With the exception of Nick Shaw's Antler Post, very few of these companies know anything about anything.

And they don't disclose how they create the LUTs in the first place, nor do they reveal any of their measurements, tests, and color science (or pseudo-science) required to actually create a LUT. The problem is: you have all these companies selling (or in some cases giving away) so-called 'film-look LUTs,' but none of them agree with each other even on specific film emulsions. I again say: there are dozens of companies out there that purport to having LUTs that emulate film stocks: But at the same time, I'd have zero problem if they said, 'hey, kids! Here's some cool looks!' But recreating the look of film negative is a very nebulous area prone to a lot of subjective judgments.Īnd in a follow-up message, i admonished one user that many of these so-called LUTs are all smoke & mirrors and very dubious science. Print LUTs you can kind of excuse, since those can exist to a point.

Are any of them correct? To me, they're just offering a wide variety looks and subjective ideas, without a lot of real hard science. The LUT doesn't necessarily make the look (or even a good look at all) - it's about the DP, the lighting, the lenses, the exposure, and the colorist.Ĭonsider this: there are 29 companies out there, each offering cheap LUTs that claim to recreate the look of film. And use color charts on set so you know what was shot and have a known reference as a starting point. My advice is to just hire an experienced colorist and have them come up with some looks based on good lighting and good set design choices. I agree that these so-called LUTs do change the picture, but whether they actually match the look of the negative is very subjective. My opinion is that there is no such plug-in that actually emulates shooting on film negative. There was recently a heated conversation about the suitability of so called 'look LUTs' yet again over on the Reduser Forum.

Davinci resolve color grading luts