LUT stacking is applying two or more LUTs to the same footage, one after the other. Done in the right order, it is the normal way to grade log. A conversion LUT gets the footage to Rec.709. A creative LUT adds the look on top. Done in the wrong order it produces the muddy, crushed, oddly orange result that gets blamed on the camera.
What is LUT stacking?
A LUT maps every input colour to an output colour. Stack two and the second one reads whatever the first one wrote, not the original file. That is the whole rule, and every stacking problem comes from forgetting it.
| LUT type | What it expects as input | What it outputs | Where it goes in a stack |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion (technical) LUT | Log footage from one camera profile | Normal Rec.709 | First |
| Creative LUT | Rec.709 footage | Rec.709 with a look | Second |
| Film emulation or print LUT | Usually Rec.709, sometimes log (read its notes) | A film-style look | Where its notes say |
| Monitoring LUT | Anything | A preview only | Never baked into the export |
What a LUT is covers the idea in general, and Rec.709 LUT covers the conversion step.
Why does a stacked LUT make footage look muddy?
Because one of the LUTs is reading input it was never built for. The usual cases:
- A creative LUT straight on log. The look was designed on Rec.709 contrast. On a flat log image it adds its colour to the wrong tones, and the result looks grey and muddy at the same time.
- Two conversions in a row. The first one already added the contrast. The second adds it again, so shadows crush and highlights clip.
- The look underneath the conversion. The conversion then reads a tinted image as if it were log and pushes the tint further.
The cost is not just a bad preview. A LUT clips anything that falls outside its range, so once the first LUT in the stack has crushed a shadow, the second one has nothing left to bring back. Lowering the second LUT does not recover it.
What is the right order for stacking LUTs?
- Conversion LUT, matched to the exact profile the camera recorded: S-Log3 is not S-Log2, D-Log is not D-Log M, Apple Log is not Apple Log 2.
- Exposure and white balance, if your tool allows corrections between LUTs.
- Creative LUT, usually at less than full strength.
- Monitoring LUT, if you use one, switched off before export.
Keep it to one conversion and one look. A third LUT is almost always a sign the first two are wrong. Log footage explains why the conversion has to come first.
How do you stack LUTs in each editor?
| Tool | Conversion goes in | Look goes in | Order rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| DaVinci Resolve | A LUT on the first node | A LUT on a later node | Nodes process left to right |
| Premiere Pro | Lumetri, Basic Correction, Input LUT | Lumetri, Creative, Look | Input LUT runs before the Creative look |
| Final Cut Pro | The clip's camera LUT or log processing | A Custom LUT effect | Effects run top to bottom in the inspector |
| Photoshop | A Color Lookup layer | A second Color Lookup layer above it | Layers apply bottom to top |
| ffmpeg | lut3d=file=convert.cube | ,lut3d=file=look.cube | Filters run in the order written |
In Resolve, putting each LUT on its own node also gives you a node in between for exposure, and node opacity for strength. DaVinci Resolve LUTs and colour grading in Premiere Pro show where each slot is. In ffmpeg the whole stack is one filter chain; ffmpeg LUT has the full command.
How do you control the strength of a stacked LUT?
Lower the look, not the conversion. The conversion is usually right at full strength, because it is a technical mapping for that camera. The creative LUT is taste, and most looks are built stronger than you want on any one clip.
Every editor has its own control: node opacity in Resolve, the Intensity slider under Lumetri's Creative look, layer opacity in Photoshop. LUT intensity explains how that blend works. Set the look on a typical clip, then check the brightest and darkest clips at the same strength.
Can you merge two LUTs into one .cube?
Yes, and it is the answer whenever a tool only accepts one LUT.
- In DaVinci Resolve, build the stack on one clip: the conversion on the first node, the look on the second, at the strength you want.
- On the Color page, right-click the clip's thumbnail and choose Generate LUT, then a 33-point or 65-point Cube.
- The result is a single
.cubethat does both steps at once.
A merged LUT is a snapshot. Any clipping the stack did is baked in, so check it on a bright clip before you rely on it, and keep the two original files so you can rebuild the merge. A 65-point LUT keeps fine gradients a little smoother than 33 points. How to make a LUT covers the other ways to export one.
Where does BatchTone fit?
BatchTone is a Mac app that applies one .cube LUT across a whole folder of photos and clips at once. It does not stack a second LUT, so it works with either half of the job or with a merged LUT:
- Converting a card: apply the conversion LUT to every clip, then grade the few that make the edit.
- A look on finished files: apply the creative LUT to photos and Rec.709 clips that are already converted.
- Both at once: merge the stack into one
.cubein Resolve, then apply that.
Every file gets a preview with the LUT applied and its own strength slider, so the clips that need less can sit lower than the rest. Originals are never modified and nothing is uploaded. It runs on macOS 12 or later on Apple Silicon, and the seven-day trial has everything unlocked; after that it is one in-app purchase, not a subscription. Batch applying a LUT to video shows the formats it reads and writes.
Download BatchTone free on the Mac App Store
Common questions
Can you stack two creative LUTs?
You can, but the second look reads the first look's colours, so the result is hard to predict and hard to undo. Pick one look and adjust it, or merge the two into one LUT you can judge as a whole.
Should the conversion LUT be at 100%?
Usually yes. It is built for the camera's profile, and lowering it leaves part of the log curve in the image. Lower the creative LUT instead.
Why does my creative LUT look wrong on log footage?
Because it was built for Rec.709. Apply the conversion for your camera underneath it, or use a version of the look made for that log profile, if the LUT maker provides one.
Does stacking LUTs lose quality?
Each LUT interpolates between its grid points and clips values outside its range, so a long stack can band or clip where one LUT would not. One conversion and one look is fine; merging them into a 65-point LUT keeps it close to the original stack.
Is a merged LUT the same as stacking?
It produces the same image for the settings you merged, in one step. What you lose is the ability to change the look's strength or swap the conversion later without making the merge again.