Since grain is, typically, the very last thing that should be applied to any set of images, the majority of work (in the near term) would not benefit from 4k grain.
Unless you are mastering AND exhibiting in 4k, adding 4k grain, then scaling down to 2k or HD or whatever, would actually diminish the effect by reducing the grain size to an unrealistically small diameter. Mostly, when people are adding grain, they are trying to simulate the look of a film print, and film grain is a fixed size, dependent on which particular stock is selected.
Obviously this stuff is flexible and you can do whatever you want with it, my point is that just because you're recording in 4k, that doesn't mean that 4k grain frames are actually optimal.
AWW CUMMON GUYS!!!!
WE SPEND ALL OUR MONEY TO GET THE BEST PICTURE POSSIBLE AND THEN SPEND MORE TO DEGRADE THE HECK OUT OF IT?
JUST SHOOT EMULSION.
Bought it, love it, its a collection of film scans, obviously you can't shoot emulsion for every project, this is the best substitute for the texture that emulsion has.
Yeah, I'm getting it the next time I get a project that would benefit from it.
By far the best, and definitely worth it
Also, I'm looking for 2.4 aspect ratio grain for anamorphics .. and wondering which package I should get ? Lot of price difference between the 125/275/325. I sometimes overkill things that no one will notice, and for 2.4 aspect ratio dcp, I could just clip the 2k format of the 35mm standard non-pushed exposure?
as we talked about with Joules, The collections don't have gamma shifts (by default) so that's what I prefer. You can specify it if you want though.
I got the Gamma Shift one's by asking, IDK if they come default
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|