GH2 Holy sweetness... has anybody else tried out FilmConvert?

No pro here, but I have the trial plug-in and I must say...as a slap on film effect, I really like this plug. It doesn't go too extreme on slightly underexposed footage like magic bullet does. I put the grain down to 20%. Do I think it is worth 200 bucks? That is pushing it, but I can definitely seeing it as beneficial and I like the look.
 
seems to me that while these plugins do achieve quick and easy looks, the plugins themselves just aren't essential to get those looks if you know your edit/color system better.

how about a contest?:

Pick a look that you like from any of these plugins, and set out to duplicate them using only CS6, not even speedgrade, just premiere(or whichever edit system youre on)

you'd be suprised what you can do with what you have already, no it's not all packaged up nice and easy button, but it's at no extra cost.

a perfect example is a LUT, which is merely a set of coordinates to map a nice S curve, many people downloaded and used them for things such as cinestyle, but i never bother with them because it takes seconds to apply an RGB or luma curve and customize it for each shot. same effect, one is prepackaged in easy button form, the other takes not much longer to use and is more flexible.

it would be rather nice and collaborative if people posted their presets for each look, and thus created a free database of looks.

who'd like a shot?
 
The reason I use Filmconvert is speed. As others have said, a certain filmconvert look can be used to get 80% of where you are trying to get to on your CC.
Saving rendering time too, as it is quick.

If you have the time to patiently colour correct, then good for you.
And anyone who has time to enter such contests/challenges - then good for you too. But I've got paying work to do. And Filmconvert often helps me do that quicker.
 
Fresno Bob said:
The reason I use Filmconvert is speed. As others have said, a certain filmconvert look can be used to get 80% of where you are trying to get to on your CC.
Saving rendering time too, as it is quick.

If you have the time to patiently colour correct, then good for you.
And anyone who has time to enter such contests/challenges - then good for you too. But I've got paying work to do. And Filmconvert often helps me do that quicker.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm a different bird then, as I see products like this as a secondary to be applied after primary color correction has been done. No matter what overall look we are trying to achieve, we still start with a primary color correction.
 
Stranden said:
Got my chance to test out FilmConvert as well. Really pleased with how it can create that gritty texture!
Click to expand...
Stranden, holy moly! Your short creeped me out, just like that, when I thought I was looking and some more test footage. Nicely done!
 
I just got this software. Looks already promising!

I have a GH3, so I guess the GH2 'standard' preset comes closest to the GH3, if I use the standard profile as well.
It does make sense however, to just shoot as flat as possible and then play around with Filmconvert. What do you guys think?

What settings do you guys use on the camera to get the best results with Filmconvert?
 
quick question....whats the benefit of the stand alone version vs plug in's? I'm no colourist, just trying to decide which package is best for me. thanks
 
Stab said:
What settings do you guys use on the camera to get the best results with Filmconvert?
Click to expand...

On the GH2, Cinema is the most linear, so use that. The other modes alter the image in some way, usually by bumping up the curve or adding saturation.

Unless I missed it, FilmConvert still doesn't have the GH2 sensor profile, though, so we're still not getting precise results.
 
Jim Simon said:
On the GH2, Cinema is the most linear, so use that. The other modes alter the image in some way, usually by bumping up the curve or adding saturation.

Unless I missed it, FilmConvert still doesn't have the GH2 sensor profile, though, so we're still not getting precise results.
Click to expand...
They have mapped the Gh2. You also have profiles for every scene file on the Gh2.
 
Jim Simon said:
On the GH2, Cinema is the most linear, so use that. The other modes alter the image in some way, usually by bumping up the curve or adding saturation.

Unless I missed it, FilmConvert still doesn't have the GH2 sensor profile, though, so we're still not getting precise results.
Click to expand...

It has had GH2 profiles for a while now. I use it with SMOOTH.
 
Ok guys. Is there anyone here with both a GH2 and a GH3? Which profile on the GH3 is the 'closest' to the GH2 and on which profile?
 
Jim Simon said:
On the GH2, Cinema is the most linear, so use that. The other modes alter the image in some way, usually by bumping up the curve or adding saturation.
Click to expand...

But cinema needs SO MUCH more light. :). I don't understand why really, if it is the flattest gamma. The flattest gamma with the AF100 for example needs probably the least light.
I don't really like cinema with the GH2. I think smooth and nostalgic look better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top