FILM CONVERT versus CINEGRAIN?

[omar robles]

I have recently gotten demos of both of these programs/clips. And i am torn between the two of them because both give me great looks. However FILM CONVERT is way cheaper then cinegrain. Just debating which one to get. The issue i see with film convert is that it doesnt flow with davinci resolve which i use to grade. I would like your guys opinion on which you would get.

thanks

o

 

[Zharmane Washington]

save a buck go with film convert

https://vimeo.com/58687611

 

[omar robles]

Thanks Zharmane

Would you consider film convert professional quality?

 

[amber smith]

If your looking to have a professional look I'd go with CineGrain, it's used by most of Hollywood. It's more expensive because it's not emulation software but actual film files and it's much cheaper than shooting film which is what it competes with. I find myself talking about CineGrain alot on these forums because I'm a huge fan of the people that work there (Shane) and I love the product.

 

[Zharmane Washington]

I find film convert to be good and render very fast and VERY GOOD look GREAT . I like it Cine grain is good as well, but its all about what you are doing and if you can afford it. I going to buy CINEGRAIN as well but for now i am using FC. If you can save a buck for something else like better Glass or any thing else to expend your company go Film Convert. It looks great and it work very well.

omar robles this is what i want you to do download film grain for vimeo some one put up a 35 mm film grain and download the sample from cine grain and go to vimeo and download some film grain that some one put up . From what i was told the film film grain on vimeo is cine grain it has no water mark on the Digital film and down FC and compare for your self.

sorry for the typos if any :}

 

[Nigel Stanford]

I have recently gotten demos of both of these programs/clips. And i am torn between the two of them because both give me great looks. However FILM CONVERT is way cheaper then cinegrain. Just debating which one to get. The issue i see with film convert is that it doesnt flow with davinci resolve which i use to grade. I would like your guys opinion on which you would get.

thanks

o

Hi Omar,

Both FilmConvert and Cinegrain use high resolution scans of grain. I would argue that FilmConvert is more accurate and realistic.

If you analyse film, you find that the amount and distribution of grain differs throughout the image, depending on the color and exposure.
With FilmConvert we use this data to increase or decrease the strength of the grain (based on the color and exposure). This 'bakes in' the grain in a more realistic manner. So a red area has more red grain particles for instance.

I have not used cinegrain or other grain libraries, but my understanding is that you take the scans, and composite them over your images using 'overlay' mode. The downside of this is that if you overlay 20%, you get 20% grain on the blacks, the whites, the grays, but also an equal amount of Red, Green and Blue grain on every single color.

Also, unless you spend big bucks, cinegrain is limited to 1080p scans, whereas FilmConvert contains 6k scans.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that this is better, but of course, I am biased

 

[Martín Yernazian]

Hi Nigel
I'm considering film convert... would it work on FCP 7? Can it interact with other plug ins? (Magic Bullet Looks, Da Vinci)

Thanks

 

[Nigel Stanford]

Hi Nigel
I'm considering film convert... would it work on FCP 7? Can it interact with other plug ins? (Magic Bullet Looks, Da Vinci)

Thanks

Yes, we have an FCP 7 plugin. Check out the trial version on our downloads page.

 

[Michael Winokur]

Nigel - I've been testing your product, I really like some of the looks I can get from it. I did a nice set of stills with it. I'm curious if there is a way to incorporate it into Resolve. In it's current setup I'm grading in Resolve and then adding your look in my NLE, it would be much better to have the grading and film look in the same place.

 

[Frank Glencairn]

I always wondered how adding grain to your film is affecting compression for delivery and how much is even left of the grain after compression.

Frank

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Nigel - I've been testing your product, I really like some of the looks I can get from it. I did a nice set of stills with it. I'm curious if there is a way to incorporate it into Resolve. In it's current setup I'm grading in Resolve and then adding your look in my NLE, it would be much better to have the grading and film look in the same place.

The beauty about Filmconvrt is that it matches (at least tries to) Red's colour and the colour matrixes of the different film stocks which includes also gamma. From this perspective is makes a lot of sense to create film-like log. scans such as RedlogFilm, add Filmconvert, and then grade the "film-scans" in Resolve. This way you have a similar workflow as it used to be when my frames were on celluloid.

Hans

 

[Sandro Klopfstein]

I have not used cinegrain or other grain libraries, but my understanding is that you take the scans, and composite them over your images using 'overlay' mode. The downside of this is that if you overlay 20%, you get 20% grain on the blacks, the whites, the grays, but also an equal amount of Red, Green and Blue grain on every single color.

while all this is correct, this would only be the "quick and dirty" way to apply grain stock to your footage. I usually import the same grain layer multiple times and "experiment" with different blending modes, opacity, curves and tint to "simulate" how film convert (or actual film) distributes grain. I guess it's a work in progress approach but it's also alot of fun, hehe.

I for myself prefer cinegrain to filmconvert because it leaves you with much more creative freedom to do things your way. grain today really is just a decision of style/look. in the version of film convert I've tried out a while ago, there were only a handful of stocks available whereas with ginegrain (even with the indie package we have) you'll get a ton of stock. but, if you really only want to accurately simulate a standard film stock like kodak 5207, I think its save to say film convert is the cheaper and faster solution.

 

[Sandro Klopfstein]

I always wondered how adding grain to your film is affecting compression for delivery and how much is even left of the grain after compression.

Frank

pristine, sharp grain tends to look horrible on youtube and the likes, in my experience. the solution I found is to apply a 0.5 pixel blur to the grain layer.
the same footage compressed for bluray output is just fine.

 

[Joe Minuni]

I always wondered how adding grain to your film is affecting compression for delivery and how much is even left of the grain after compression.

Frank

I found out it stinks for online distro. Stuff that I finished with a nice film grain looks like macro block garbage when uploaded to a hosting service. Instead of grain it many times looks like noise once they compress it.
If going on the web I now provide a grain free version for upload to the client.

 

[Martin Stevens]

Hi Omar,

Both FilmConvert and Cinegrain use high resolution scans of grain. I would argue that FilmConvert is more accurate and realistic.

If you analyse film, you find that the amount and distribution of grain differs throughout the image, depending on the color and exposure.
With FilmConvert we use this data to increase or decrease the strength of the grain (based on the color and exposure). This 'bakes in' the grain in a more realistic manner. So a red area has more red grain particles for instance.

I have not used cinegrain or other grain libraries, but my understanding is that you take the scans, and composite them over your images using 'overlay' mode. The downside of this is that if you overlay 20%, you get 20% grain on the blacks, the whites, the grays, but also an equal amount of Red, Green and Blue grain on every single color.

Also, unless you spend big bucks, cinegrain is limited to 1080p scans, whereas FilmConvert contains 6k scans.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that this is better, but of course, I am biased

Hello again Nigel,

So in theory someone could simply use FilmConvert to apply your 6K grain over a
pure gray (128) image, and then save this grain-only-image and then use it just
as people do with CineGrain.......yes???

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

IMPO: It is so very curious to me that in our continued quest for bigger sensors, wider latitude and more authentic color rendition, so many of us take these big, beautiful digital captures and then trash them to hell with various methods of image degradation, softening, sharpening, emmulation luts, fake grain overlays, etc, etc, etc all in the effort to make raw video capture look like "film". #itaintfilm

 

[Saumene Mehrdady]

IMPO: It is so very curious to me that in our continued quest for bigger sensors, wider latitude and more authentic color rendition, so many of us take these big, beautiful digital captures and then trash them to hell with various methods of image degradation, softening, sharpening, emmulation luts, fake grain overlays, etc, etc, etc all in the effort to make raw video capture look like "film". #itaintfilm

Not really. We just want total control of the image. That's what digital should give you, you know, a big juicy sensor that sees every little detail and shadow and then you go into post like a sandbox and you build whatever you want from that raw material.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

IMPO: so many of us take these big, beautiful digital captures and then trash them to hell with various methods of image degradation

I know what you mean - even if you can emulate film grain successfully, you still have some issues inherent in current digital sensors (purple fringing, CA, etc). Hell, if one wants that kind of look, why not use 16mm? Why inject a natural artifact of one medium into another?

I also wonder why the hell photographers spend so much time filter-wanking in Photoshop (or why they use this kind of software in the first place). I'm either not imaginative enough or too clear-headed. Take your pick.

Still, in order to know what you want, you sometimes have to see what you don't want. Opposing options are helpful in this way.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Hell, if one wants that kind of look, why not use 16mm? Why inject a natural artifact of one medium into another? QUOTE]

Emulsion envy, perhaps?

 

[Sandro Klopfstein]

I know what you mean - even if you can emulate film grain successfully, you still have some issues inherent in current digital sensors (purple fringing, CA, etc). Hell, if one wants that kind of look, why not use 16mm? Why inject a natural artifact of one medium into another?

because I own a red, not an arriflex. and because I enjoy creative freedom.