Weight parameter for LUT

[jstrob]

Just adding a weight for the LUT filter in the VFB would be very useful to play with the wonderful world of LUT files. The effect are all exagerated with the LUT I found so far. I would like to dim the effect.

[M.Max]

+1
I second that as will

[jstrob]

Another useful thing could be to be able to layer many LUTs. I know it sound against what LUT are made for but it could add more variations. We then loose a bit the expertise that were put in those LUT in the first place when layering them, but it's more a way to play rapidly with many random variation of color grading. Creating new variations by varying each LUT weight and layering them. the more we have variations and the more we can adjust them the fastest we can find the right recipe. It's like cooking when we play with different spices.

Got that idea by reading this tut where the artist uses lut in layer in photoshop to get the final result that he likes. http://www.danielreutersward.com/mak...storm-project/

[Moriah]

+1 for this, i think i requested this sometime ago too.

But if Chaosgroup really implements PDPlayer as VFB, all these things might be solved... i hope at least!

[tashko.zashev]

Hi,

The first request has been added in our to-do list.
About the ability to layer multiple LUT file, I need to discuss it first with our developers.

[jstrob]

Thanks Tashko!

Pdplayer as a VFB, sounds good!

[peteristrate]

I subscribe to this.
- weight value for LUT
- ability to layer multiple LUT files.

How's PDplayer working if replacing the VFB ?
Is this, actually, going to happen ? Any details ?

Cheers.

[Pixelcon]

Another useful thing could be to be able to layer many LUTs. I know it sound against what LUT are made for but it could add more variations. We then loose a bit the expertise that were put in those LUT in the first place when layering them, but it's more a way to play rapidly with many random variation of color grading. Creating new variations by varying each LUT weight and layering them. the more we have variations and the more we can adjust them the fastest we can find the right recipe. It's like cooking when we play with different spices.

Got that idea by reading this tut where the artist uses lut in layer in photoshop to get the final result that he likes. http://www.danielreutersward.com/mak...storm-project/

I would say being able to define when the VFB adjustments are applied could be useful also? I would love to be able to adjust curves after the LUT is applied for example.

[^Lele^]

Just so you know how bad a person i am, i'll fight this (and lose) tooth and nail.
The reasons for it i amply explained, and got absolutely no proof of the contrary yet, but rather more of how misguided this approach really is.

[Pixelcon]

Just so you know how bad a person i am, i'll fight this (and lose) tooth and nail.
The reasons for it i amply explained, and got absolutely no proof of the contrary yet, but rather more of how misguided this approach really is.

I know I know but I have no ability to do layered 32-bit work in PS. Working in the VFB is awesome but I can't bring my LUT into Photoshop for the aforementioned reason. Let me be creatively destructive, Lele. Think about the little guys that don't take their images into Nuke or Fusion or AE or whatever

[^Lele^]

I think a lot more of the issues misguided approaches generate down the line.
I doubt I can be called "un-creative" merely by wishing the right tools were used in the right place, and in the right way.
There's plenty already in V-Ray which had been added to cater for such approaches (take the LWF checkbox, for example. But i could list about a dozen, or more if i looked at V-Ray implementations other than Max.) and I cannot fathom the logic by which we add such a thing, and a year later we beg users to not use it, in the help docs, at that.
Once the cat is out of the bag, all you can do is brace for impact.

I'd rather we devoted that effort into something else (no free meal anywhere, that i know of), but as i said before, i have no executive power, i merely point out logic and alternatives, and someone else, thankfully for us all, will make the calls.

[Pixelcon]

I think a lot more of the issues misguided approaches generate down the line.
I doubt I can be called "un-creative" merely by wishing the right tools were used in the right place, and in the right way.
There's plenty already in V-Ray which had been added to cater for such approaches (take the LWF checkbox, for example. But i could list about a dozen, or more if i looked at V-Ray implementations other than Max.) and I cannot fathom the logic by which we add such a thing, and a year later we beg users to not use it, in the help docs, at that.
Once the cat is out of the bag, all you can do is brace for impact.

I'd rather we devoted that effort into something else (no free meal anywhere, that i know of), but as i said before, i have no executive power, i merely point out logic and alternatives, and someone else, thankfully for us all, will make the calls.

New and amazing things are born of breaking the rules...

[peteristrate]

Lele, you are right if this discussion took place several years ago.
But, today, things evolved and CGI artists are hungry for more and more photorealism.
One of the things that help improve the photorealism is to take the LUT approach that DSLR cameras generate, and we, cgi artists, have to emulate these things.

Now, of course you can take your render in a compositing software of choice and alter it as much as you want, but my concern here is that I want the render engine to produce renders that are as photorealistic as possible, without the need to alter them further.
Or, if you still plan to take them into a compositing software, then you need to perfectly emulate the VFB look in the compositing software. In other words, if I need to get a specific look in the compositing software, I don't want to just guess how the render should be before taking it in the comp.
I need to be able to have, for example, the red colour look in the VFB, exactly as it looks in comp (why i still use the comp then ? Because I don't want to do color alterations in comp.; the colours should be the sam; but I may want just to add some effects like glare or make a photomontage, etc.). If my VFB red looks more desaturated than my red in comp(because in comp I added a specific LUT), then I'm lost. I can only make guess work in comp in order to get the same looks as in VFB (or viceversa: do guess work in VFB in order to make it look as in comp).

If my explanation is too confusing, I'll try to explain it more in detail

[^Lele^]

I'm not going to get into what breaking rules may produce, and at which cost, depending on who breaks what, and when.
Nor i'm restarting the arbitrary debate on how to use a hammer by the head instead of the handle is the new cool.
I merely wanted to let you know how i stand on this.
The rest, i debated amply enough elsewhere.

[jstrob]

For me it would be just a matter of iteration speed. I would never use the result itself but rather use it as a preview tool and then output the raw knowing it will work in comp.

In fact we already have many settings to preview our output and we already have a LUT checkbox. But as it is it's not useful at all. Cause a LUT is always created to be applied on certain type of image (most of the time a very desaturated image) so a way we could use LUT on our CG renders is by mixing them and varying their intensities to try as many looks as possible in the fastest time possible. Cause LUTs are just color correction presets after all. There are no rules about using color corrections preset!