Stupid question: why do some DR users also use FilmConvert?

Hello,

This question may sound dumb, but... I cannot understand why people use FilmConvert inside DaVinci. DaVinci offers so much power for color correction and grading. Does this have to do with laziness?

Probably, it may also have to do with short deadlines.
After all, FilmConvert Nitrate works based on log or RAW and is far more flexible than simple LUTs. And then, they have a lot of experience with matching different camera's color science before adding their "looks" for a matched result.
That's why they made CineMatch now, for those who'd like to add their own look. Again, you can do the same on your own, but it may take more time.

I used it because I liked the idea of shooting "Kodak film" with my GH2.

I ended up abandoning FilmConvert because I liked the colors coming out of the original Pocket more than Kodak film.

(I never used the color wheels or other adjustments. Only the Film Conversion feature.)

I think all of these film emulation plug-ins are a huge load of horse crap. I literally work with film almost every day of the week, and in fact did restorations on 41 feature film projects last year. None of these plug-ins really make digital look like film.

I do agree that it makes them look different, but it's not really what I'd call a "filmic" image. I can show you 10 films I did in a row where every one of them looked massively different from the next, due to different labs, different stocks, different eras, different DPs, different lenses, different lighting techniques, all that stuff. There is no one look.

Having said all that, I don't mind the idea of adding film grain for texture for digital projects, and there's actually some reasonable evidence that this is good for compression bitrates, the look, and a few other factors. Here's some companies that market film grain:

http://cinegrain.com/
http://www.crumplepop.com/
http://filmlooks.com/
http://www.filmwash.com/shop/
https://www.fxphd.com/store/stock/scrat ... ge-bundle/
http://gorillagrain.com/
https://www.holygrain.com/
http://indieessentials.com
https://lensdistortions.com/
http://www.rgrain.com/
https://www.rocketstock.com/video-packs ... -overlays/
https://www.smashworkshop.com/film-overlays
https://vamify.com/collections/vintage-8mm-overlays
http://vegasaur.com/film-grain

I actually think the halation and synthetic grain in Dehancer is not that bad:

https://www.dehancer.com/

In a pinch, I'll just grab the ResolveFX Film Grain plug-in and call it a day. It's fine for (say) a flashback sequence that's supposed to look a little old and ragged; having the ability to change grain on highlights, mids, and blacks is very handy.

Note I pay for all this stuff at retail, so this is all just an objective observation. I do own FilmConvert as well, but I have it only in case somebody specifically asks for it or we have to take over a session done with this plug-in. To me, the capability to create any look you need is already built into Resolve. In particular, the new capabilities of HDR/Zone Grading and the Color Warper are light years beyond the plug-ins in terms of creating interesting looks (filmic or otherwise).

…having the ability to change grain on highlights, mids, and blacks is very handy.

Second that, I think it's a very important part of making it look a bit more like the real thing.

I literally work with film almost every day of the week, and in fact did restorations on 41 feature film projects last year. None of these plug-ins really make digital look like film.

Thanks Marc. Very insightful.

None of these plug-ins really make digital look like film.

I thought the demo on the Film Convert site was convincing, where it compares the output of RED plus their Kodak emulation to actual Kodak film.

It wasn't a perfect match, but damn close.

None of these plug-ins really make digital look like film.

I thought the demo on the Film Convert site was convincing, where it compares the output of RED plus their Kodak emulation to actual Kodak film. It wasn't a perfect match, but damn close.

The question you have to ask is a) how was that film shot and scanned, and b) could you just create the exact same effect by hand?

I think the whole thing is very nebulous. Look at it this way: there are at least 20 companies out there marketing LUTs and other schemes that claim to make (say) Red cameras look like film. But every single one of them yields a different look. Which is right? Which is wrong? My take is that they're all wrong. I just try to make the image look good and give the director and DP the emotional look they're going for with the scene.

Another very real problem is these "film emulation" looks generally don't work well in color-managed workflows, plus it's a big problem if you take an SDR project and need to deliver it in HDR. If you create the look entirely by yourself, making the adjustments is comparatively simple.

There was a big conversation about this on Facebook, and I'd again point to noted DP Steve Yedlin's thoughts on the differences between digital and film on his website:

https://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/

Yedlin's ideas were actually discussed here on the forum some months ago:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=107181

The trick there is, Yedlin completely controlled the conditions for both the film and the digital, he lit them identically, he used very precise color charts, he supervised the scans, and he spent several years creating the adjustments needed to get the results he wanted. The bad news is: he's keeping the secrets close to the vest, which is his right.

could you just create the exact same effect by hand?

Maybe, but if the work is already done for me...

every single one of them yields a different look.

I've not actually done any testing on that front. I just know that for the example, FilmConvert shot the same scene, in the same lighting, using a RED camera and a film camera.

Like I say, it wasn't a perfect match, but it was real close.

"film emulation" looks generally don't work well in color-managed workflows

Agreed. My preference for ACES is part of the reason I stopped using FC.