![]() ![]() I think a lot of the so-called Print LUTs and plug-ins out there are a lot of smoke and mirrors with very little real science or usefulness behind them. In truth, I think if you're just trying to get the "look" of 2383 print stock - which is more contrasty than I think most people know (particularly people who've never done a film-out and struck a print from digital files) - you can actually fake it pretty well. If the end result is correct, then it IS correct. Overall it looks like a promising film emulation and look creation tool for a colorist or filmmaker’s arsenal.Ĭlick here to learn more on the Filmbox product page.I have actually worked in workflows where the LUT comes first. This is meant to be a high-end professional tool and is priced as such.Ĭurrently the plugin is Mac only, though the team says a Windows and Linux version are in the works. It’s clear that a lot of work went into sampling film stocks and making simple-yet-powerful tools for users. The yearly license for indie (to be used on productions with total budget under $2.6 million) is $349 and studio-sized pricing of $4,999 per year. The pricing is laid out on their buy page, with options for indie projects and studio budgets alike. The full version includes many more features for customizing color, contrast, grain, gate weave, dust, and more. Reading the manual is required for proper use of color management. This version can only be used for non-commercial projects, and is limited in its features, but you can get a really good sense of how it works.Īfter installing and playing for a bit I was able to make some nice looking images that definitely had a “filmic” feel to them. Rather than a limited trial or watermarked output, they’ve opted for a “Filmbox Lite” plugin that you can download for free to try yourself. The Video Village team isn’t going to leave you to wonder if it’s any good, you can try it out yourself for free! This is especially the case now that almost nothing is actually printed to film, and many people’s memory of “film” is actually of some hybrid film/digital processes. It’s worth noting that both film and Filmbox can be made to have many looks, and what people think “film” looks like is a bit of a moving target. We encourage you to try it and see if our model of film lives up to your mental model of film. We certainly tried to gather good data and stay close to that data but our methods are not prefect and there were subjective decisions made about how to tune and implement the data into a functional system that produces creatively satisfying results. How accurate is it really? Video Village says:įilmbox does not represent pure empiricism. This one gives fine controls for customizing your own film negative and print stock.īut film isn’t just one look. The team is clearly interested in creating flexibility in post for image creation aspects that used to be “baked-in” to post. ![]() This release follows their last plugin, Scatter, which is meant to accurately simulate diffusion filters in post. ![]() The website saysĪ holistic reproduction of photochemical motion picture imaging.īased on empirical data and refined for creative utility.īuilt for high-end production. But that’s only a small part of the story. I’m leaning toward yes, but more on that later.Īnother way to add grain, you might be thinking. The subtitle is “really good film emulation”. This week Video Village, the creators of such apps as Lattice and Screen, have released what appears to be an incredibly powerful look creation tool. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |