Arch Pro is a precision-tuned LOG to REC709 LUT system built specifically for the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K, 6K, and 6K Pro. The base set includes a Natural LUT along with Filmic and Vibrant character LUTs—each one uniquely matched to your camera’s sensor and LOG profile. This isn’t one-size-fits-all, it’s one-for-each, engineered for color that just works.
Want more? The Plus and Premium Bundles unlock stylized Film Looks and DaVinci Wide Gamut support for Resolve users.
Whether you’re a filmmaker, YouTuber, or weekend warrior, if you're working with Pocket 4K, 6K, or 6K Pro footage, this is the fastest way to make it shine. Arch Pro enhances highlight rolloff, improves skin tone, and just looks good.
Import Arch Pro LUTs right into your Pocket Cinema Camera to preview the colors live — great for livestreams, fast turnarounds, or video village. Burn it in if you want. Shoot LOG and tweak later if you don’t.
Create a cohesive cinematic look without obsessing over complex node trees. Whether you’re cutting a music video or a doc on a deadline, these LUTs hold their own — and still play nice with secondary grading and effects.
Arch Pro Plus adds 12 pre-built Film Looks that range from elegant monochromes to punchy stylization. Everything from a Black & White so classy it’d make Fred Astaire jump for joy to a Teal & Orange that could coax a single tear down Michael Bay’s cheek.
Arch Pro Premium unlocks a secret weapon: DaVinci Wide Gamut support. No Rec709 bakes. No locked-in looks. Just a clean, accurate conversion into DaVinci’s modern color space — built for real post workflows and future-proof grades.
All of these examples were shot in BRAW with Gen 5 color science. On the left: Blackmagic’s built-in Extended Video LUT. On the right: Arch Pro Natural.
This isn't showing a LOG-to-Rec709 miracle like most do, this is comparing what you’d actually get side-by-side. The difference between good enough
and being there.
Arch Pro Plus gives you 12 distinct looks for your footage. Arch Pro Premium gives you the same looks with full DaVinci Wide Gamut support!
Use this nifty chart to help you decide which flavor of Arch Pro is right for you.
Not sure? Start with Plus — it’s what ~70% of customers choose! i--- Zooskool Bestiality Bilara - Messy But Very Hot-.rar
These are just a handful of teams that rely on Arch Pro for their productions.
The top priority of this LUT is to make skin tones—of all shades—look remarkable.
Between shooting midday weddings & music festivals, I've mastered the art of the highlight roll off!
I always find myself tinting towards magenta in-camera, so I set out to fix the green channel!
Gives you a very robust starting point that holds up to heavy grading and effects.
Yanno how the Extended Video LUT just kinda looks like mud? Well, kiss that look goodbye!
Compatible with any application that supports LUTs on Windows, Mac, and iOS.
As new LUTs are developed for the set or Blackmagic Color Science evolves, you'll get updates for free!
Currently, in virtually every legal system on Earth, animals are chattel—property. You cannot sue a dog; you sue the owner for property damage. You cannot file a police report for a murdered chicken; you file a claim for stolen goods.
The Right to Personhood: The Nonhuman Rights Project has been filing lawsuits to declare specific animals (elephants, chimpanzees) as "legal persons." In 2022, they successfully argued for habeas corpus for Happy the elephant in New York (though the Court of Appeals ultimately sided against release, the dialogue shifted). If an animal is a "person," you cannot keep them in a cage without due process.
The Welfare Loophole: Anti-cruelty laws treat animal abuse as damage to property (or, at best, a misdemeanor offense against "public morals"). The penalties are laughably low compared to the scale of suffering in factory farms, which are largely exempt from these laws under "agricultural practice" clauses.
Given these ideological extremes, where does that leave the average person? Is it hypocritical to love your dog while eating a chicken sandwich?
Most people operate in a state of "New Welfarism." This is the pragmatic view that while total abolition might be the moral ideal, we cannot achieve it overnight. Therefore, we should push for incremental welfare reforms that reduce suffering in the short term, while shifting cultural norms toward plant-based eating in the long term.
Consider the statistics:
Effective Altruism in animal welfare suggests focusing on the largest volume of suffering. That means targeting chicken (the most numerous land animal slaughtered) with corporate cage-free campaigns (welfare) while funding cultured meat research (which may ultimately render rights arguments moot by removing the animal entirely).
Where does the rubber meet the road? The difference between welfare and rights creates massive policy chasms in three specific areas.
The most significant legal hurdle for both welfare and rights is the classification of animals as property. In legal systems worldwide, animals are things, not persons.
The tension between these two camps is surprisingly intense.
For much of human history, animals were viewed primarily as resources—tools for labor, units of food production, or subjects for scientific testing. However, the last two centuries have seen a profound ethical shift. Today, two distinct but overlapping philosophies guide our interaction with non-human beings: Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. While the public often uses these terms interchangeably, they represent different goals, methods, and moral compasses.
Looking forward, the discourse is moving toward "post-humanism"—a decentering of the human from the apex of moral consideration.
Currently, in virtually every legal system on Earth, animals are chattel—property. You cannot sue a dog; you sue the owner for property damage. You cannot file a police report for a murdered chicken; you file a claim for stolen goods.
The Right to Personhood: The Nonhuman Rights Project has been filing lawsuits to declare specific animals (elephants, chimpanzees) as "legal persons." In 2022, they successfully argued for habeas corpus for Happy the elephant in New York (though the Court of Appeals ultimately sided against release, the dialogue shifted). If an animal is a "person," you cannot keep them in a cage without due process.
The Welfare Loophole: Anti-cruelty laws treat animal abuse as damage to property (or, at best, a misdemeanor offense against "public morals"). The penalties are laughably low compared to the scale of suffering in factory farms, which are largely exempt from these laws under "agricultural practice" clauses.
Given these ideological extremes, where does that leave the average person? Is it hypocritical to love your dog while eating a chicken sandwich?
Most people operate in a state of "New Welfarism." This is the pragmatic view that while total abolition might be the moral ideal, we cannot achieve it overnight. Therefore, we should push for incremental welfare reforms that reduce suffering in the short term, while shifting cultural norms toward plant-based eating in the long term.
Consider the statistics:
Effective Altruism in animal welfare suggests focusing on the largest volume of suffering. That means targeting chicken (the most numerous land animal slaughtered) with corporate cage-free campaigns (welfare) while funding cultured meat research (which may ultimately render rights arguments moot by removing the animal entirely).
Where does the rubber meet the road? The difference between welfare and rights creates massive policy chasms in three specific areas.
The most significant legal hurdle for both welfare and rights is the classification of animals as property. In legal systems worldwide, animals are things, not persons.
The tension between these two camps is surprisingly intense.
For much of human history, animals were viewed primarily as resources—tools for labor, units of food production, or subjects for scientific testing. However, the last two centuries have seen a profound ethical shift. Today, two distinct but overlapping philosophies guide our interaction with non-human beings: Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. While the public often uses these terms interchangeably, they represent different goals, methods, and moral compasses.
Looking forward, the discourse is moving toward "post-humanism"—a decentering of the human from the apex of moral consideration.
