FilmConvert's IPP2 profile looks terrible - what an I missing?

[Marc Wielage]

And DPs for the last 100 years haven't had preferences on what film stock they wanted to start from? People shoot with Alexa because "it looks like film". Almost nobody wants to start from a perfectly scientific blank slate.

A blank slate doesn't preclude good color-correction decisions. And even film dailies always had a one-light setting in the lab. My problem with FilmConvert is it makes a few too many decisions on its own, and I'd rather make them myself. From my perspective, their software is made for unsophisticated users who want a quick and easy way to get to acceptable images. But for me, it's not enough for final color. Our clients deserve more than that.

Properly exposed/matching the DC2/RG4 stuff or properly looking film emulation? Still kinda frustration, and uncranking the contrast so much makes me apprehensive. I think they do some decent things with grain, and it can often look good... But, yeah, I definitely don't have a ton of faith that it's an accurate emulation.

Originally they had comparison frames -- the filmstock shot, next to a simultaneous redmx shot, and then the redmx shot with FC on, and they looked quite close (like pixel-peep close). But I think they should've had a shoot-guide basically saying, 'you have to use these settings (proper exposure at this ISO, WB, gamma, light sources, etc.) for the most accurate results with camera xxxxxx. Outside of that your mileage my vary.' It's just tough because content captured on film is still colour corrected/graded, but FC is applied more towards the end of the chain (because of the grain)... Or maybe I've used it wrong (which, again, a guide to maximize results would be helpful).

Steve Yedlin (the DP on Last Jedi) has had some interesting thoughts on film emulation from digital cameras, and I think his philosophy and what he has to say are very interesting:

http://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/#

It's fair to say that Yedlin's method requires a lot of thinking and a bit of trial & error, and it's not something that can be sold for $199 as a download. I've been told that they used hundreds of hours and different methods to add film grain in Nuke to the images in Star Wars, and that's on top of his custom LUTs and -- needless to say -- very good lighting and lenses.

If grain is all you want, there's some terrific Grain packages out there from companies like Cinegrain:

http://www.cinegrain.com/

It's not cheap (from $75-$999, depending on the variety you get), but it's pretty exhaustive. I have 7 or 8 additional grain packages, but 90% of the time I wind up using Cinegrain because they have the most options... all the way from very subtle to very heavy, and everywhere in between.

 

[Mike P.]

Steve Yedlin (the DP on Last Jedi) has had some interesting thoughts on film emulation from digital cameras, and I think his philosophy and what he has to say are very interesting:

http://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/#

It's fair to say that Yedlin's method requires a lot of thinking and a bit of trial & error, and it's not something that can be sold for $199 as a download. I've been told that they used hundreds of hours and different methods to add film grain in Nuke to the images in Star Wars, and that's on top of his custom LUTs and -- needless to say -- very good lighting and lenses.

The crazy thing about Yedlin's stuff is that, if I'm properly interpreting what he said, it's repeatable and independent of footage. He says he applied his numbers without even comparing the film vs Alexa images (a blanket application?), and they turned out as close as they did (minus minor overall image balance and brightness). All he needs to do is bottle it and sell it (which obviously is not as easy as it sounds... plus he's a working cinematographer, so his schedule might be a bit tight).

Another thing he mentions, that I think is interesting, is the trends he is seeing are people trying to make content shot on film look more digital (or at least mimic image properties that are typically/inherently digital), and that we're currently somewhere in the middle. No doubt I appreciate the look of big budget 80s films (typically Kodak stocks and Panavision lenses) as they've got a look that resonates with a lot of my favourite films. That said, a lot of soderberg's available light stuff often looks pretty rad too (I liked the Knick's look) and is completely opposite of that.

As I said, I've been content with FC's grain (though I do wish you could apply saturation to it independently from the image).

 

[Evan B]

Just out of curiosity, have you guys been using Color Science “IPP2” or “Version 2” in Resolve? Version 2 seems less crushed for whatever reason… Maybe RWG/Log3G10 with Version 2 is what FilmConvert is tailored to.

EDIT

Never mind, they appear to be identical.