Full time colorist here that's been on resolve well over a decade (among other suites).

Mac only color correction plugins cut out a large portion of the potential audience. Most suites I've been in recently are either Linux or their IT departments tell me they're planning on moving to windows boxes (two of my regular post houses already have). These are large facilities and the resolve trend is definitely in that direction.

In the home market where this might be even more popular (most post facilities and freelance pro colorists already have "secret sauces" that we use regularly), the vast majority are on windows in my experience.

There's another popular Russian film emulation plugin similar to this that is also Mac only, but they have plans for win/linux in the next few months because they've found they are hitting a limit in their potential market.

We love the Mac, so that's where we're starting and where our other products are. We'll target Linux or Windows based on demand.

Linux or bust. I seriously don't see mac as an alternative at all.

Resolve is not only for high-end anymore, but for the masses. Plenty of pros, semi-pros and enthusiasts are running imacs and macbooks and Resolve. As a full-time editor and colorist Macs are my preffered choice. I’ll gladly take a small render-performance hit as it’s oversll a betyer experience working on a Mac.

Oh, i signed up but didnt see the small disclaimer.

Having a cross platform product would be super powerful, as we are using Linux and Windows machines for our heavy lifting, only dealing with Macs for exporting to Prores formats.

Consider this +1 for both versions. I'd love to play with this but I'm hardly in OSX suites currently due to covid (my suites are centos and win). Best of luck with the rollout.

We need Windows support as well

If you shoot stills and want the positives of film and not the negatives, try my open-source photo editor Filmulator, which simulates the depletion and diffusion of developer liquid to enhance color, improve local contrast, and reduce global contrast, without any of the halation, grain, scratches, color shifts, or any of that nonsense.

https://filmulator.org

Aside from the draw of the film simulation, I've designed it to have a very streamlined user interface that should be easy for new users to pick up.

I like your project, but I think the HDR halo effect [1] in your after photos is a little too pronounced.

[1] - https://www.trentsizemore.com/2013/02/23/the-halo-effect-bad...

I overcooked the samples a bit just to make the effect more noticeable. I usually edit my photos much less strongly than that.

Also, the appropriate size halos vary depending on the display size. If you're viewing on a phone, the radius needs to be larger to not be noticeable. If I print them out A3+, though, the halos fade away and my brain interprets them as contrast in the original scene.

Should I adjust my samples?

I'm viewing on my desktop. The ones that really stood out to me as having halos were https://filmulator.org/images/photos/IMG_0866-output-small.j... and https://filmulator.org/images/photos/P6220039_rCnnq8S-output...

Not sure what the solution is. Just thought I'd add my thoughts!

Or you can try showing a a sample per device, maybe that work.

I'd really like that but I'm no web dev and it's probably challenging to do with the static site generator I'm using (Zola).

“Halo a little too pronounced? Click here to see an image adjusted for your device” > Second page/popup/whatever > “I’m viewing on: iPhone, desktop, HDR, etc” > show appropriate image.

Points being: Don’t complicate the view for most visitors, but let the pros know that they are right to ask.

There are ways to automatically show the right image, but the people who care typically get thrown off when “automagic” replaces choice

Wow mate, I'm just an amateur cosplay photographer, but legit thanks for sharing. I'll have to investigate further but this looks exactly like what I needed.

I think this sort of thing is great, but then the final, meticulously adjusted product gets compressed down to 7-8 megabit streams that annihilate all grain, and then shown on poorly configured TVs at 120Hz in bright rooms. It's hard being a detail-oriented colorist, DP, or producer right now! There's so much you can't control.

Yep, spot on. As a technologist (and person with eyes) it's frustrating when I visit family and friends and see just how much great technology, production craft and standards-setting effort ends up not making it to the average viewer's eyes for mundane reasons that mostly happen between compression artifacts in distribution, misleading marketing, misguided "sounds-good" featuritis, consumer device UX design fails and a typical haphazard living room install.

Also, average viewers like us just don't care about visual and auditory nuance.

My living room is a comfortable place optimized for living and conversation, and every now and then the TV gets rolled into the middle of the room at a comfortable distance from the couch and chairs. My speakers are $50 analog Logitechs under the TV (and most people don't even have that). If you're not targeting this kind of scenario, your great works won't be noticed except by awards committees and aficionados who are willing to spend the cash and time to set everything up "just right".

Yes, people should right-size their spend and effort to their goals. I'm thinking of the scenario where the person actually had an intent to have "good" quality and spent more money for what they were told would "look better", but due to inaccurate information sources (eg salespeople, buzzwordy feature bullet points on signage, friend, etc) they don't end up with what they thought they would get (and paid upward for). The frustrating part is there's no fundamental reason they couldn't have actually got what they wanted instead of being mildly disappointed that their extra $500 spent "isn't really as different as they'd hoped". Yes, there's a point of diminishing returns beyond which more money buys things that don't matter (like 4k resolution vs good 1080 when the viewing distance-to-screen size makes the difference optically negligible to human eyes).

However, under that point of contextual diminishing returns, a little bit of on-point knowledge or information can really maximize the return on incremental spend and effort.

This does not appear to be a valid Show HN. There needs to be something more than a signup page for people to try out (see the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html) so I've taken Show HN out of the title for now.

Whoops, totally fair! Sorry about that! I can't read!

I don't want my Show HN bungle to give the impression that Filmbox is vaporware! We think it's ready to go, we're just trying to roll it out to certain types of productions first to manage feedback, hence the sign up process.

Filmbox's sister product, Scatter, was fully released today and can be purchased and tested. Filmbox works just like Scatter and demonstrates our technology for the diffusion filter use case. https://videovillage.co/scatter/

If you want to figure out a way to let people try out the product beforehand you're certainly welcome to do a Show HN (for either of these products). We'd be happy to help if you email hn@ycombinator.com.

> A complete reproduction of photochemical motion picture imaging.

The end result appears to be a near perfect emulation in the final image, however the other qualities of film, for example overexposure tolerance for negatives and reciprocity failure in general, can't be emulated or simulated due to the nature digital sensors. Additionally, digital sensors have their own quirks like bayer pattern filters and moiré interference that will have an effect on what is recorded.

Not to say this isn't amazing, just that the statement quoted above is not a totally accurate claim.

Maybe it would help see the more important difference if they showed what video looks like without any such transformation, or the typical post-processing someone would do without this tool?

I.e., I'm not comparing against film, I'm comparing against what comes out of the video camera.

This type of comparison is a pretty natural one to want. We are still thinking about ways to best demonstrate Filmbox. The best way is to use it, but we will try to come up with a way to show this.

This particular comparison raises some interesting philosophical questions, which is why we haven't gotten to it yet. The comparison could be pretty misleading if done wrong.

Filmbox is designed to produce an accurate film look from scene-referred footage. But digital image data really has no look in any meaningful way.

We could, for example, show the video in a log color space as it’s encoded, but that's an arbitrary encoding that is not even intended for display. We could apply some "video" LUT or simulate how someone might "typically" color grade the footage, but that's a creative choice - and one that can still be performed in addition to the Filmbox emulation pipeline.

The right way to think about it is perhaps that video can be prepared to look like anything, But modern motion picture film has a fairly defined look. Filmbox is designed to provide ways of processing video that are closest to processed film. So we feel the meatiest comparison is Filmbox to actual film.

That is a good point, I guess any output has some transformation applied, just a question of what you are aiming for.

Maybe the best way to put it could be, "if someone tried to get it to look as much as film as they could, what would they lack that your tool provides"?

The answer to that probably gets a bit tautological and sounds cheeky – if they did a great job making it look like film, then nothing!

But in practice without a clear target and a lot of empirical data about the various properties of photochemical imaging they would end up with a subjective look that may look filmic on a limited range of shots but would not represent a dynamically functional model of the response of the photochemical process.

This is why we think the most apt comparison is our output compared with film, because that's the target look. We don't think the existing solutions do as good of a job of it as easily as Filmbox.

Curious to see hear what makes this different to other players in this space (eg Cinegrain, Filmconvert, etc)? Or what your ideal user is?

After all:

- Halation tranforms are pretty easy to create.

- There are plenty of 4k film scans out there.

- Film stock transforms are everywhere.

- Gate weave motion is not hard to mimic.

If it were a combination of all of the above then I can see it being useful for people wanting to grade something pretty quick. But colorists are always going to want to get in there and manipulate these kinds of details.

Is it because it’s a physical simulation and others are just grading and filters? Not sure.

We also released Scatter today, a complementary emulation of diffusion filters. There's a separate Show HN thread and here is the website https://videovillage.co/scatter/ (I guess that's the right way to organize it?)

Is the emulation of a particular emulsion, or some generic 'film'? Can it do different particular emulsions?

Filmbox currently emulates Vision3 250D 500T 50D at 16mm and 35mm gauges and prints to 2383. We may expand this as needs arise. We are experimenting with ektachrome, a black and white stock, and have plans to do variable bleach bypass on the print.

Maybe I'm just not in-tune here, but I really can't see any difference in the two side-by-side examples?

> I really can't see any difference in the two side-by-side examples?

Isn’t that the whole point?

One is actual physical film, the other is a digital camera using their tech to appear like film.

It's like having a regular burger and lab-grown burger next to each other: not being able to tell the difference is the goal.

They should have also included the digital pre-processed shot to show the changes.

You can see muddiness in the really dark areas in the digital version (left ear area for example). Also depths of field are noticeably different in some parts of the image.

But they don't say anything about exposures and focal lengths between the two versions so while I'd like to think I could tell digital apart from film, I'm probably wrong.

I think that's the goal. One side is some special equipment and the other side is their simulation.

This strikes me as the same sort of fetishism as the CRT emulators for video games and the vinyl editions of modern albums. Nice for people who like that sort of thing, but it's still a deliberate distortion to evoke nostalgia.

This is certainly true in some sense! (And kind of the point.)

Reproducing reality as exactly as possible is one use case for video, but typically for cinema we want to provide a subjective artistic interpretation of the imagery.

But yes, the look of film is hardly the only valid way to present a movie. There are lots of interesting looks that can be achieved that don't look like film at all.

Film emulation is an artistic tool, like other tools that bring the look of a movie further away from reality and toward some thematic goal (depth of field effects, framing, camera movement, aspect ratio, color grading, music, not being 3D, etc.)

Filmbox is meant to be a particular interpretation of camera data, one rooted in the history of motion picture imaging, available for artists to use as appropriate.

Always wonderful to see video and DaVinci resolve content here!

The last thing I want to see on my 4K TV is film artifacts.

Emulating film ought to be on the way out by now. Nobody still uses photographic film end to end. Somebody in Hollywood tried to edit physical film last year, and she had to call in favors just to get blank leader and film cement. Trying to emulate film is like making sepia-toned pictures.

The industry has been through this before. With the end of silent films. With the end of showing an orchestra if the film had music. (That's credited to Irving Thalberg). With the end of editorial geography. (That ended with Jean-Luc Godard's "Breathless" in 1960). The industry got over those, and they'll get over 24FPS and film grain.

There are reasons for favoring 24fps and grain even into a digital era. Studies are still ongoing on how brains interpret different frame rates and how they effect the suspension of disbelief.

Clean grain dramatically increases the acutance of an image and additionally helps to prevent compression banding issues for cleaner, better looking videos (as long as delivery compression is done properly). There's basically nothing that you see on TV or in cinema that hasn't had grain added. It makes such a huge difference that oftentimes actual film grain is removed, color and vfx are done and applied, and then digital grain is put back on because the image improves so much. Even many video games add subtle grain (not the over the top grain settings) because of how it improves things. Film's natural grain is the gold standard here and it's definitely not going away.

Many productions do not use grain. Roger Deakins for example does not use grain on any of his digitally shot films - so everything since ‘In Time’. I do like grain personally on the right project and used in the right way. It’s another creative aesthetic tool.

What is "editorial geography"?

Thanks!