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

Geez! People talk so much crap. I can't stand it sometimes. Anyway, Film Convert looks VERY promising. I'm still debating whether to jump on board the BMC bandwagon or just get a GH3 and save the bucs for other things. Film Convert looks like it could help me get that look I want with just the GH3, so if that's a great combo i'll be very happy. I'm gonna test it on my GH1 when I get a chance.
 
John Caballero said:
LOL! This is really hilarious!
Click to expand...

Im trying to wrap my head around why 24 frames per second shot digitally would be much different than 24 frames per second shot on film. Is it the 1/48 th shutter compared to a 1/50th that changes the motion cadance of the moving images? hmmm I don't know. Can people actually tell the difference, or is a sort of placebo effect that is happening?
 
nosys70 said:
in any domain, provide people with sliders they can use to modify anything and most will say "Wow, that's great".
We are children who like to play with things, even if it makes them worse, because we will say it is better because we brought some change to it.
unfortunately this is a capitalist behavior that allow us to posses thing just because we believe we get some control of it afterward.
the real artist is doing the same before it happens and creates the masterpiece the way he has seen it.
That is why the industry of plugins and stuff in the like has a bright future, and real creation is declining, because we are too much consumers, and not enough creators.
Click to expand...

Since film is not being produced how do you propose to get a film stocks look and grain onto a digital image without effecting in post?

This has nothing to do with consumer vs creator it has to do with creators looking to re-create a specific look. Unless you can write your own software, build your own camera you must be a consumer to be a creator.

Those who compared and bought and tested film stocks to try and achieve a specific look for their film were consumers also. The product they consumed was just different.
 
I just tried out the demo for After Effect, I'm very impressed with the speed... I barely notice any change in render time, it seems pretty much instant.
 
I really thought that this looked interesting after 15 pages of posts so downloaded the trial. I am now really disappointed. I tried some 5D3 clips & it just applies some pre-canned looks that Magic Bullet does better & allows me to do some rudimentary colour correction. As for the grain it just makes my nice images look like s*%t. I understand how this might work with RAW from a RED still don't get how this is supposed to work with DSLR video which has a baked in white balance & picture style. I shoot in Faithful surely that will make a difference to the processing as opposed to if I shot with Cinestyle or is this software supposed to be so clever that it makes allowance for that? I just don't get what those fans of this see in it. Maybe it works well with GH2s but it sure as hell doesn't make my 5D3 footage look better. Quite the reverse in fact.

EDIT: Just tried loading up some GH2 clips & it doesn't even recognise the MTS files.

EDIT: I see the problem. It doesn't recognise 5D3 footage just 5D2. So much for all the pre-programmed DSLRs!

I still don't get this obsession with grain. It just makes the image look crappy.
 
Last edited:
Nigel, not sure grain is anybody's obsession. In my case the plugin adds a very nice texture to the footage, that I find looks too "clean" for the particular story. Different strokes. I wouldn't use it on a commercial spot.
 
nigelbb said:
I really thought that this looked interesting after 15 pages of posts so downloaded the trial. I am now really disappointed. I tried some 5D3 clips & it just applies some pre-canned looks that Magic Bullet does better & allows me to do some rudimentary colour correction. As for the grain it just makes my nice images look like s*%t. I understand how this might work with RAW from a RED still don't get how this is supposed to work with DSLR video which has a baked in white balance & picture style. I shoot in Faithful surely that will make a difference to the processing as opposed to if I shot with Cinestyle or is this software supposed to be so clever that it makes allowance for that? I just don't get what those fans of this see in it. Maybe it works well with GH2s but it sure as hell doesn't make my 5D3 footage look better. Quite the reverse in fact.

EDIT: Just tried loading up some GH2 clips & it doesn't even recognise the MTS files.

EDIT: I see the problem. It doesn't recognise 5D3 footage just 5D2. So much for all the pre-programmed DSLRs!

I still don't get this obsession with grain. It just makes the image look crappy.
Click to expand...

The point of adding noise/grain to your footage may depend on what you are going for. Sometimes it's an aesthetic choice, but for me, I use it to help break up some of the banding, macro blocks and general compression artifacts. Does wonders when applied tastefully.
 
I'm loving this plug-in. One caveat: Anybody else having issues with the rendered previews getting lost after closing and re-opening a project?
 
nosys70 said:
in any domain, provide people with sliders they can use to modify anything and most will say "Wow, that's great".
We are children who like to play with things, even if it makes them worse, because we will say it is better because we brought some change to it.
unfortunately this is a capitalist behavior that allow us to posses thing just because we believe we get some control of it afterward.
the real artist is doing the same before it happens and creates the masterpiece the way he has seen it.
That is why the industry of plugins and stuff in the like has a bright future, and real creation is declining, because we are too much consumers, and not enough creators.
Click to expand...


True. Although I would take out the capitalist reference, since USERISM coexists just as happily with communism.

From perpetual change peddled by nobel peace prize shysters, to perpetually new and improved everything,
to mathematical physical modelling of everything tangible (naturally better than the real thing since YOU can control every parameter),
to the cornucopia of Wall Street synthetic derivatives, to Bernanke's infinitely madoff fiat crapola everybody runs after with mad abandon,
we're bamboozling ourselves straight into Stanislaw Lem's Futurological Congress.


>in any domain, provide people with sliders they can use to modify anything and most will say "Wow, that's great".

Especially since we'll be modifying ourselves via those <insert firm name> sliders shortly.

Fortunately there are still places to escape this 'progress'.
 
RatLabProductions said:
Since film is not being produced how do you propose to get a film stocks look and grain onto a digital image without effecting in post?

This has nothing to do with consumer vs creator it has to do with creators looking to re-create a specific look. Unless you can write your own software, build your own camera you must be a consumer to be a creator.

Those who compared and bought and tested film stocks to try and achieve a specific look for their film were consumers also. The product they consumed was just different.
Click to expand...


That's not what he's referring to. When the tool employed is high level and prepackaged, it severely constrains creative input.
That's very applicable to everything modern. While modern software is powerful it is so in a largely compartmentalized way.
And while it appears to offer infinite choice, it constrains you in an ultimately meaningless, perpetually changing,
just for the sake of changing (competition, new and improved, upgrade), specialized environment.

Like a modern car it gets you from a to b safely and efficiently. But a classic car transcends a and b into you, as a circle beyond time.

Creativity is like aging, stories, a good marriage, and the open road beyond the borders of one's understanding.
 
Hogwash. I don't buy that argument at all. Newer things aren't inherently more constraining than their older counter-parts. Seems you're more enamored by the patina your tools have on them then the output from them.
 
This is a pretty cool plugin. It's very subtle but in the right way. Maybe I'm just bad at using Magic Bullet but this plugin has gotten the closest to the look of film I feel. Also it's faster, cheaper and less cluttered than Magic Bullet. Can't wait for the plugin upgrade.
 
This is a quick shot I converted to the Kodak Vision film stock. Personally, I really like the look. I didn't take time to really do anything but add the preset; lots of room for adjustment and fine tuning.

 
"which should be soon judging by their Facebook page!"

Haven't seen that page yet, but...seems GH2 profiles might be close.
 
Here is a test to mimic 16mm film with some old throwaway shots from my hacked GH1. I added the ungraded shots for comparison. Not perfect but that's probably more my fault than anything; I can probably make it better with some more tweaking. For 5 mins work with only FilmConvert added I don't think it's too shabby. It's more effective at mimicking 35mm film stock but I thought I might as well see what was possible.

[video]vimeo.com/52429075[/video]

 
For those interested in the differences between the regular and pro version, I received this from a customer service rep:

We have split the products into standard and pro versions.


The standard editions (standard stand-alone and FCPX plugin) only have 8 film stocks and no Pro Camera support.


The Pro versions (Pro stand-alone & After Effects / Premiere) have 19 film stocks and support for RED (currently) and later C300, Alexa and others. The Pro stand-alone also has 4k uncompressed frame output and a very basic EDL/XML import feature.


So ultimately, Pro has more film stocks and support for high-end cameras.
 
liscos909 said:
Here is a test to mimic 16mm film with some old throwaway shots from my hacked GH1. I added the ungraded shots for comparison. Not perfect but that's probably more my fault than anything; I can probably make it better with some more tweaking. For 5 mins work with only FilmConvert added I don't think it's too shabby. It's more effective at mimicking 35mm film stock but I thought I might as well see what was possible.

[video]vimeo.com/52429075[/video]

Click to expand...

Honestly I really like this and think you did a good job. I'm even impressed by the motion characteristics which I'm usually not with the GH1/2. What was your lens/shutter speed?
 
roxics said:
Honestly I really like this and think you did a good job. I'm even impressed by the motion characteristics which I'm usually not with the GH1/2. What was your lens/shutter speed?
Click to expand...

Thanks. This was footage shot over a year ago so my memory is a little hazy. I was definitely using Canon FDs probably the 35mm f2 for the house and maybe the 85mm f1.8 for the beach. Shutter was 50 because I always have it at 50 unless I accidentally had it on something else. Oh and I guess I was using higher f stops and I might have even been testing a ND filter at some point.
 
Last edited:
Well I really like it. It isn't so much about trying to convince people it's film as the image just looks better overall. I showed my wife and clicked on and off the plugin and she agrees, and she knows nothing about trying to get the film look. I can get close to this with a chain of plugins but that's what I like about this...very simple and fast. It just pops my image a bit more. I never added grain before however this is a very nice grain and I can vary it, but for me it's really more about the tone of the colors. Great plugin.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top