GH2 Holy sweetness... has anybody else tried out FilmConvert?
- Thread starter L1N3ARX
- Start date
FilmConvert
Member
Sadly, not yet available as a plugin for Avid Media Composer - at the moment, it's just for Premiere/After Effects (OSX and windows), and Final Cut Pro X.
Do they specify which picture profile should be used on your camera when shooting? If not, then all the talk about "sensor profiling" is just marketing, as the output from the sensor is completely transformed by the picture profile by the time this software gets its hands on the footage. Things are different concerning raw output from Reds or Alexas, but that's not what anybody here is talking about.
One thing that most don't realize is that film stocks, at least in motion picture production, were seldom chosen for a specific "look", rather they were chosen only by speed (ASA) and color temperature (daylight or tungsten). There were only a handful of stocks even available at any given time - currently in Kodak's color negative lineup (the film which 99% of Hollywood uses) there are only 4 Vision3 stocks being sold (5203/50D, 5207/250D, 5213/200T, 5219/500T) along with one leftover Vision2 daylight (5201/50D) and one "budget" tungsten (5230/500T). "Looks" were created with lighting and filters or in post, even before the advent of the DI back in the days of chemicals and printing.
Things are slightly different in the stills world where more stocks have been available in the past, and I think that may be where most of the stock looks in the software are coming from - but it's hard to tell since I can't find a list of the profiled film stocks anywhere on the website.
Something that bugs me about the marketing of this product is the comparison shots on their website, where obviously ungraded Red raw footage is compared to the FilmConvert processed images. That's one thing that anybody who has shot with Red would know - the output MUST be graded. Apples to oranges comparisons are never valid.
And anybody who criticizes this post for negativity needs to pull their head out of the sand - both sides are necessary to make an informed decision about any product, and any serious discussion should include comments like this.
One thing that most don't realize is that film stocks, at least in motion picture production, were seldom chosen for a specific "look", rather they were chosen only by speed (ASA) and color temperature (daylight or tungsten). There were only a handful of stocks even available at any given time - currently in Kodak's color negative lineup (the film which 99% of Hollywood uses) there are only 4 Vision3 stocks being sold (5203/50D, 5207/250D, 5213/200T, 5219/500T) along with one leftover Vision2 daylight (5201/50D) and one "budget" tungsten (5230/500T). "Looks" were created with lighting and filters or in post, even before the advent of the DI back in the days of chemicals and printing.
Things are slightly different in the stills world where more stocks have been available in the past, and I think that may be where most of the stock looks in the software are coming from - but it's hard to tell since I can't find a list of the profiled film stocks anywhere on the website.
Something that bugs me about the marketing of this product is the comparison shots on their website, where obviously ungraded Red raw footage is compared to the FilmConvert processed images. That's one thing that anybody who has shot with Red would know - the output MUST be graded. Apples to oranges comparisons are never valid.
And anybody who criticizes this post for negativity needs to pull their head out of the sand - both sides are necessary to make an informed decision about any product, and any serious discussion should include comments like this.
Last edited:
I noticed this immediately as well, and, to be frank, kind of turned me off to this product.
admactanium
Well-known member
I'm not sure why that would be considered shady. Obviously it's difficult to compare it to graded Red footage because everyone will grade their footage differently. This product purports to be a one-click solution to grading footage and that seems like a fair before/after comparison. I'm assuming they know that RED users would know that their footage has to be graded either way. Demonstrating how it can be graded quickly using their product doesn't seem like an offensive demonstration. If they claim that the ungraded footage is as good as RED footage can get without their product, then that's a different argument.
It's actually pretty simple to throw a straight 709 correction (what most Red users probably do as a "dailies" grade) on the Red raw footage before comparing it to something else and it would fare much better in the comparison - no decisions or subjective guesswork involved. Red raw footage is not designed to look good at all - it's raw after all.
I wouldn't call it shady, but it's not a fair comparison.
Greyfus Wolf
Active member
I played with some GH3 footage downloaded from Vimeo using the film convert trial plugin for AE CS6 and these results 
http://vimeo.com/53074370
http://vimeo.com/53074370I disagree. You'd still want to grade the footage after FimConvert. The purpose of this plug-in is to make your footage look like it was shot with a particular film stock. So if you'd grade your Vision3 footage, then you'd also grade your RED footage made to look like Vision3. It doesn't end with FilmConvert, it begins there.
So it's quite appropriate to show the comparrison between the ungraded R3D and the FilmConvert output, as you'd still be grading the the converted footage.
Last edited:
mentatDUKE
Veteran
I actually grade first and use FilmConvert as a last step. It's an amazing plugin
ErikTande
Well-known member
Not if you're just adding grain, which FilmConvert does very well, and very fast.
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
Is it faster than After Effects built-in 'Add Grain' filter?
mentatDUKE
Veteran
Don't even think of it as a film grain only issue. Think of it instead as a film LUT. You grade digitally and add the LUT at the end to see what would your "release print" would look like. You simply want film's color response. I generally stick to 25% grain so it's not that crucial. Modern films have minimal grain if any.
ErikTande
Well-known member
Yeah, AE's "Add Grain" has a lot of great film stocks to choose from as well, and they look good. But that render is unbearably slow. FilmConvert seems almost instant, I barely noticed any render time. Worth $99? Probably not, I'll just set up an overnight render in AE and save the cash. Temping though : )
Mike_Raddport
Well-known member
Is there a Windows version for $99.00? I downloaded the premiere plugin, but it's $249.00.
Found this comment from "Jeff" on the nofilmschool article about FilmConvert regarding one of the issues raised by myself and others, that of which picture profile on Canon DSLRs this software is designed for: An email response from Craig Herring at Rubber Monkey: “We are in the process of building separate LUTs for commonly used picture styles. Currently it is based off the “standard” picture style, which a lot of people (we now find) avoid using. This is a top priority for us and you will see a change here soon.”
JoeJITSU
Veteran
Great! Ill wait for the update then