Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

FILM CONVERT versus CINEGRAIN?

David Mullen ASC said:
There's nothing wrong with sleight-of-hand and fakery in narrative filmmaking. Should a CGI effect in a movie shot in 35mm anamorphic avoid adding fake grain and anamorphic lens flares because it was solely created in a computer? Should we never add atmospheric haze to a scene where there would never be smoke in the air in real life? Should we only shoot night scenes at night? Can an actor only play a character that is his actual age?

Either the photographic technique works or it doesn't work, either it is justfiied or appropriate, or it isn't. By itself it's just a tool that can be used or abused.

Lets say you are hired to shoot a movie that the director wants to feel like it was made in the 1970's but for various reasons has to be shot on a digital camera. So if adding grain is forbidden because it is "false" then I suppose the actors can't wear fake sideburns and mustaches because that would be false too?

All that matters is the end result. If you add grain in post and no one questions it, and it adds something appropriate or narratively justified to the viewing experience, then it doesn't really matter whether the original raw files had it.
Click to expand...

Well said, Mr. Mullen!
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
Although it’s a clever retort and an interesting question, I don’t see the comparison at all, Sir.
Actually, IMPO It's more akin to painting a copy of the Mona Lisa on a white canvas and then adding a crackled glaze and a wash of dirty varnish over it to make it seem like it is an authentic relic.
It happens all the time in the art world, but no matter how well it is done, it is still never going to be anything more than a counterfeit of an iconic original.
Click to expand...

No, I believe what you described would be akin to shooting Gone with the Wind shot for shot on digital, and then adding film grain and look.
 
Daniel Dávila said:
Hello Nigel
I'm downloading the new version, but I used Filmconvert on a feature and had multiple issues in the conforming steps, the biggest was that 60% of the exported shots had 1 or 2 seconds offset from the original TC, so it was very difficult to conform in Resolve. And another problem is that there's no way to manually set in/out points, so I had to render the complete shots. I hope these thinks get better.
Any news supporting HDRx?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I've never heard of TC issues, I'll get craig to contact you. In and out points are coming. A resolve plugin is coming so that becomes even easier. If you load an XML, it will render just the parts of shots you use.
 
can we get more of the same settings in the plugin versions as the full app - like saturation. I'd rather do it inside the plugin to match what I've done on the standalone. also is it possible to use looks created in the standalone in the plugin versions. if this is possible already there is no obvious way to do it. if its not possible right now it would be really useful
 
Bing Bailey said:
can we get more of the same settings in the plugin versions as the full app - like saturation. I'd rather do it inside the plugin to match what I've done on the standalone. also is it possible to use looks created in the standalone in the plugin versions. if this is possible already there is no obvious way to do it. if its not possible right now it would be really useful
Click to expand...
Hey Bing,
Happily, we're almost there with most of the plugins in terms of getting them to work like the standalone. Our next big revision will have all the same controls and interfaces.
Unfortunately, I hear you about communicating settings data from standalone to plugins and back, etc, as I can see how that could be hugely useful. We just don't have a mechanism to be able to do that yet, as that could be quite messy and difficult to try and sort out.

We're also not quite sure how much we'll be able to do in Resolve 10 just yet, as we haven't seen the interface from the fine folks at BlackMagic Design just yet, but hopefully the OFX interface they provide will allow us to punch in as many controls as we can there too.
 
Lance Lones said:
Hey Bing,
Happily, we're almost there with most of the plugins in terms of getting them to work like the standalone. Our next big revision will have all the same controls and interfaces.
Unfortunately, I hear you about communicating settings data from standalone to plugins and back, etc, as I can see how that could be hugely useful. We just don't have a mechanism to be able to do that yet, as that could be quite messy and difficult to try and sort out.

We're also not quite sure how much we'll be able to do in Resolve 10 just yet, as we haven't seen the interface from the fine folks at BlackMagic Design just yet, but hopefully the OFX interface they provide will allow us to punch in as many controls as we can there too.
Click to expand...


You guys are nothing short of amazing and the leaps and bounds you are making in FilmConvert are outstanding.
Looking forward to seeing you in CA, Sir!
 
Lance Lones said:
Hey Bing,
Happily, we're almost there with most of the plugins in terms of getting them to work like the standalone. Our next big revision will have all the same controls and interfaces.
Unfortunately, I hear you about communicating settings data from standalone to plugins and back, etc, as I can see how that could be hugely useful. We just don't have a mechanism to be able to do that yet, as that could be quite messy and difficult to try and sort out.

We're also not quite sure how much we'll be able to do in Resolve 10 just yet, as we haven't seen the interface from the fine folks at BlackMagic Design just yet, but hopefully the OFX interface they provide will allow us to punch in as many controls as we can there too.
Click to expand...

Any testing done with Assimilate? Will the OFX plugin work in Scratch?
 
How about the OFX version for Baselight under linux/FLoS?
 
Wait... digital cine took 16mm out of the game, now they want to sell bad footage and mistakes on film so digital film makers can use the footage in their movies??? Doesn't this seem a little backwards? why not shoot 16mm film again, that way you don't have to act like you shot your movie using film? You could transfer your movie to 16mm film and record it back to HD.
 
That will make sense with HD, but Red RAW took out 35, and it is equal to 65mm...
 
Hey Frank n Ido,
Honestly, we're not sure about either of these platforms (scratch or baselight), as we've not implemented the full OFX plugin just yet. If they've stuck to the OFX standard without adding any special sauce, then our stuff ought to just slide on over and work a charm.

But we're a little ways from checking out that sort of interoperability just yet - but not to worry, as we get there we'll give ya a heads up on our progress.
 
FILMLOOKS.COM

FILMLOOKS.COM

Everyone, try out the film scans at FILMLOOKS.COM. 14.95$ for their film grain collection. They are High quality scans at insanely low prices. Check it out: http://filmlooks.com
 
This product is insane, including their early OFX...!!!
 
Luis, Where can I find some info about their OFX offerings?
 
I'm looking for buy Filmconvert for my FCPX. However I'm kinda confused with the two options: stand alone and FCPX version. Unfortunately I didn't find any answer on the Filmconvert site neither. Could you tell me the main difference between the two options?

Does anyone know when Resolve 10 and the Filmconvert plugin for it comes out?
 
The stand alone is as the name described, capable to work with footage outside of the NLEs and has more controls. The others are plug-ins that work inside the NLE. They have less controls as of now, but they have express they are working to have those controls within the plug-ins.
 
Luis Otero said:
The stand alone is as the name described, capable to work with footage outside of the NLEs and has more controls. The others are plug-ins that work inside the NLE. They have less controls as of now, but they have express they are working to have those controls within the plug-ins.
Click to expand...

Could you redirect me to some kind of source where I could see a comparison of features or demo or anything?
 
I do not have such link, but last week I saw that they are offering a trial version. Send a PM to Niegel or Lance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top