks, depend, obviously, on the budget, and even on the country and its “camera team assembly praxis” (here in Spain, sometimes, the camera crew doesn’t always has a DIT on it).

The way we shoot is constantly changing, so the cameras and their workflow… so are the DIT assignments…



Personally, I don’t find any offense related to the job i’ve done along these years (because I know VERY WELL the things i’ve done well and the ones that not so much :) )

Maybe the offense would be to the monkey! comparing their nature behavior to our “ethereal and sometimes not very tangible” occupation ! ^_^


And this, too, is my personal view since the digital cameras appeared.



Respect and thankfulness to you, Geoff and Scott and to your job.

Adrian.




On 10 Feb 2018, at 20:01, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

Hi Scott,

I'm sorry I've offended you but anyone following CML knows I'm not fond of the designation DIT.
It's a position that has largely been invented to fill a need that didn't exist.
Data manager? Fine!
Onset colourist? Fine!
Vision engineer? Absolutely!

Sorry but that's been my personal view since DITs appeared.

cheers
Geoff


From: cml-post-vfx-aces@... <cml-post-vfx-aces@...> on behalf of rollingfilm@... <rollingfilm@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 7:54:58 PM
To: cml-post-vfx-aces@...
Subject: Re: [post-vfx-aces] ACES LUTs for a non ACES environment
 
Geoff,
As much as I appreciate what you do and what you are offering here, I'm offended by how it is being handled. As a DIT that feeds my children with the income made by my many hours of work on set, and off, I find this statement to be very derogatory: "no DIT, just a data monkey :-)". I realize that in the UK things are done very differently than in Hollywood, but promoting the destruction of a job category goes against everything we should be doing. This article could have very easily been written as: "if your DIT uses these.." whereas promoting more work for others and not disparaging two working classes.

Respectfully,
Scott Stephens
DIT - Los Angeles

Adrian Hernandez
 

By the way, 
Thank you and Nick Shaw for these LUTs !

 

On 10 Feb 2018, at 21:14, Adrian Hernandez <adro482@...> wrote:

Hello Geoff and Scott, a former DIT here :)

Maybe (just maybe ;) ) Data Manager, Onset Colorist and Vision engineer (instead of Vision I’d write visual) are common tasks in our day by day work.

These tasks, depend, obviously, on the budget, and even on the country and its “camera team assembly praxis” (here in Spain, sometimes, the camera crew doesn’t always has a DIT on it).

The way we shoot is constantly changing, so the cameras and their workflow… so are the DIT assignments…



Personally, I don’t find any offense related to the job i’ve done along these years (because I know VERY WELL the things i’ve done well and the ones that not so much :) )

Maybe the offense would be to the monkey! comparing their nature behavior to our “ethereal and sometimes not very tangible” occupation ! ^_^


And this, too, is my personal view since the digital cameras appeared.



Respect and thankfulness to you, Geoff and Scott and to your job.

Adrian.




On 10 Feb 2018, at 20:01, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

Hi Scott,

I'm sorry I've offended you but anyone following CML knows I'm not fond of the designation DIT.
It's a position that has largely been invented to fill a need that didn't exist.
Data manager? Fine!
Onset colourist? Fine!
Vision engineer? Absolutely!

Sorry but that's been my personal view since DITs appeared.

cheers
Geoff


From: cml-post-vfx-aces@... <cml-post-vfx-aces@...> on behalf of rollingfilm@... <rollingfilm@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 7:54:58 PM
To: cml-post-vfx-aces@...
Subject: Re: [post-vfx-aces] ACES LUTs for a non ACES environment
 
Geoff,
As much as I appreciate what you do and what you are offering here, I'm offended by how it is being handled. As a DIT that feeds my children with the income made by my many hours of work on set, and off, I find this statement to be very derogatory: "no DIT, just a data monkey :-)". I realize that in the UK things are done very differently than in Hollywood, but promoting the destruction of a job category goes against everything we should be doing. This article could have very easily been written as: "if your DIT uses these.." whereas promoting more work for others and not disparaging two working classes.

Respectfully,
Scott Stephens
DIT - Los Angeles


David Fuller
 

You guys absolutely rock! Thank you!


David Fuller
david@...
207-415-1986

On Feb 10, 2018, at 4:24 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

ACES LUT's for use in a non-ACES environment

Geoff Boyle
 

I’ve added in camera ACES LUTs for Sony & Varicam here https://www.cinematography.net/ACES-LUTS/ACES-Camera-LUTS.zip

 

More will follow.

 

Cheers

Geoff Boyle NSC

 

From: cml-post-vfx-aces@... [mailto:cml-post-vfx-aces@...] On Behalf Of David Fuller
Sent: Sunday, 11 February 2018 06:27
To: cml-post-vfx-aces@...
Subject: Re: [post-vfx-aces] ACES LUTs for a non ACES environment

 

You guys absolutely rock! Thank you!


David Fuller
david@...
207-415-1986

On Feb 10, 2018, at 4:24 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

ACES LUT's for use in a non-ACES environment

Michael Borenstein
 

Cross-posted from your rant:

Geoff, Backlash is 3 people responding to your post with an opposing viewpoint?  A viewpoint that disparages a whole classification of fellow camera department, fellow union members, fellow fathers and mothers, fellow below the line crew that need to feed their families and pay their bills?  
 
It's clear that you have a lot of feeling around DITs.  I'm not sure why that is and I don't want to speculate, as it would lend credence to the bias you espouse.  What is clear, however, is that you don't seem to know what a proper DIT does on set or brings to a production, of any size.  Maybe it's because you haven't hired the right DITs or maybe you're predisposed to not liking the position.  I don't know and don't really care.  I'm just offended and pissed at you using your position of perceived authority and knowledge to undermine fellow crew members who've put in countless hours of blood, sweat, and tears to be a part of this community and feed his/her family.  DITs have enough trouble with producers and PM's not valuing us, we don't need more of it from our own.  
 
What I do want to communicate to my fellow CML readers is that a DIT brings significant value to a camera department and a production.   With the DP and the gaffer, we help keep a consistent look, through lighting, filtration, and on-set color and exposure adjustments, which don't take time away from anything because they're done in tandem with everything else.  When there is a technical problem on set with your digital camera or digital accessories, it is typically DITs that rush in to assess and fix if possible, saving production time and money in the process.  When the loader or "Data Monkey"  is there for hours after wrap because he's inundated with cards to download and slow drives that production or post supplied, it's us that recommend a smarter, faster, more efficient workflow, saving production thousands of dollars and saving the DP from getting asked why his crew is costing tons of money in overtime, etc.  I/we can come up with thousands s of examples of ways we add significant and lasting value to a project of any size, but we shouldn't have to do that.  
 
Also, just for a little context.  All 2017 Oscar nominee's for Best Cinematography (except for Dunkirk, shot on film) had DIT's.  Furthermore, all 2017 Emmy nominees for Best Cinematography also had a DIT for the run of show or some part of it.  

Geoff Boyle
 

No, backlash is private email that is so expletive loaded that even I noticed!

 

It’s not what is posted here but is what is sent off-list, I wish they had the balls to post on list what they send off list.

 

OK, I accept what I posted can be taken badly, it was as far as I was concerned a flippant throwaway line.

 

However, I have posted about workflow in cml-general and how I think that whilst a DIT may have been needed during the transition from film to digital that is well behind us now.

A Video engineer or an onset colourist may be required in some workflows but in the majority of productions this is not the case.

Simple data transfer is not something that needs a highly skilled technician and in most cases can be done by the person who in traditional terminology would have been the loader, they are now the un-loader.

Cameras have moved on in simplicity of operation, onset time is very expensive, anything we can do to make it faster & easier has to be good.

Making the workflow more predictable and universal has to be good.

 

I’m sorry, just as the men with red flags walking in front of cars became obsolete and had to find other jobs so it happens in our industry.

 

Geoff Boyle NSC

Cinematographer

Netherlands

 

From: cml-post-vfx-aces@... [mailto:cml-post-vfx-aces@...] On Behalf Of Michael Borenstein

Geoff, Backlash is 3 people responding to your post with an opposing viewpoint?  A viewpoint that disparages a whole classification of fellow camera department, fellow union members, fellow fathers and mothers, fellow below the line crew that need to feed their families and pay their bills?  

 

 

Paul Curtis
 

On 12 Feb 2018, at 23:28, Michael Borenstein <michaelborenstein@...> wrote:
What I do want to communicate to my fellow CML readers is that a DIT brings significant value to a camera department and a production. With the DP and the gaffer, we help keep a consistent look, through lighting, filtration, and on-set color and
Not sure why a DIT would be dealing with filtration but i digress...

From an indie perspective, so take with a grain of salt.

Like most industries based on tech, things move forward quicker than most people can catch up. Even the simplest indie sets can be rife with tech and that needs support. The role of DIT will perhaps morph into a more general tech position because most DITs are already mostly there. I can see us getting to the point where sets are basically pure data capture. Imagine if lightfields take off or those 3D 360 rigs become more commonplace or your vfx supers are running around with lidars or sweeping cameras around capturing the environment. And the more tech from more manufacturers that is slung together the more problems will happen - i see it now, all the time and i generally get tech but even so what a time waste.

So whilst right now i don't think (for most people) colouring on set is a thing and I can understand that it's mostly about shuttling data around (no mean feat done properly) i can see a future where things just get more and more complex and a DP who needs to concentrate on the story won't have time to understand or support the engine that captures the images. So a DIT (or whatever more appropriate title) will be invaluable.

And massive congrats Geoff on those 3 letters, well deserved.

cheers
Paul

axel.mertes
 

Hi Geoff, all others,

having worked on a bunch of project as essentially data wrangler, monkey, DIT or whatever you call it, myself - I think I know what Geoff is aiming for.
There is a bunch of good and helpful software that does most of what DITs in the original days did: Copying data safely and making sure there is more than one copy (often for insurance reasons) including a copy protocol with HASH verification etc. Replacing the loader job. One new job killed another one. That today trained people with small computer / camera background can administrate the copy process is no secret. Tons of tools around to assist and take care. Many DoPs do that on their own (surely not in Hollywood).

Anyhow, having a post production guru on set, who knows a lot about really handling data (data [S]HE is actually processing with his team later on), knowing about codecs, knowing about electronic devices and cameras in particular, knowing and understanding and using workflows, understanding digital and raw image processing, understanding post production from A to Z, at best even 3D and compositing, making HER/HIM essentially a VFX supervisor too (where needed) turns out to be a more than useful addition to most productions.

Too often I see producers who think that e.g. such a person (at best called a post production or VFX supervisor) is wasted money and a cost factor. In fact, in most cases this person would have saved the productions a lot of money, due to bad workflow decision made without, due to "fix it in post" attitude on set (which simply don't work in many cases as expected). I can tell stories over stories about this. From super low budget (where its killing the production in the end) to high budget (where costs explode unexpectedly) projects.

A recent example:
6K shooting. Actors needed to wear an armband each. They had them on set. They decided to not put them on and let it roll and "fix it in post". Days of extra work for a ten minutes delay on set otherwise? Results are, well, acceptable. Post is doing a fine job. Rotoscoping hundrets of frames - by hand. Not a clever decision in the end, wasting useful budget. Judge yourself.

Or the DoP who said we shoot ARRI RAW 3.4K for the blue screen part, but FullHD ProRes for the live action part. Who explains the director in post that zooming in the live action doesn't work anywhere as well as in the bluescreen part?

Or the producer who brought these "amazing thunderbold 1 TByte Lacie redundant RAID1 drives" to a production along an outdated Macbook. We used a Windows system with 1 TByte Samsung 850 EVO SATA SSDs in an 50 Euro external USB 3 to 2 * SATA port instead, copying at 330 MByte/s (versus 80 MByte/s on the Lacie for >5 times the price of the SSDs).

Or the person who thought the Sony A7S is a wonderful camera and used it without NDs outside, on a sunny day. Its digital, its having this amazing dynamic range, its all there, you can sure pull it back in post, its surelly all RAW nowadays...

I can continue that hardly forever.

However, I know how it feels to offend someone with a side note and getting blamed for it, so I stop here.

I do believe that most "DITs" should take Geoffs comment in fact as wakeup call that the name for what they do ("DIT") is really often not reflecting anywhere what they really do (or can do). Making a DIT the VFX / post supervisor may sound unlikely, but is IMHO often a reality, as [s]he is often really the closest person to actual post production of the job and understanding "digital" and "post production". The less budget, the more that approach makes sense from my perspective. Thats also a reason why we offer support to small film productions and one-person projects to help and guide them to understand (or trust) the technical part of their projects. These are often artists or poeple with a mission, not necesseraly computer post production nerds or digital camera geeks. But they need to get it done. Asking someone "who knows" has never been a bad thing, what do you think?

After all, too many poeple on set don't even know what DIT stands for: Digital Image Technician. Maybe we should improve that and call it "Image Quality Expert" or "Your Personal Butt Saver" or whatever comes to mind... ;-)

Just my 0.02 Euros.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Best regards,

Axel Mertes

Workflow, IT, Research and Development
Geschäftsführer/CTO/Founder
Tel: +49 69 978837-20
eMail: Axel.Mertes@...

Magna Mana Production
Bildbearbeitung GmbH
Jakob-Latscha-Straße 3
60314 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Tel: +49 69 978837-0
Fax: +49 69 978837-34
eMail: Info@...
Web: http://www.MagnaMana.com/

Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese
E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese E-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren
sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser E-Mail sind nicht gestattet.

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in
error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material
in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.


Michael Most
 


Making a DIT the VFX / post supervisor may sound unlikely, but is IMHO often a reality, as [s]he is often really the closest person to actual post production of the job and understanding "digital" and "post production”.

Maybe your experience in Europe is different (I’m aware of a number of ways in which that’s the case), but in my experience - and this is not intended to be a put down of any sort - I can probably count on one hand the number of DIT’s I’ve met who actually, really, truly understand post production with any real depth. Many claim to, but very, very few have actually worked in post production on any level, be that in editorial, dailies, color grading, or finishing. Or sound, for that matter. There are a few “workflow experts” that I have met over the years who are worthy of the title, but not many. The DIT job is like any other camera department job, it starts and ends on set. Production expertise is not post production expertise. I know very few dailies colorists who understand the various camera department positions and their attendant responsibilities, nor do they understand set etiquette or the hierarchy of set personnel and who is in charge of what. Nor do most of them have any in depth knowledge of the cameras being used. Nor should they, because it’s not what they do. In the same way, I don’t expect DITs to understand post production because, frankly, it’s not what they do. I just think everyone would be better served if those who claim to have that expertise would either demonstrate that they have it, or stop saying they do and let the post people answer those questions.

Mike Most
On Location Services Director
Technicolor
Los Angeles, CA.

Fahnon
 

Thank you so much Geoff.  This will be very, very helpful to me.  This is an amazing community!!

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 4:24 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

ACES LUT's for use in a non-ACES environment

The LUT's attached below were developed by Geoff Boyle of CML and Nick Shaw of Anler Post with the cooperation of the NSC and Netherlands Film Academy.

The reason for these LUT's is to enable low budget and very fast paced productions to have the advantages of an ACES workflow whilst shooting with their "normal"kit.

The LUT's are designed to take the log output of many commonly used cameras and enable you to use a standard rec 709 monitor and reproduce the "look"of having gone through a complete ACES workflow. IE they contain the effect of the relevant IDT, RRT & ODT.

If you use these LUT's when shooting you should be able to use "standard"IDT's & ODT's in post with no LUT and get exactly what you saw when you were shooting.

We are currently working on versions of these LUT's that will load directly into the monitoring of the cameras that are capable of this. Currently you will need to use an external LUT box between the camera and the monitor. I have personally done this with an Odyssey and a Terradeck Bolt, we are testing and talking to manufacturers to establish what their systems need.

Working this way enables you to use a conventional film style workflow, ie no grading onset, no DIT, just a data monkey :-)

It is easy using Prelight to generate this type of file incorporating a "look" if you follow this route you will need to generate 2 LUT's in Prelight, one incorporating the ACES "look"and one without. This is simply clicking 2 buttons withing Prelight.

ACES 1.0.3 LUTs for On-Set Preview 
from CML in association with Antler Post

These LUTs are designed only for use in LUT boxes or LUT capable monitors to preview the "base look" of ACES when shooting. They should not be used in post production. Use software which supports ACES directly.

Each LUT comes in two versions, designated EE or LL in the file name, folowing the convention used by the ARRI LUT Generator. Both versions are designed to achieve the same result, but you need to choose the appropriate one, depending on the way your LUT box works, or has been set up. EE means Extendedrange in and Extended range out, and is designed for LUT boxes which take the 64-940 SDI range (0-100%) and scale it to 0-1 before applying the LUT, then scale the result back to 64-940. LL means Legalrange in and Legal range out, and is designed for LUT boxes which apply the LUT directly to the un-scaled SDI code values. A good double-check of whether you are using the correct version of the LUT is to overexpose an image and look at it through the LUT on a waveform. ACES ODTs roll off to 100%, so if you see "super-whites" in the image, or if the whites peak below 100%, it is likely that you are using the wrong version of the LUT.

The LUTs included in the set are:

  1. ALEXA_LogC_EI800_AWG_ACES_709_EE.cube

  2. ALEXA_LogC_EI800_AWG_ACES_709_LL.cube

  3. CANON_CLog2_CinemaGamut_D55_ACES_709_EE.cube

  4. CANON_CLog2_CinemaGamut_D55_ACES_709_LL.cube

  5. CANON_CLog2_CinemaGamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_EE.cube

  6. CANON_CLog2_CinemaGamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_LL.cube

  7. CANON_CLog3_BT2020_D55_ACES_709_EE.cube

  8. CANON_CLog3_BT2020_D55_ACES_709_LL.cube

  9. CANON_CLog3_BT2020_Tungsten_ACES_709_EE.cube

  10. CANON_CLog3_BT2020_Tungsten_ACES_709_LL.cube

  11. CANON_CLog3_CinemaGamut_D55_ACES_709_EE.cube

  12. CANON_CLog3_CinemaGamut_D55_ACES_709_LL.cube

  13. CANON_CLog3_CinemaGamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_EE.cube

  14. CANON_CLog3_CinemaGamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_LL.cube

  15. PANASONIC_V-Log_V-Gamut_ACES_709_EE.cube

  16. PANASONIC_V-Log_V-Gamut_ACES_709_LL.cube

  17. PANASONIC_V-Log_V-Gamut_ACES_709_LL.vlt (for in camera use)

  18. RED_Log3G10_RWG_ACES_709_EE.cube

  19. RED_Log3G10_RWG_ACES_709_LL.cube

  20. SONY_S-Log2_S-Gamut_Daylight_ACES_709_EE.cube

  21. SONY_S-Log2_S-Gamut_Daylight_ACES_709_LL.cube

  22. SONY_S-Log2_S-Gamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_EE.cube

  23. SONY_S-Log2_S-Gamut_Tungsten_ACES_709_LL.cube

  24. SONY_S-Log3_S-Gamut3Cine_ACES_709_EE.cube

  25. SONY_S-Log3_S-Gamut3Cine_ACES_709_LL.cube

  26. SONY_S-Log3_S-Gamut3Cine_ACES_709_MLUT.cube (for in camera use)

 

These LUTs are built from the CTL IDTs provided by the various manufacturers, as well as CTL transforms from A.M.P.A.S. This should not be taken as an endorsement by either the camera manufacturers or A.M.P.A.S. The LUTs are provided "as is" and you should test that they are suitable for your purposes. Neither CML nor Antler Post can be held responsible, legally or otherwise, for any damages or losses which may arise from their use.

 

The LUT's were created with both Prelight and Lattice. Prelight being a WISWYG system with Lattice being a more technical but contriollable approach.

These CTLs are some custom ones created when building the CML / Antler ACES LUTs. They are provided to help you if you wish to make your own ACES LUTs within Lattice, they are not needed for Prelight.

The CTLs included in the set are:

  1. ANTLERutil.Contrast_85.ctl

  2. ANTLERutil.full_to_legal.ctl

  3. ANTLERutil.legal_to_full.ctl

  4. ANTLERutil.pull_half_stop.ctl

  5. ANTLERutil.pull_one_stop.ctl

  6. ANTLERutil.push_half_stop.ctl

  7. ANTLERutil.push_one_stop.ctl

They can be used in combination with manufacturer supplied ACES IDT CTLs, and the transform CTLs published by A.M.P.A.S. This should not be taken as an endorsement by A.M.P.A.S. of the CML /  Antler CTL files.

Multiple CTL files can be combined in software such as Lattice, LightSpace or CTLrender to produce a transform which may then be saved as a LUT. The order of operations is important. The exposure adjustment operators should be used in a linear space, e.g. ACES 2065-1, and the contrast operator should be used in a logarithmic space, e.g. ACEScct.

The following example sequence of CTL files will produce a legal-to-legal LUT (i.e. one which operates on un-scaled SDI code values) for a Rec.709 / BT.1886 display. It is for an ALEXA LogC signal, reduces exposure by one stop, and contrast to 85%:

  1. ANTLERutil.legal_to_full.ctl

  2. IDT.ARRI.Alexa-v3-logC-EI800.ctl

  3. ANTLERutil.pull_one_stop.ctl

  4. ACEScsc.ACES_to_ACEScct.ctl

  5. ANTLERutil.Contrast_85.ctl

  6. ACEScsc.ACEScct_to_ACES.ctl

  7. RRT.ctl

  8. ODT.Academy.Rec709_100nits_dim.ctl

  9. ANTLERutil.full_to_legal.ctl

The legal to full conversion is applied at the start because the ALEXA IDT expects full range (i.e. with 0-1 representing 0-100% 'IRE') input. Some IDTs (e.g. those from Canon, Panasonic and Sony) expect legal range input (i.e. 0-1 represents the un-scaled 0-1023 SDI code values) in which case no input scaling operation is needed for a legal-to-legal LUT. They would however need a full to legal input scale for a full-to-full LUT.

These CTLs are provided "as is" and you should test that they are suitable for your purposes. Neither CML nor Antler Post can be held responsible, legally or otherwise, for any damages or losses which may arise from their use.




--
Fahnon Bennett
Filmmaker/Photographer
Brooklyn, New York
323.375.4332