Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:29 am
Thanks, Carlo, for pointing to it. Yes, it's slow, but IMHO does a pretty good job of analyzing the original grain.
And let's make a clear difference between static 'grain' and dynamic 'grain' – even if it's not grain, which is a property of analog film. If the noise from any digital camera looks similar to cinematic grain or not at all is highly dependent on the compression (or absence of it).
Static noise is also called FPN and needs be avoided by giving cameras enough light. Dynamic noise with a pleasant structure can look very similar to analog grain, but like that, it should change structure from frame to frame. Thats what makes a locked-down shot, even without any motion, come alive and not look like a photograph.
Finally, test your grain with the whole chain all the way to the viewer, since later compression (like for internet or satellite chains) can make it look ugly. Noise is like a strong medicine: a small amount can cure problems, even banding, but overdosing just a bit can kill your image. I had a case where a director insisted on adding quite a lot of grain, she wanted that '16mm' look. I warned her, since she intended a DVD version too (it was a while ago). I finally asked her to sign her decision off before getting it into distribution. A wise move: they had to throw the first version into the plastic melt…
Now that the cat #19 is out of the bag, test it as much as you can and use the subforum.
Studio 18.6.6, MacOS 13.6.6, 2017 iMac, 32 GB, Radeon Pro 580
MacBook M1 Pro, 16 GPU cores, 32 GB RAM and iPhone 15 Pro
Speed Editor, UltraStudio Monitor 3G