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

@Bern Caughey I like it for the way it handles color films, but for black and white I love the quality and depth of the scans in GrubbaSoftware TrueGrain (and it's a fraction of the cost). Just like FilmConvert, it applies the grain differently depending upon how light or dark a given area is, etc.

Lots of options out there.
 
Chris Adler said:
To me, this product would be the very last tool employed in the Post pipeline
Click to expand...

I'd argue it should probably be one of the first. I mean, you'd not want to CC and grade the original, then apply a Film Stock look after that. You'd want to be doing your CC and grade on the look that comes from the film stock.
 
I agree that this is the perfect finishing tool. For grading, my effort now will be focused on simple color correction / curves adjustments. Then for the actual grade, filmconvert will do amazingly well for most of the stuff I like to shoot. I just love how it transforms the colors into neutral tones that look authenticly film-like; it doesn't come off as "forced", or "trying" to be cinematic, like you see on all the videos out there on vimeo with a super washed out pastel look.

My favorite stocks so far are the fujis. For some reason, the Kodak vision ones don't look as good on my GH2 footage, I'll have to play around with it some more- adjusting color temperature and other settings. The BW ones are amazing as well.
 
It's been some time since I have shot on film, but I tend to find some of this amusing in that when I was shooting film the goal was to shoot with a stock that offered the least amount of grain. Over the years Kodak for example developed Vision, then Vision II, and then Vision III, each having less overall grain then the pervious version. The amusing part is that the goal of the companies producing film was to remove the grain, and now we have a whole new crop of shooters wanting to put the grain, AKA noise back into the shots. Ironic no?
 
Not entirely. The point with film was to have a range of options for DPs to choose from. Some stories were better served by a clean image, others with a more gritty, grainy image.

With digital imaging, we don't have that full range of film stocks to choose from. Assuming enough light, they all come out pretty clean. So it's nice to be able achieve that grainy look if the story calls for it. I'll be shooting my first narrative piece soon, a 50's style sci-fi/monster flick. So whatever I can do to make it look like it was shot on 50's film stock will help.
 
I used to work with the photographer/director Melvin Sokolsky.

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/melvin-

While meeting with one of the digital convergence companies they showed how they can emulate various film stocks. His response, "I don't want Velvia, I want Melvia", or in other words, to brew his own looks.

He also described digital as too clean, & grain as the "connective tissue" that holds a picture together.

I agree.
 
Jim Simon said:
Not entirely. The point with film was to have a range of options for DPs to choose from. Some stories were better served by a clean image, others with a more gritty, grainy image..
Click to expand...

The point with film was... That's all we had!
In over 30 years of shooting film I can't recall ever picking a film stock with more grain to better tell the story. In fact we always picked the slowest stock possible to use, whether daylight or tungsten to avoid large grain if possible. But then again the majority of our work was for quick turn broadcast without that newfangled grain removal.
 
David W. Jones said:
It's been some time since I have shot on film, but I tend to find some of this amusing in that when I was shooting film the goal was to shoot with a stock that offered the least amount of grain. Over the years Kodak for example developed Vision, then Vision II, and then Vision III, each having less overall grain then the pervious version. The amusing part is that the goal of the companies producing film was to remove the grain, and now we have a whole new crop of shooters wanting to put the grain, AKA noise back into the shots. Ironic no?
Click to expand...

Haha. I've never shot on film, but I do find this a bit amusing, too. Not that I don't like to add grain sometimes, myself though.
 
Hey nothing wrong with adding it to a degree, but some of the videos I have seen look more like a parody of what people think film looks like. It reminds me of the movie Kung Pow enter the fist, which was a great parody movie by the way, shot on 35mm but then all the extra cheesy film FX were added to parody old kung fu films. That's what many of the videos I have seen look like, cheesy parodies of film. "cat in the front yard" NOW "cat in the front yard with film grain" Mmmmm tasty video!
 
David W. Jones said:
That's what many of the videos I have seen look like, cheesy parodies of film. "cat in the front yard" NOW "cat in the front yard with film grain" Mmmmm tasty video!
Click to expand...

I agree. I tend to think this grain vs. clean argument is really due to people thinking that's the way things should look because, well, that's the way they've looked! No one's going to be the maverick who changes it, because it's not very comfortable. That's why I'm excited to see The Hobbit in 48fps...I'm interested because its different. It's a new way of presenting the story, not the same 'ole way that people are scared to deviate from.

I don't think anyone's going to go, "Man, that was a great film, but the lack of grain really killed it." I do think people well comment on if something is shot terribly or looks really poor, but there is a point where technology isn't that noticeable, like HDR. It's great tech, but Hollywood's been faking it for years and I think it will largely pass unnoticed by the audience at large. Same with clean film stock / digital film production.
 
It's funny, the best part of this software isn't the grain at all. In fact, when using it, I turn it down to about 35% just to get a hint of texture. Just a very small amount of grain is enough to really change the feel of the image. What I really like is how it transforms the colors into more neutral tones of film, but with convincing accuracy. The 2 together are enough to transform the image in a way that helps with suspension of disbelief. At least for me, the ultra clean digital look of say an FS100/700 are enough to make me not fully immerse myself into a movie. It's not super important, but if the acting isn't top notch and the story isn't amazing, my attention will be drawn to some of the awkwardness that a more "video-y" aesthetic introduces into a narrative.

Maybe it's just me, but dramatic performances on super sharp / clean HD video or on 120hz smooth motion TVs... looks slightly hilarious. For whatever reason I can't take it seriously. Maybe If I was born today and grew up influenced by video rather than film... I'd probably think the opposite. Tis all relative.
 
Jim Simon said:
For quick turn-around broadcast, that's not surprising. For American cinema, it'd be a very different situation.
Click to expand...

How so, exactly? Where does grain help tell a better story outside of use of a visual cue that something is old or from a low-quality source?
 
The use of grainy 16mm film in Black Swan had nothing to do with making the movie look "old" or like it was shot on a low quality source.

The Walking Dead is shot in 16mm and the grainy grungy look is a perfect fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top