Can you make Premiere Pro LUT from Lightroom Classic Raw Profile.

Salvo,

Yes, excellent suggestion that the OP make his own LUTs. And also quite correct that the more targeted, the more useful. As you noted, one for when shooting a 'standard' daylight color balance from the camera, another for shooting tungsten.

A good way to do this is to make several exposures of  'daylight' WB in the camera, then several of indoor/tungsten/indoor-LED lighting.

Use an adjustment layer over each group of clips, and modify white balance controls of the Basic tab, the Shadow and Tint color wheels of the Creative tab, and/or the Color Wheels in Lumetri as needed to get the best overall neutral color for each set. Could even do some basic tonal work if they wished.

Then right-click the menu by the name of the Lumetri tab (three little bars), and export a .cube LUT.

There are two ways of implementing ... I'd set up both.

First, save to the (my preference, Creative tab) proper user-supplied LUT folder for Basic tab (Technical folder) and Creative tab (Creative folder). Then it's there to be applied as wished to any clip.

Second, apply to a clip as above, then with or without other changes, save the entire Lumetri effect with that applied as a Preset. This makes it easy to apply over a whole selection of clips on a sequence from the Presets section of the Effects panel.

Neil

Thanks, Neil... I appreciate it.

Maybe this leads to an answer for the poster in a way.

Like, instead of trying to import a lut from lightroom for GH5 he should just stick the clip into CC and make corrections for luma and color and make a LUT ( 3d) just for his clip.

Assuming he shoots outside in daylight the wb will be around 56k on average ( warmer at sunset, sunrise, winter, etc.)... and if it's indoor shots with no movie lights ( 32k) and just using 'practicals' ( normal lightbulbs in lamps ) it's around 27K...  so he can make luts for those two situations of lighting. His own.

??

Also, Neil, you don't have to defend yourself re: using an editor , sending it to resolve for color, and sending it back to editor and all that ... everybody knows about that stuff and about things being used that work best for the individual and job to do.

Anyway, this is only about 30 secs and the first part (baby clip ) is the thing that needs subtle adjustment and it's a single clip Bill Hunt did for me the other day ( he is nice and very generous ). Leslie Murray did the illustrations for me ( she is really nice too ). That's a cool thing about these days, cause they are in AZ and TX respectively... and people can work together all over the world !!!   I think Adobe production stuff sounds very cool for that sort of thing.

Neil,

you said

I've advised using Resolve for especially the ability to set an auto-correction effect when one has clips with slowly shifting exposure. And noted I have used that effect myself.

what do I use in resolve to do that ??  I have a clip that will need an ajustment like that ( it's one clip and I was thinking I'd stack it and shrink the clip on different levels and apply node to each one separately ).. is there a way to do an ajustment gradually on ONE clip ??

Salvo,

Some times your responses are a bit of a puzzlement. Such as the comments that I promote Adobe apps to the exclusion of others.

Yet when I go through my posts, I have rather often suggested for example that these are all tools. Simply fancy hammers.

And that if one isn't working for someone they should try another.

And I've specifically suggested Resolve for either things that Premiere can't or as a complete replacement app.

I've advised using Resolve for especially the ability to set an auto-correction effect when one has clips with slowly shifting exposure. And noted I have used that effect myself.

As I have also made clear, although Resolve's color tools blow out Premiere [of course being primarily a colorist tool that's expected] and it's gotten very capable as an editing app, I personally dislike the UI.

Personal preference having nothing to do with their overall capabilities. As anyone else, I prefer some UI designs over others.

Good friends love Resolve and working in it.  Which is great. We're all different.

Use what works for your needs and you prefer to use. If you prefer Resolve, by all means do so.

Yes, in the end editing is about storytelling. But the craft is a technical one, and it is of major use for an editor to actually understand the craft of their tools.

Which you should know no matter which fancy hammers you prefer.

Neil

That was well written, Neil. Thank you.

I doubt the poster will ever respond to this cause it's probably over their head ( and mine for that matter ).

It's all about telling stories and being together as humans to enjoy them. Whether we tell them verbally or write them or show them via some projection ( broadcast, movie theatre, live theatre, opera, philharmonic, it's all basically the same challenge.... to tell the story ).

So, what you wrote is genius and very welcome, but you should stop being so focused on promoting Adobe to the exclusion of all other editing platforms and hardware ( windows vs. mac or whatever ).

Don't be so dead on target to try to get 'hired' by Adobe as the ultimate promoter. Nor depend on other relationships to back up your expertise ( " I work with pro colorists every day...blah blah " )

Nobody cares about that and least of all Adobe.

Maybe get your own server and do a Lydia thing or something, with banker friends.

I bought a print from an artist and there's a thing that bothers me, but I can't tell the artist cause he's a friend. It wouldn't do anything but make him defensive or something. This is the etching and the part that bugs me out...circled... 

This was a bread factory and when you drove over the 59st. bridge you smelled the bread being baked.

Years ago.

They went bankrupt and some guy bought it an turned into a movie studio. Years ago.

Working people in film biz turned it into a decent sound stage environment. For example, we put down plywood to spread the load on a ground floor stage so we could put a camera crane ( electra ? ) onto floor ...and what we built became permanent... helping to turn a junk space into a film studio.. little by little working people really DO make things better.

My print is not perfect, cause the circled area is ( I suspect ) fake. With black lines around it which flattens out that portion and drives me bonkers. Nothing's perfect... so what ??? 

🙂

Salvo,

I'm giving a full answer here about color spaces because there will be many others reading through this thread over time. So much of this I'm assuming you already know, especially with your background and experience also with DaVinci Resolve. But the information is included for giving a complete and understandable explanation especially for those with not as much experience.

All digital media needs to be handled in a color "space" of some kind. That is the nature of bits and pixels, rather than exposing layers of silver halides on film. And like you, I've exposed a lot of film in past times.

Even all digitized media created from film originals needs to be handled in a color space of some sort, it's the basic nature of all digital media. Color spaces have three elements: gamut, gamma, and white point. With proper math, "transforms" can be applied to remap one color space to another.

Frame.io has a new article up on their site that handles this well on their blog, the article "The Essential Guid to Color Spaces". Cullen Kelly gives enough information without going so far into the weeds to require a ton of knowledge to understand things. A good general read.

If things are handled correctly, one can get expectable, repeatable, and more importantly, shareable results. If not, one doesn't.

And it doesn't matter if one is a rank amateur, prosumer, knowledgeable, hobbyist, or experienced pro.

For those coming to this thread ... there are the "spaces" of the media itself. Most cameras are designed to shoot primarily within the Rec.709 color working "space". Some professional cameras have their own spaces, such as Alexxa LogC and Red's RedWideGamutRGB and IPP2, built on RED's  Log3G10 "space" with changes over time. There are others.

To work with any digital media, it's necessary to have a general working space for the sequences, so some sort of transform from camera space to working space may be necessary depending on the original media color space.

You also need to have a transform to a display space, which may or may not be the same as the working space. And naturally, you need to have a proper space selected for the export so those you are sharing with/delivering to get media that works as you and they expect.

Premiere Pro was built for a full-on Rec.709 workflow. And it is still best used as such. Which is good, because Rec.709 is still by far the most used color standard for professional and amateur deliverables. Most editors don't really need to know that much about working color spaces, especially if you're passing on the edit for others to do "finishing" such as color or fx.

But there is media these days that at least gives options that may be useful or at times needed, so some workflows do need more options.

As Salvo is aware, as he uses Davinci Resolve, that app was built for colorists, not editors. And naturally has many options for other input/working/display/output spaces at need. It has been more complicated than Premiere to work in of course because of having all the options it does.

The Premiere developers have finally added some basic ability to not only recognize media color spaces within the app, but allow the user to set the clip properties initial color space. As well as set a working color space for sequences, currently only offering Rec.709 and two Rec.2100 options, HLG and PQ. Which technically are variants of the Rec.2084 space. This is required as they rebuild Premiere to offer HDR pipelines.

So color spaces even within Premiere are getting more options ... and more complications ... which is the nature of the beast I suppose.

I work daily with pro colorists around the world, and they naturally deal with this as the basis of every project they ever work on. So fixed node trees in Resolve, with IDTs (input display transforms) to working space and display transforms and how to navigate this into the various ODTs (output or export device transforms) is a basic item of discussion.

Some love to handle everything in a specific working space ... so they'll apply an IDT to RedWideGamutRGB or the Alexxa LogC to all clips, no matter what camera they come from. And then have their working color space set for that space, their display transform likely set to Rec.709 viewed on an Eizo or Flanders pro broadcast reference monitor, and the output transform set to whatever they need for that project's requirements.

There is also the ACES color space for working major projects, and having a consistent color managed workflow. Many Resolve users work a basic ACES "pipeline" with nodes in their color setups to go out to other spaces for specific things and back into ACES for the general throughput. (Yea, that can be very complex and complicated.)

We've not had all those options in Premiere, but they're coming. And naturally, just like in Resolve, adding the options will make it easier for many to get more technically demanding work done, and for others to really, really screw up their pixels.

The fear of the later is why previous management absolutely refused to add such options to Premiere. Thankfully, current management does not agree with that and is rebuilding the app to give the users the choices we really do need to have now.

But giving us users wider options for color management in our individual workflows, just like for users of Resolve, will require Premiere users to become more knowledgeable about what their color management choices do to their pixels.

No way around that.

Neil

Neil... I just don't care anymore that much... I worked with stuff on a different level and this stuff is basically kid stuff now, and going down to iphone standards ( selfies etc. )

To me, it's all about enthusiasm to tell story shooting source, matching, exporting.. with some kind of script.

And I'm getting too old to deal with the revolution of stupid stuff and ignorance about shooting, editing and ( yes, I hate t admit it to you ) exporting better stuff than stupid TV stuff.

I'm a snob. So kill me cause I worked on movies and stuff like that ( now dying unfortunately due to virus) but don't think I'm a total idiot who can be convinced by YOU that everything is rec 709 or whatever.

I hope you had a great xmas and everyone is healthy and well in your family ( and all the people posting stuff here as well ). But I'm totally losing interest in these stupid posts about hardware problems and sloppy programming.

In a way it's fairly easy in resolve cause there's a mask specifically designed to match your color chart ( auto color correct or manual ). You choose your source color ( gh5 something log ? ), timeline color ( rec 709?) and export color ( probaby rec 709). When you get the chart clip right you make it a lut so to speak ( either just a match frame sorta thing or a 3d lut or whatever but I never do that ). Then apply it to all your other clips as you add them to timeline. It usually gets you within the ballpark but depending on lighting and so on some adjustments always have to be at least considered by editor. Wih PPro everyone is both the shooter ( or game player ), editor, colorist, sound mixer, BASICALLY EVERYTHING ).

So, having a suite of programs that work nice with each other to provide everything to everybody, is a nice business model.

Forget about luts with adobe... it's not worth it cause it is all rec 709 and workarounds to get what you want on export.

For that matter, you can only use the color chart accurately if you light it with ONLY the color balance you're gonna use for that film magazine ( location, lighting balance, etc. ).  So that chart is basically useless for most people shooting without a crew.

For the following  chart, you need to create the final folders, the Technical and Creative folders that will hold your LUTs. I also created desktop shortcuts for them so I can access those immediately to add and remove LUTs as needed.

Premiere, MediaEncoder, AfterEffects, and Prelude can and will all look in the files there for LUTs that you've applied, so the one place properly serves all apps.

Never, ever, ever should any user-provided LUTs be placed in the Program/package folder locations. There's several reasons I won't go into now. Just ... don't. Ever.

In use ... colorists use a lot of LUTs, but caution that a LUT is the dumbest math out there ... and can and will crush or clip any pixels that are beyond its bounds. So an any clip slightly over exposed or under exposed (at times, even in fractions of a stop!) or that has wider dynamic range than the LUT was built for will mangle your pixels.

So ... as noted above, you need to apply the LUT to the clip, then with tonal controls applied BEFORE the clip, trim the clip into the LUT while viewing both the scopes and the image on the monitor.

And while I'm very comfortable and familiar with LUTs and use them as needed, I don't use them nearly as much as many fairly new to color correction seem to do these days. While they're looking for the perfect LUT for the clip, I've already adjust the controls to take a log image to 'normalized' state for that image and moved on.

I mostly use LUTs for only certain technical transforms and conversions.

Neil