4 ms·
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, "i
by supernova87a 6y ago
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"?
- wilg 6y agoThe 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.