Ok, a bit over the top, but this is a serious topic, something that I think needs a bit of a roll-back for the good of the generation coming through.
First, what is a LUT?
A LUT is a saved “Look Up Table” of processed settings saved as a pre-set and applied to video footage to balance low contrast and often de-saturated Log or Flat footage to better suit the needs of the creator. Add a cool name and they can seem like a gateway to something otherwise out of reach, which is the world of the professional colourist.
Using the standard profiles already in the camera are technically a LUT also, just more limiting ones.
In stills parlance, a LUT is simply a pre-set, something that has never really been a thing (otherwise known as a jpeg), because every still image is basically its own precious little snow-flake.
If you shoot in locked-down all-manual mode, which requires a controlled space and identical end requirements, then a pre-set could be applied to a batch (called, you guessed it, batch processing), but it is likely each file will still need it’s own little tweak to lift it from the others. Even jpegs are only the base-line colour and contrast settings, responding to changing situations as they go.
An ideal location to shoot in manual and batch process, but only as a start. Every image needed its own issues corrected, depending on subject angle, lighting and cropping.
This is because we look at stills as individual stills. Each has its own presence, none are identical unless they actually are. Video is similar in a clip equals frame sense, but needs more consistency across clips to some extent, because unlike stills, which even if presented in a series do not have to match, video is interconnected, so applying a LUT is often a decent starting place. It is not however, the end point.
The lesson starting videographers can take from stills shooters is important here.
The temptation is to apply a LUT, usually one made by someone else, to your footage as a good base line, often even the only grade applied, but it can be a lazy trap. The LUT is not the whole story, it is not the one answer and it is not necessarily your answer.
Personally I rarely see one that is close to my own interpretation of my work. If I want to look “on trend” or faux cinematic, then yeah, there are plenty. but I guess the stills photographer in me needs to start from scratch each project, to feel the growth of a project as I go and let what I see tell me what it wants.
Anything else, just seems like I give creative input to a process, and not a completely creative one.
So why and how hard do I make things for my self?
Well it turns out, there are several tools we can use that make the whole LUT thing go away painlessly.
The first (in Da Vinci) is the ability to apply the same setting to your clip as the previous one or two. This is effectively a short term memory LUT. Ideal for two camera interviews, this means you get your first two angles right, then just jump back one or two every time you want to grade the next clip.
The second is to create your own LUT, which is to say, you get your look right, then save it as a short or long term recall. The advantage here of course is, you can make a custom LUT for any project, modify it, return to it and go again, evolve it, contrast with it, but you are always working with your LUT, not one that have been piped in from another source.
These are what I will call mini or situational LUTs. You could even make one just for interviews with a certain camera, lens and lighting format.
The benefits, apart from above are the control you exert on your work and what you will learn. It is not easy, nor automatically programmed to grow evenly for all, but that is life. In a nut-shell, if it is worth doing, it is worth doing from scratch and learning the mechanics of the process.
This is apparently “correct” according to Capture 1. For my taste, I like it a little brighter and warmer, but who is to say, other than you for your work, what is right.
I am a stills shooter of over thirty years, so colour science, colour reactions and “grading” in many forms are something I am familiar with, but I will be the first to admit, I fail as often as any one else, but the more you practice……… .
Something I have noticed and I feel it is part of the process forming perceptions is the huge difference between the indie film maker and more regular Hollywood looks.
Stark, perfect reality with rich, vibrant colour is available to us, but for many, taking all this perfection and deliberately softening it is the desired outcome. Ironically, it is often film that looks cleaner than digital indie video.
Neither path is ascendant, both are relevant, only time will tell where they end up in our historical memory.
Why not go for crisp, rich and contrasty?
Like a lot of people who lived through the actual retro period and remembering we were always chasing better, cleaner and stronger results, I lean towards the richer, crisper end of rendering, something I rarely find a LUT for.
So, to sum up, LUT’s are sometimes handy, often efficient, but before you get depressed and feel the whole thing is getting too hard, maybe pulling back and looking at the problem in its simplest form holds the answer.
What do you want and how do you get there.
For me, Flat profile on my newer cameras with a mild grade “by eye” is plenty.