Colour correction before or after LUT? Premeire Pro CC

When colour grading DSLR footage (for example Canon)- in Premeire Pro CC - should you colour correct before or after applying stylised LUTs?

I've never used LUTs before. So this is kind of new to me.
 
Last edited:
If you're using the LUT to view LOG as REC 709, ideally you'd want the LUT on an adjustment layer above the video or set up as being applied as you monitor the footage. That way you are color correcting the LOG footage and getting the full benefits of it, while still viewing in a final output
 
Last edited:
When colour grading DSLR footage (for example Canon)- in Premeire Pro CC - should you colour correct before or after applying stylised LUTs?

I've never used LUTs before. So this is kind of new to me.

Did you happen to shoot the footage using the cinestyle profile by any chance? If so there is a slightly more enhanced two-step LUT process available to you via PPro, but as it turns out it's not a very intuitive workflow because adobe jacked up the LookLabs process a bit.

If you just shot with a standard flat/neutral profile then you'll want to stay away from certain included LUTs as they were specifically designed for use with footage in their proprietary log space.

This (SpeedLooks via Premiere) is sort of my wheelhouse so feel free to pester.
 
(LUT = color correction with a preset :P )

That's not always the case. In fact, if you're applying a LUT and calling it your color correction and exporting, you've shot yourself in the foot.

LUT to go from LOG C to Rec 709 isn't color correction, it's simply a color conversion between color space.

Correction goes FAR beyond that.

Also... color correction WITH a preset. Please no one ever use a C to 709 LUT that includes a grade. LUTs that are used to give a stylized grade have already started your grade, and baked it with your color space conversion.

1) You just lost control of your color space conversion.
2) You're using a indie-bait LUT. (These are LUTs created for the purpose of appealing to indies promising the "cinematic look". These are NOT one stop-shops for post-production coloring.)

Stylized LUT? Yes, they exist. Every colorist will most likely have a collection of them. I myself have about 15 of them I've created that fit into genres and moods that a lot of indie filmmakers seem to like. They have only a few very broad uses and are in no way the last part of a grade, nor do they do ANY correction.

1) Export them combined with a 709 color space baked for on-set PREVIEW of rough final picture.
2) During initial color session to show possible options.
3) Rough starting points for simple grades.

I would never use one of my stylized LUTs on a project that was paying me. Any serious project (broadcast, festival, or feature) I would have corrected and graded from scratch. The color space LUT would be the ONLY one used.
 
That's not always the case...........

Yes, it is always the case. :P (Although this is probably more semantics than it is about what is the right way to do color correction.)
From a technical point of view it is adjusting the colors according to a predetermined table. The software sees a pixel and looks in the table to know what to do with it -> LookUp Table :P
In that sense colorspace conversion is a 'color correction'.

Is a LUT the way to go for proper color correction?
In most cases: no, because it is an uneditable preset. You can easily end up with color corruption.
But since the software does not judge whether a correction is good or bad, it doesn't matter to the software: LUT is adjusting colors and so is color correction:P

But I agree with you about how you should use it.

BTW, I was just smartassing, because there seems to be this idea that they are two different beasts, while they are close family...
 
well correct me if im wrong but if your using the cinestyle DSLR 'lut' or something else like it... its not an actual lut but a 'curve' that is baked into the quicktime file. So there is no actual colour conversion as such going on. It stays Rec709 through the whole process. But the cinestyle thing is just changing the black and white points that get baked into the file to give it a flat response which is better for grading.

However if your using the raw files from magic lantern it will be linear i assume so you will need to make sure you convert to a rec709 colour space before grading or you use a viewer lut if your grading native raw.

short of it is if your using a cinestyle you dont need to worry rly you import grade and export as normal.

its been awhile but this is my understanding of it :)
 
Sorry guys I have no advice I just have a question because I am little bit confused to this topic, So there is a lut that just converses colorspace from LOG to Rec.709 but does not do color correction so for example if we have shot recorden in LOG with wrong set whitebalance this LUT wont do the color correction and it will just transfer image to different color dimension with still wrongly set WB did I get it right?
 
So there is a lut that just converses colorspace from LOG to Rec.709 but does not do color correction so for example if we have shot recorden in LOG with wrong set whitebalance this LUT wont do the color correction and it will just transfer image to different color dimension with still wrongly set WB did I get it right?

For that specific case, you're correct.
 
And what do you think about picture profiles on lower end cameras their "log picture profile" is just probably a low budget imitatiom of really LOG image? For example I used Panasonic EA - 50 where i use "LOG like" picture profile that just gives me more DR, flatens and desaturates whole image.
 
I think it's important to remember too, independent filmmakers and hobbyists didn't even know what a LUT was until Cinestyle was released for the Canon DSLRs with it's own LUT. I remember people kinda freaking out and having no clue how to use it. LUTS were originally used to preview LOG film footage, that's all. It was to keep clients from complaining how flat their footage was. As digital acquisition took over, they found their way into cameras so the DP and Director could view a image closer to the final result when they shot LOG.
Using LUTS for color correction and final grading is really done more at the beginner/hobbyist levels as they've essentially become a preset to get the "film look". Unfortunately, there's a million other new filmmakers too who all have the same LUT packs and are doing the same thing with them.
 
If you're using an in-camera LUT, like Cinestyle, it's like taking a Rec 709 recorded video and converting it to LOG, you didn't actually gain anything. Your camera has to actually have the native ability to record footage in LOG to benefit from it.

LOG -> Rec 709 = More range.
Rec 709 -> LOG -> Rec 709 = . . . most likely loss of range, I'm not actually sure. But it certainly doesn't give you more range.

Remember a LUT is a CONVERSION, it's not the base profile.
 
Technically picture styles like Cinestyle and VisionColor still give you a Rec 709 image. It's "LOG like", but not LOG. That's why the VisionColor guys have luts for LOG and Rec 709. If you add a LOG LUT to something shot in Cinestyle, it doesn't work well
 
Technically picture styles like Cinestyle and VisionColor still give you a Rec 709 image. It's "LOG like", but not LOG. That's why the VisionColor guys have luts for LOG and Rec 709. If you add a LOG LUT to something shot in Cinestyle, it doesn't work well

Oh? I thought that was the entire point of Cinestyle? Was to get a more LOG-like image?

In post, an indie will still most likely slap 709 back onto it, having gained nothing from using Cinestyle.
 
The point of cinestyle is so the blacks and whites are not 'clamped' on capture. A normal quicktime for the sake of argument is captured so a consumer can watch it straight away on their TV. This isnt ideal for grading situation because your potentially loosing some information. Cinestyle helps this by giving you a flatter image on capture so you have more push pull room.

I think thats the simplest way of explaining :)
 
Top