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

I was wondering when Film Convert's full version would be available for PC, I sent an email and immediately got a response from Craig Herring regarding the issue.



"Sadly the Windows version of the stand-alone is not available yet.

It is a big job and I wouldn't expect to see anything before mid-2013.


We only have an After Effects/Premiere plugin available at present for windows.
We will soon have an OFX plugin as well for Vegas."



Best Regards,


Craig Herring


This product is amazing and has potential to beat out magic bullet once they update the program and give it LUT Buddy or 3 way color and other professional tools were so used to in other plugins. I'm just saying people give them by 2013 and I have a feeling well have a new kid on the block. For those who are hypercritical over this plugin use something else to color correct and then mess around with Film Covert. Magic Bullet inst the best to begin with!

PS- First post of many so happy to be on the DVX community! :Drogar-Happy(DBG):

Chris Cali
Hacked GH2 4 Life.................. until I get the black magic camera
 
Can someone please explain what Film Convert expects from the input footage. Does it have to be completely flat or can it be bad color balanced and then Film Convert still makes it look good?
If it does require the input footage to be graded then I don't see the point, because if you are grading it anyway you might as well grade it the way you like, and give it a Fuji or Kodak filmstock look.
I find grading quite difficult and am still going through a couple of books and I would say that someone can either grade or not grade. Then if you can grade you might as well do it properly and not reply on automation tools. Then if Film Convert is able to make bad graded footage look good, then of course it's easier to use Film Convert and not waste any time on manual grading, right?

So in short, I'm confused.
 
My view is the point of FilmConvert is to make your footage look like it would had you actually shot on that film stock. FilmConvert is not grading or color correction. It's done before those tasks. Much like you'd calibrate your monitor before using it for grading, FilmConvert is sort of a 'calibration' for your raw footage. You do it first, then make adjustments.
 
This doesn't make sense to me because you don't have to white balance film but you have to white balance video. How is FilmConvert able to make badly balanced video look like certain film stock? If the video footage is too warm, the converted file after FilmConvert will be too warm too, right?
 
RieniO said:
This doesn't make sense to me because you don't have to white balance film but you have to white balance video. How is FilmConvert able to make badly balanced video look like certain film stock? If the video footage is too warm, the converted file after FilmConvert will be too warm too, right?
Click to expand...

Please refer to Jim Simon reply above. It is supposed to be done to your original footage before entering the NLE. Soon they will also provide Plug-In for FCP7 and others so the conversion can be done in the NLE to cut the time of processing all the might not be used footage from all your capturing.

Please understand that this software is only best used to convert all your original footage comes out of your camera (that's why camera setting information is needed to get the best conversion). Then all the converted footage is to be used in the NLE where you might again Color Correct/ Grading it (or do any other adjustment).

I hope I did help in answering some of the questions there.
 
I'd still call this a 2 pass process. At least this is how I'm going to proceed.

1. Import footage. Apply color, no grain.

2. Edit Footage

3. Balance footage / Secondary color correction (Vignettes)

4. Apply Grain

5. Render Out
 
I would white balance your footage before loading it up.

What it does is it takes how the camera deals with certain colors, takes those profiles, and adjusts each color level to match that of how certain film stocks see the same color, thus making your footage look like it was shot on that filmstock.

So if your footage isn't white balanced, I would white balance it first, use this to adjust it to a filmstock you want it to look like, then color correct from there.
 
This is the very reason it makes more sense to grade first, then apply FilmConvert. Think about it. You get your colors how you like them. Then TRANSLATE them to how film sees them. You're essentially performing a DI, then printing back to film. Just like the big boys used to do it.

Ask yourself this: In Hollywood, didn't they apply a film LUT to everything AFTER grading so they could see what it would look like printed to film? Heck, I suspect they even still do it today despite digital projection since it's what the audience is used to. Perhaps a working colorist should chime in.
 
mentatDUKE said:
This is the very reason it makes more sense to grade first, then apply FilmConvert. Think about it. You get your colors how you like them. Then TRANSLATE them to how film sees them. You're essentially performing a DI, then printing back to film. Just like the big boys used to do it.

Ask yourself this: In Hollywood, didn't they apply a film LUT to everything AFTER grading so they could see what it would look like printed to film? Heck, I suspect they even still do it today despite digital projection since it's what the audience is used to. Perhaps a working colorist should chime in.
Click to expand...

Very good point !
 
mentatDUKE said:
This is the very reason it makes more sense to grade first, then apply FilmConvert. Think about it. You get your colors how you like them. Then TRANSLATE them to how film sees them. You're essentially performing a DI, then printing back to film. Just like the big boys used to do it.
Click to expand...

So you spend all that time getting your colors how you like them, then you apply a random change to those colors and just hope you still like them? No...

mentatDUKE said:
Ask yourself this: In Hollywood, didn't they apply a film LUT to everything AFTER grading so they could see what it would look like printed to film? Heck, I suspect they even still do it today despite digital projection since it's what the audience is used to. Perhaps a working colorist should chime in.
Click to expand...

No, that is not how it's done. An output LUT is applied from the beginning, so that you can see what your final output will be with every adjustment you make. Otherwise you are flying blind and guessing how it will look in the end - that's no way to work.

Another point of evidence: if you apply this look after color correction, then what's the point of "sensor profiling", since you are in essence vastly altering said sensor output before the software gets it's hands on it? If you are applying these looks post-grading, then you might as well use the generic srgb profile (or any random profile even) rather than any specific camera profile, since it wouldn't matter at that point anyway. The whole "sensor profiling" feature of the software tells me that it is meant to be applied pre-grading.

I definitely like at least one of the canned looks included in the plugin (and that's all it is in the end is canned looks like many other plugins) - but as evidenced by the confusion here, the documentation needs work.
 
Last edited:
nothing said:
The whole "sensor profiling" feature of the software tells me that it is meant to be applied pre-grading.

I definitely like at least one of the canned looks included in the plugin (and that's all it is in the end is canned looks like many other plugins) - but as evidenced by the confusion here, the documentation needs work.
Click to expand...

Yes the "documentation" is pretty lacking and yes, this is meant to be applied as a treatment before grading.

As you say, who in their right mind would go through the process of CCing final work and then apply a different color space to it - surprise!

Anyway, on flat, Canon footage, I've got to say the Fuji 8543 space gives it a nice starting point for grading.
 
nothing said:
No, that is not how it's done. An output LUT is applied from the beginning, so that you can see what your final output will be with every adjustment you make. Otherwise you are flying blind and guessing how it will look in the end - that's no way to work.
Click to expand...

Not true, LUTs are applied at many stages, and it's really down to the colorist's preference and the particular workflow. And you're not flying blind if you apply it last...it's just last in the stack (at least if it's being used as a plug-in in a NLE), you still see its effects as you CC and grade. I think applying it last is the better option if you want the end result to look 'filmic'...you're more likely to get odd and inconsistent colors if you CC on top of it.

At the end of the day though remember that the most important thing is how it looks. If it works, it works.
 
Gabrobot said:
Not true, LUTs are applied at many stages, and it's really down to the colorist's preference and the particular workflow. And you're not flying blind if you apply it last...it's just last in the stack (at least if it's being used as a plug-in in a NLE), you still see its effects as you CC and grade.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I meant, so you can see it's effect the whole time and not be surprised by applying it "last". We are saying the same thing, just you are confused by my terminology.

And I'm not talking about any LUT, I'm talking about a specific output LUT that corresponds to your output medium. Applying such a LUT late in the process is a waste of your effort up to that point, personal preference or not.

Since this plugin isn't really such a thing anyway, said debate is moot. This plugin is canned looks, plain and simple - regardless of the marketing story of where the looks came from. And canned looks should be applied first - not talking stack positioning, but talking workflow order.
 
Last edited:
nothing said:
That's exactly what I meant, so you can see it's effect the whole time and not be surprised by applying it "last". We are saying the same thing, just you are confused by my terminology.

And I'm not talking about any LUT, I'm talking about a specific output LUT that corresponds to your output medium. Applying such a LUT late in the process is a waste of your effort up to that point, personal preference or not.

Since this plugin isn't really such a thing anyway, said debate is moot. This plugin is canned looks, plain and simple - regardless of the marketing story of where the looks came from. And canned looks should be applied first - not talking stack positioning, but talking workflow order.
Click to expand...

Okay, yeah I agree with that.
 
Yeah, the GH2 profiles look interesting. Without knowing everything about how this software REALLY works, not just the general idea that it takes the sensor data directly from the camera in order to produce an accurate rendition of a film stock etc... it's hard to say how to maximize the potential of each profile... I mean I'm never sticking to a strict guideline... I adjust color temperature, grain and other things that totally change the look of the stock anyhow; so hard to say if it will make a difference. Gonna give a whirl tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top