13 ms·

Show HN: Filmbox, physically accurate film emulation, now on Linux and Windows

658 points by wilg 4y ago

We released Filmbox two years ago, and it has gotten a great response. It's been used in huge movies like "Everything Everywhere All At Once". It's been a huge rewrite to get this working on Linux and Windows from our original Mac and Metal code. We also have some interesting uses of cross-platform Swift + Electron in our plugin manager app, and cross-platform Swift generally in the plugin. Hopefully we can detail that in a blog post at some point. There's a free Filmbox Lite version to try, if you're interested.

dbspin 4y ago
Wonder how you differentiate yourselves from others in the space like Dehancer (which I find excellent, and is half the price), or older players like FilmConvert?
photoGrant 4y ago
Always loved your software, glad to see you here. Polished and on point for 99% of my DIT use cases. Lattice being particularly close to heart. Thanks!
carlosdp 4y ago
This is awesome!
Etheryte 4y ago
As a photographer, emulation like this is of great interest to me. Like in cinematography, film is often held in high regard in photography with the caveat that it isn't even remotely as flexible as digital options. Have you considered creating a parallel product as an Adobe Lightroom plugin and/or a standalone app for still images?
- buildbot 4y ago
  I second this, many photographers would be very interested, myself included.
  - photoGrant 4y ago
    Put a DNG into Resolve, enjoy a node based workflow, use this plugin, and export the frame at the same res :)
    - buildbot 4y ago
      Oh cool, for some reason I did not expect resolve to support DNGs!
      - dylan604 4y ago
        [flagged]
        buildbot 4y ago
        You do sound a bit rude. It’s certainly not a given. I know probably more than most here about DNGs and other image processing. Check my profile/websites. I have a camera that shoots cinemaDNG, but I would not necessarily expect resolve to support a single dng frame. Plenty of dumb things out there, and no need to be snarky when someone learns something.
      - photoGrant 4y ago
        Indeed! A lot of the software is divided at most by 'industry verbiage' than it is genuine interop... Love your website/blog... Phase deserve pinning every now and then ;)
        buildbot 4y ago
        Thank you! Phase gear is much more affordable these days with the x1d/x2d and GFX series eating their lunch a bit :) Plus you still get Capture One for free still with them...
        photoGrant 4y ago
        It's the fact they're all dog slow that levels the playing field, at least for me! I have a 907X and it's a love hate relationship... Down to the log files being encrypted.
- thejarren 4y ago
  My understanding is that you can edit images inside of Davinci Resolve just like video, though I haven't attempted it myself.
- wilg 4y ago
  > Have you considered creating a parallel product as an Adobe Lightroom plugin and/or a standalone app for still images? Yes.
  - rayshan 4y ago
    +1 on this as well, been looking for something since VSCO Film sunsetted. Also open to any recommendations from other film simulation for photography too!
    - komali2 4y ago
      If you're down to try new systems you can pick up a Fujifilm xe2 for about 250$, plus a good prime for another 250$, then shoot jpeg + raw and play with Fuji's built in film sims and in camera raw conversion settings to get remarkably film like photos. It's a whole thing in the Fuji world, see http://fujixweekly.com/ http://fujixweekly.com/ I'm not sure if the xe2 is compatible but you can also edit "on-computer" by having the camera plugged in and using its on camera raw conversion but with the UI on your computer: https://fujifilm-x.com/global/support/download/software/x-raw-studio/ https://fujifilm-x.com/global/support/download/software/x-ra... For system agnostic, there's also tons of plugins, profiles, dstyles, LUTs and whatever else you'd like https://github.com/jade-nl/dt.styles https://github.com/jade-nl/dt.styles https://marcrphoto.wordpress.com/ https://marcrphoto.wordpress.com/ https://onecameraonelens.com/2021/01/12/why-darktable-is-perfect-for-fujifilm-users/ https://onecameraonelens.com/2021/01/12/why-darktable-is-per... I basically don't edit photos anymore now that I'm with Fuji. It's not like I'm artistically opposed, the extra step was basically ruining photography for me, I simply don't have the time. I still shoot jpeg + raw though because I may be lazy but I'm not insane :p
      - rayshan 4y ago
        I do shoot with Fuji X-T30 sometimes, how did you know?! But mostly shooting with iPhone nowadays since it's always with me. Your links are awesome, I'll try them out!
      - sooheon 4y ago
- chrstphrknwtn 4y ago
  > [film] isn't even remotely as flexible as digital options I've pretty much only ever shot film, so my opinion isn't worth much, but colour negative seems to be way more flexible than digital if all you're talking about is the capture. In terms of using film in modern workflows, digital is easier.
  - coolandsmartrr 4y ago
    By flexible, do you mean the dynamic range?
    - chrstphrknwtn 4y ago
      Yes, negative film is very tolerant of overexposure in a predictable way. But I never shoot low-light scenes, and as far as I'm aware the inverse is true in circumstances where you're trying to extract as much as possible from limited light, ie. digital is more flexible when underexposure is a concern.
  - perardi 4y ago
    Hm? More flexible? Besides dynamic range, that’s a real stretch to say color negative film is more flexible. That sort of film arguably does a better job of preserving highlights, but I don’t see a plausible argument for any other aspect being better. Just getting the white balance right alone…
    - chrstphrknwtn 4y ago
      > Besides dynamic range, that’s a real stretch to say color negative film is more flexible. Yes, I suppose you're likely right. And like I said my opinion probably isn't worth much. At the end of the day they're just different, and have a lot or nothing to do with each other depending on how you frame things.
    - kqr 4y ago
      Film does not have more dynamic range than good digital sensors. In the end, it's about faithfully recording which parts of the site got hit by photons. Digital sensors do that more accurately than any practically-sized strips of plastic with silver grains on them do. Both in terms of location (resolution) and amount (dynamic range). It's true film handles blown highlights better, but not that much better, and digital handles underexposed shadows significantly better.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
  Came here to ask the same question, thank you!
- imaginamundo 4y ago
  I don't know if it would be good enought for you. But some cameras you can try to simulate film simulations (I own an X100V, but there are many options). It is not perfect but I love the results, one source material that I like is https://fujixweekly.com https://fujixweekly.com that have recipes for simulations for fuji, but there are some other resources for Ricoh and Nikon cameras.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- azov 4y ago
  You may be interested in checking this out: https://www.dehancer.com/ https://www.dehancer.com/. I believe they have Adobe + Da Vinci plugins for film & video (and maybe a standalone app as well. At least they used to when I played with the beta, but it may be plugin-only now, I’m not sure). As far as I remember, they try to do some physically accurate emulation as well. The founder is a big fan of film photography and also runs some interesting gigs (like, repackaging cinema film for use in still cameras) - also blogs about color and film photography.
VikingCoder 4y ago
Neat product. I know I'm asking in the worst possible place, but it'd be really cool if someone made some ShaderToy demos that do the same thing as a post-processing step.
thejarren 4y ago
What's the difference between this and Dehancer?
- wilg 4y ago
  Filmbox looks better.
  - thejarren 4y ago
    I like things that look better
ahoya 4y ago
Is there a pricing for students or people who just want to make their videos look cool for their families and friends? Unfortunately I really like the effect but can’t afford this is a hobbyist.
- jholtom 4y ago
  https://license.videovillage.co/buy/filmbox-lite-ofx/non-commercial https://license.videovillage.co/buy/filmbox-lite-ofx/non-com...
  - klabb3 4y ago
    This is pretty awesome of them. They also have a free version with fewer options but without time limit and watermarks. That’s very generous.
    - basch 4y ago
      The link you replied to is the free version with fewer options and without time limits or watermarks, aka Filmbox Lite.
  - Joeboy 4y ago
    No Linux version though.
CarVac 4y ago
How does this compare to my Filmulator, which basically runs a simulation of stand development? https://filmulator.org https://filmulator.org (I've been too busy on another project to dedicate too much time to it the past year, and dealing with Windows CI sucks the fun out of everything, so it hasn't been updated in a while…)
- expensive_news 4y ago
  I remember trying to get this installed on my Mac a while ago. Do you know if it can run on M1 now?
  - CarVac 4y ago
    Unfortunately there are no volunteers with Macs forthcoming. Even the far more established darktable project is looking for a new provider for Mac builds.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
conpervative 4y ago
Are there any demos showing a side-by-side comparison of raw footage versus post-processing by Filmbox? I'd be interested to see the difference.
- wilg 4y ago
  Last time I posted someone asked this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368352 The TL;DR is that "raw footage" is sort of meaningless with video. You could make the comparison look as good or bad as you want.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    It’s most definitely not “meaningless”. Your point is a semi fair one if you’re talking objective data; however, we have a general reference point and neutral space to refer to. If you want to continue to be obtuse, you can use the same colorspace/LUT that any generic phone camera is tuned to.
    - fooker 4y ago
      > any generic phone camera is tuned to That's not how it works lmao
      - deaddodo 4y ago
        That's exactly how it works. Take your source digital image/video, run it through a neutral DCI-P3 output LUT and you have exactly what people are asking for as a "before" video. Pretending image mastering and color correction is incomprehensible doesn't make it so.
    - wilg 4y ago
      You may download Filmbox Lite for free and compare it in any way you wish. We have an opinion on it based on our deep understanding of this subject matter.
codetrotter 4y ago
> It's been a huge rewrite to get this working on Linux and Windows from our original Mac and Metal code. Would be interested to read more about the technical details in a blog post. Did you end up porting your Metal code to something else which is then translated into Vulkan, Metal, DX12? Or do you now maintain your original Metal code alongside ports to Vulkan and DX12? Or something else? If you were to start another project today, would you go the same route of Metal first and then whatever else you did? Or would you go directly to the way that you are currently doing it?
- wilg 4y ago
  Resolve only supports Metal, OpenCL, and CUDA extensions. Filmbox currently uses Metal and CUDA and we are probably going to support OpenCL to support AMD cards.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - codetrotter 4y ago
    Makes sense, thank you :)
- wilg 4y ago
  > If you were to start another project today, would you go the same route of Metal first and then whatever else you did? Or would you go directly to the way that you are currently doing it? Forgot to respond to this. We didn’t come up with a write-once GPU programming solution. So yeah, it’s just write it and maintain it two or three times sadly. We would probably take the same approach if we were to do another plug-in for simplicity. We went Metal first because we only made Mac software at the time.
  - codetrotter 4y ago
    Thank you for coming back to respond to this as well :)
ladberg 4y ago
Out of curiosity, is it normal for the Mac-only (until now) software in the film industry to get any traction like this one has?
- gnopgnip 4y ago
  Arguably the most popular software in the industry is Mac only, Final Cut Pro
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    Which part of the industry are you talking about? Final Cut Pro is most definitely not the most used by television and film studios. The Avid/Nuke/Maya stack is far more popular, in that realm. Followed up by Adobe’s stack on the lower end.
    - packetslave 4y ago
      yup. the Nuke -> Avid -> Resolve pipeline probably covers at least 80+% of post-production in film and TV. on the VFX side, Maya -> Mari -> Clarisse is still overwhelmingly common unless it's a studio that has their own custom tools. Throw Houdini in there for good measure (starting to replace Clarisse more and more for lighting and scene assembly).
keepquestioning 4y ago
[dead]
jansan 4y ago
The skeuomorphic user interface below "A tool for purists and mad scientists alike" is really nice, but I doubt that is really how the app looks like.
dusted 4y ago
A part of me think this is great, I love how film look.. Another part of me hates the idea, that something merely _looks_ like a thing, rather than _being_ the thing.. Can't explain why.. Especially since I can't watch film anywhere anyway, not even in cinema anymore..
- kmoser 4y ago
  Not sure why you're picking on this particular simulation of film when everything you view on a screen (computer, TV, movie) merely _looks_ like a thing, and is not, in fact, _being_ the actual thing?
  - dusted 4y ago
    I think you're confusing the subject and medium. Media are things too. Consider a glass of wine. That could be described as a physical thing. Now, consider some pictures of that glass of wine. The pictures of the glass of wine is not the glass of wine, there, we agree. But the pictures of the glass of wine is not nothing either, they are their own things. Let's consider a fully-analog picture, it could be described by the following properties: Lens particularities, camera particularities, film particularities, development particularities, photo-paper particularties, storage particularities. Together, these make up a the analog picture. It is a thing, and those particularities are part of the identity of that thing, in addition to the subject (a glass of wine) and the other particularities surrounding the actual scene that was portrayed. Now, change one parameter, and it's a different thing! You can change something about the scene (a different table for the glass of wine to stand on) and it becomes a different picture, obviously. You can change lens particularities, it becomes a different thing. Anything you change here, it becomes A DIFFERENT THING. If we scan the picture, it becomes a different thing, added to it's identity is the particularities of the scanning process.. For sanitys sake let's assume we store it losslessly, exactly the bits we get from the scanner. If we have such a scanned picture, it's _NOT_ the same picture as the one we had on the paper, it's a different thing. If we took the picture with a digital camera, changing nothing else, we still end up with a different thing, it's a picture of a glass of wine, and part of it's identity is the particularities of the lens, and the sensor and if it's a good camera it's stored in raw and nothing more is changing the information, and so that's what makes up that pictures identity. Consider the fully analog and fully digital pictures, how may they be experienced? The analog picture could be framed and hung on a wall and viewed by the human eye, this is the only way that particular picture can be seen, if you scan it, you can see a scan of the picture, but not the picture itself. What is the true representation of the picture ? Probably there is not one, it depends on the light reflecting off of it. The digital one can only be shown on a screen, it's identity will change if we print it, or develop it on photographic paper.. But the screen also is no true representation, it depends on the particulars of the screen. It's the same for projection of pictures.. There is a physicality involved when a piece is captured on physical film, it's part of it's identity, along with development particularities and the particularities of the receiving medium, physical or digital. So it's simply NOT THE SAME THING.. I'm not saying it's worse or better, only that it's different, and that I know it's different, and my knowing it's different makes.. a difference. So as I said, I love the look, but _part_ of why I love it because I know it's there for a very real and physical reason it looks like it looks.. And if that's faked, then at least that part of the love for that aesthetic is gone for me. A physical lens distortion is significant for me not only as a purely visual aesthetic, but because my brain recognizes that this is an artifact of light going through glass. A digitally applied lens distortion may look the same all day long, but it's not real to my mind in the same sense, it's simply something added later. Now, don't get me wrong, the simulation is _AWESOME_ and I'm happy it exists, and I'm going to play around with it.. But I do reserve the right to both like love and hate it at the same time.
jcynix 4y ago
Film simulations are cool. While I always take RAW images, I often use the builtin film simulation bracketing of my Fuji X-Systems to generate three JPEGs at the same time. This often gives me nice JPEGs which I can immediately pass on to family and friends, who view them on the smartphones or tablets and are happy without me doing time consuming RAW processing. Interestingly you can generate those simulations later in camera too while reviewing your images. And Darktable has some Fuji film simulation recipes builtin too for a start. Last but not least some sites, for example https://fujixweekly.com/ https://fujixweekly.com/, publish and review various film simulation recipes.
- caseyohara 4y ago
  Fuji's film sims are lovely and make for great images right out of the camera. I have an X-T4 and X100V and the simulations are one of my favorite parts of the X system. I also bracket the film sims, but I often have trouble choosing my favorite between the three.
  - jcynix 4y ago
    > I often have trouble choosing my favorite between the three. Same problem of choice here too, and that's where the somehat tedious manual post-processing in-camera comes to the rescue, if needed.
  - spindle 4y ago
    I love the film sims when I'm feeling arty, but most of them are so far away from realistic colours that I've ended up almost always using the plain one (Provia) unless I'm photographing someone who's monochrome. (A lot of my best friends happen to be monochrome, and then I can use film sims to change the colours of the background.)
    - smogcutter 4y ago
      FYI, the provia colors are so rich because it’s simulating low speed, color-rich positive slide film. If you ever have the opportunity to shoot and project actual provia slides, go for it-they’re gorgeous. Velvia is a slower, even more saturated slide film. Its sim colors probably read as more “unreal” to you. Fuji negative reads colder and more desaturated (to my eye), which is also probably why it may appear more manipulated and “unrealistic” in a digital context.
pinum 4y ago
Those results look excellent. I'm trying to gauge whether something like this could potentially work in realtime, i.e. in games. I know it inevitably depends on hardware, resolution, settings, etc but do you have a ballpark figure for how long it takes to apply this to a frame? (And does it have a temporal aspect which requires access to frame N+k to render frame N?)
- wilg 4y ago
  It’s real-time and not temporal.
ipsum2 4y ago
Can you discuss the technical details of how this was implemented? From a high level perspective, I can imagine it involves creating a 3d LUT from a color chart.
subhro 4y ago
Not sure how many people shoot film here, but I could have one look at the lite version processing and say this is just an emulation, especially in the shadows. The grain is predictable unlike "real" film. Funny that people will spend so much time, money and effort in making digital photos look like film, but refuse to shoot film. Just sad. :(
- jrm4 4y ago
  What you're saying is probably true, and also almost certainly will be false in the long run. Given art AI, etc, it's not hard to predict that this will get to the point where it would be indistinguishable.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  All this effort is likely still cheaper than shooting real film.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    That is not a given, at all. Sets push more and more shit downstream to editing, it's not even funny. Because they can. This will cost, a lot.
    - ancientworldnow 4y ago
      I'm a colorist. It's dramatically cheaper to emulate than to capture on film. Not even close except for massive productions (tens of millions) where camera dept is a small line item.
      - actionfromafar 4y ago
        As you say, when you get into tens of millions, film vs digital is less important cost wise. I'd argue somewhere between no-budget and massive, there is a sweet spot to be had. Everything else being equal, shooting on film is of course more expensive... however film can be a forcing function, especially if you are on budget. (But not low enough you can't handle the fixed costs of film.) It's all in the planning: - you can't get "free" re-takes. That keeps everyone focused, including actors. - you must have more light, so you are more likely to plan out your light, instead of shooting in different conditions and try to correct later - film lends itself to a certain look. Shooting digital, you have so many options in postprocessing, you can lift stuff out of the shadows etc. Too much freedom can be a bad thing, film forces some coherence. - the fact that you can't see the filmed results the same day means you get really disciplined and focused making sure everything works beforehand. When you have many people involved, this is key. (If you trust your process and use a video tap to see if scenes were nailed, you can even skip dailies to cut cost.) - less raw video data to handle, post process, grade and cutting. The less film shot, the faster everything post shooting takes. There are many films which could have been cut into several completely different movies because there was so much material shot, and the "risk" of this being possible increases with the lure of cheap digital capture. So to be clear, I think film can in some conditions be cheaper than digital, for social reasons. If someone has the skill to push back and keep such a tight ship on digital set, of course they will be cheaper and faster. I base this on listening to producers saying they went for film for nostalgic or aestethic reasons, but were surprised to same or less total spend as their digital projects. I may be full of it, feel free to shoot this all down, you are obviously in the industry and I'm just jealously peeking from the outside. So I'm not saying film is inherently cheaper
thot_experiment 4y ago
Cool software though not something I would pay for. If you're interested in getting most of this effect for free I highly recommend using the venerable Hald CLUT library found here: https://github.com/cedeber/hald-clut https://github.com/cedeber/hald-clut These are lookup tables made using film scans and do a damn good job of emulating the film "feel" especially when used with HDR input without burnt highlights or crushed blacks. I personally recommend RawTherapee for photo editing, which includes native support for these. To further emulate the effect you can use a film grain overlay (hundreds available one google away) and a color-weighted bloom filter. ffmpeg and OBS also natively support this LUT format, I'm sure there are ways to use them in the FOSS video editing suites as well, but I basically do everything in ffmpeg commandline nowadays so I don't have firsthand experience.
- xwolfi 4y ago
  [flagged]
- wilg 4y ago
  Our value proposition is doing this all correctly for you. The LUT is not the biggest thing here, as we attempt to describe on our marketing page.
  - thot_experiment 4y ago
    Yes, I get that. I don't think I can describe how to replicate your process in an HN comment (I probably couldn't replicate it even if I wanted to, though I am no stranger to DSP, film simulation and characterization, and I believe I am most of the way there). I care about this field and find myself working on the same problems, it's frustrating to know that I'm replicating work that's already been done (and done well!) because our economic system necessitates the use of artificial scarcity to extract value from information. The things I mentioned will get people close, or at the very least set them on the right track. Perhaps some of them will be inspired push the envelope and contribute their research back to the commons instead of guarding it in order to collect rent.
    - 4y ago
amarshall 4y ago
> Linux support available for Studio license holders. Apparently using a free OS implies one is doing a “high-budget production” and thus demands 5x cost. Of course the “lite” version does not support Linux at all.
- wilg 4y ago
  This is a limitation of our engineering bandwidth. Our Linux product is currently focused on big budget post facilities which often use Linux. There is no need to frame it as a slight, thanks.
  - phren0logy 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - moritonal 4y ago
      Just to counter this, I read the conversation and saw nothing dickish. It's easy to see why they might want to treat Linux differently, given the different audience it entails.
    - wilg 4y ago
      Thank you for your feedback.
    - WantonQuantum 4y ago
      This is an astonishing and totally unjustified ad-hominen attack. Please read the "In Comments" section of the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - phren0logy 4y ago
        The reply was changed after my comment. I stand by my response to the original statement.
sublinear 4y ago
"Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them." - Brian Eno
- snicky 4y ago
  Are you saying loading spinners will be the signature of our time?
  - alpark3 4y ago
    I'm sure loading spinners will be used to some aesthetic purpose in the future
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Waiting for the day in AR when you get loading spinners above people's head as they are trying to remember who you are and why they know you before giving up and just saying "Hey man! Good to see you again!"
  - mywacaday 4y ago
    It might be a function of my age but I find the lottery app in Europes ability to scan the barcode so fast from the camera on my phone that I don't trust it. It's almost as if I don't trust things that happen too fast with my 20+ years experience with IT
    - ketzo 4y ago
calini 4y ago
Something like this, but for VHS (aka something better than a simple filter), would be amazing
ChicagoBoy11 4y ago
Have you all been hugged to death by any chance? No luck with email for the lite version. Seriously impressive results, can't wait to give it a go!
satvikpendem 4y ago
This is cool, technologically speaking, but not sure I'd ever want movies to use it. I particularly don't want film grain, motion blur, low 24 FPS framerate, depth of field, chromatic aberration, etc in the movies and shows I watch.
- wilg 4y ago
  I agree actually! It’s not the only valid look for a movie and people should explore others! Some people want to make movies look like film though for various reasons, which is fun and so we made a product for it.
  - flkiwi 4y ago
    It's such an interesting dilemma. I've been photographing things since I was 8 (which, for the record, was the early 80s). I know what certain Fuji and Kodak and, more recently, Ilford films look like, how to shoot with them, and what looks good to my experienced eye. I have spent a great deal of time trying to find an excellent film simulation workflow in linux because my "headcanon" of a photo is very clear. But I don't try too hard, because there's a hell of a lot of merit in either (a) just whacking some sliders around until I hit an unexpectedly great look for the shot or (b) just letting the camera give me a JPEG that is better than just about anything I'll end up with and spending my time shooting. I still use emulation, and probably always will (and someday I'll find a good emulation of the VSCO A-series iphone filters) because of that easy headcanon situation, but the fear of getting stale is real.
- prvc 4y ago
  "Depth of field" is neither a defect, nor anything to do with the sensor/ film, yet I have seen this misconception repeated all over the place for years! (why?)
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Because it shows up in video games where it's an artificial effect and many including me people turn it off.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
moolcool 4y ago
Please please please please make something for CaptureOne
theschwa 4y ago
As an artist and shader geek, I just want to say that this looks awesome. I'd love to see that blog post on Swift + Electron.
supernova87a 4y ago
On the front page of the site, something that could add to the compelling side-by-side comparison between Filmbox and real film is to show a 3rd image/synced clip, the digital image starting point, without any manipulation. (and hence the value add of Filmbox -- because as it is now of course it looks like the footage is identical, which is your point. But showing 2 basically identical clips doesn't add much). Maybe show the buildup of layers? That would be really interesting.
- nartz 4y ago
  This. As a non film person, I basically have no clue what this does.
  - SomeBoolshit 4y ago
    It's a Snapchat filter for videos.
    - dmonitor 4y ago
      it’s crazy that something that can be demonstrated with a single comparison photo or short clip is for some reason being met with resistance.
      - hnlmorg 4y ago
        There is a short comparison clip on that landing page. Granted not at the top but it’s definitely there. The complaints I’ve seen have been more around whether that site should explain what DaVinci is.
      - SomeBoolshit 4y ago
        I'm not resisting, I think.
        actionfromafar 4y ago
        Stop resisting!
SeanAnderson 4y ago
https://i.imgur.com/fTySVgd.png https://i.imgur.com/fTySVgd.png Is it just me or are the expressions shown in these comparisons not identical? The top one looks like a smirk to me. The bottom looks more somber? Maybe the comparison videos are not synchronized perfectly? Or is it something more technically concerning?
- pshc 4y ago
  I presume the stills are taken with two different cameras, film and digital.
- stdgy 4y ago
  They look different because they ARE different. One was shot on film and the other was shot digital and then they used Filmbox to apply the film effect. It's two different pieces of source material, which means they had to act/film the scene twice.
  - SeanAnderson 4y ago
    Ah, oops. Thanks.
  - ireflect 4y ago
    I did the same "wait these are different source materials" double-take. I think it's deliberate that they are different enough to notice. It reinforces the point of the comparison, because it would be impossible to do the comparison correctly using the same source material. It makes you consider what you're looking at.
- xwdv 4y ago
  Marketing trick. Make the film version more somber so filmbox is perceived as the better, happier choice.
ahoya 4y ago
Thank you for making it work with Davinci resolve
rtodea 4y ago
Does anyone the source of the movie sequences from the Filmbox presentation page? Thanks!
- RamblingCTO 4y ago
  I would also be interested in this! A reverse image search didn't bring up anything.
Flatcircle 4y ago
http://www.cinegrain.com/ http://www.cinegrain.com/ These guys actually filmed every film stock and offer a similar thing. Think their stuff is used in all the big movies.
- phatbyte 4y ago
  And at a reasonable price. Thank you for sharing this.
suction 4y ago
[dead]
dang 4y ago
Related: Filmbox – Physically accurate motion picture film emulation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367371 - Dec 2020 (49 comments)
eps 4y ago
> It's been used in huge movies like "Everything Everywhere All At Once". An odd question, but I always wondered how do movie-related product developers learn about where their tool is used. Can you tell how it happened in your case? (The product looks fantastic.)
GoofballJones 4y ago
I'm an old guy...in my 60s. I grew up with film and love the look of old movies. But this is 2023. Why are we still hanging on to a "look" that peaked in the 50s and 60s? Technology moves on. I mean, I get it. People are stubborn in their ways. They don't like change. It's SUBJECTIVE that someone may not like the look of something. But it drives me batty when people want their subjective opinion somehow presented as "fact". "Based on empirical data". Okay...so?
- yladiz 4y ago
  Partly because it looks pleasant, and partly because it “became” part of cinema’s visual language (photography too). The way that light interacts with the film is something that people have positive associations with, and they want to keep and use that look. The reasons are varied but just because the technology has improved doesn’t mean that the old way didn’t function better in certain ways (and, outside of purists who really just want to use it, film still has a place in larger formats which either don’t exist in a comparable digital form or are way too cost prohibitive). One note: I think you’re reading something that the creators did not intend. When they say “based on empirical data” what they’re referring to is the way that a specific color would look at a specific intensity based on how films actually do.
- kristiandupont 4y ago
  Because it's a nice look? I like it not for nostalgic reasons but because I think it looks good. I also like guitar music even if that sound can be said to have "peaked" many years ago.
- josephg 4y ago
  It’s not about better or worse. These filters aren’t useful in every film. It’s style. Some styles will work better for some movies than others. The color palette, the lenses used, lighting, color grading, music and, yes, film grain are all things filmmakers use to subtly guide your experience watching a movie. It’s like the wallpaper in a meeting room - you can have any meeting in any room, but a second date in a corporate white meeting room will feel sterile and bad. Digital cameras with digital CG have a certain look. If your movie is set in the 80s but it has that crisp modern netflix look, it’ll feel kinda wrong. High quality filters like these prime the audience just as much as 80s costumes and 80s music.
throwaway290 4y ago
Very light on detail. Is it different than just processing raw footage with already available fully free, high quality film emulation CLUTs and adding some grain? (Also I can't believe anyone would use everything everywhere all at once as a selling point, easily one of the worst movies I had to endure lately)
vijish 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
t0bia_s 4y ago
As pro photographer and video producer, I use grain quite a lot. Subtle, almost non visible. It reduce artificial digital clean look that modern cameras gave us and also deband critical gradients. BUT... It is not usable for YouTube. Compression basically delete grain just like that. It is visible on vimeo. So it's good to think about it before buying and using any kind of extra grain.
egorfine 4y ago
As a photographer I am very much interested. I have enrolled in the license, then got a link to download a separate software, which then requires my password to install something into launchd. And it's not yet the Filmbox itself. So, at this point I had to abandon the installation which sucks because I really wanted to try it.
1397063 4y ago
Sujauddin Roy
nicexe 4y ago
I'm getting "Main.Sudo.Error error 1." when I try to install Filmbox Lite on Windows. I didn't try using it on my Mac yet.

658 points by wilg 4y ago

dbspin 4y ago

Wonder how you differentiate yourselves from others in the space like Dehancer (which I find excellent, and is half the price), or older players like FilmConvert?

photoGrant 4y ago

Always loved your software, glad to see you here. Polished and on point for 99% of my DIT use cases. Lattice being particularly close to heart. Thanks!

carlosdp 4y ago

This is awesome!

Etheryte 4y ago

As a photographer, emulation like this is of great interest to me. Like in cinematography, film is often held in high regard in photography with the caveat that it isn't even remotely as flexible as digital options. Have you considered creating a parallel product as an Adobe Lightroom plugin and/or a standalone app for still images?

buildbot 4y ago
I second this, many photographers would be very interested, myself included.
- photoGrant 4y ago
  Put a DNG into Resolve, enjoy a node based workflow, use this plugin, and export the frame at the same res :)
  - buildbot 4y ago
    Oh cool, for some reason I did not expect resolve to support DNGs!
    - dylan604 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - buildbot 4y ago
        You do sound a bit rude. It’s certainly not a given. I know probably more than most here about DNGs and other image processing. Check my profile/websites. I have a camera that shoots cinemaDNG, but I would not necessarily expect resolve to support a single dng frame. Plenty of dumb things out there, and no need to be snarky when someone learns something.
    - photoGrant 4y ago
      Indeed! A lot of the software is divided at most by 'industry verbiage' than it is genuine interop... Love your website/blog... Phase deserve pinning every now and then ;)
      - buildbot 4y ago
        Thank you! Phase gear is much more affordable these days with the x1d/x2d and GFX series eating their lunch a bit :) Plus you still get Capture One for free still with them...
        photoGrant 4y ago
        It's the fact they're all dog slow that levels the playing field, at least for me! I have a 907X and it's a love hate relationship... Down to the log files being encrypted.
thejarren 4y ago
My understanding is that you can edit images inside of Davinci Resolve just like video, though I haven't attempted it myself.
wilg 4y ago
> Have you considered creating a parallel product as an Adobe Lightroom plugin and/or a standalone app for still images? Yes.
- rayshan 4y ago
  +1 on this as well, been looking for something since VSCO Film sunsetted. Also open to any recommendations from other film simulation for photography too!
  - komali2 4y ago
    If you're down to try new systems you can pick up a Fujifilm xe2 for about 250$, plus a good prime for another 250$, then shoot jpeg + raw and play with Fuji's built in film sims and in camera raw conversion settings to get remarkably film like photos. It's a whole thing in the Fuji world, see http://fujixweekly.com/ http://fujixweekly.com/ I'm not sure if the xe2 is compatible but you can also edit "on-computer" by having the camera plugged in and using its on camera raw conversion but with the UI on your computer: https://fujifilm-x.com/global/support/download/software/x-raw-studio/ https://fujifilm-x.com/global/support/download/software/x-ra... For system agnostic, there's also tons of plugins, profiles, dstyles, LUTs and whatever else you'd like https://github.com/jade-nl/dt.styles https://github.com/jade-nl/dt.styles https://marcrphoto.wordpress.com/ https://marcrphoto.wordpress.com/ https://onecameraonelens.com/2021/01/12/why-darktable-is-perfect-for-fujifilm-users/ https://onecameraonelens.com/2021/01/12/why-darktable-is-per... I basically don't edit photos anymore now that I'm with Fuji. It's not like I'm artistically opposed, the extra step was basically ruining photography for me, I simply don't have the time. I still shoot jpeg + raw though because I may be lazy but I'm not insane :p
    - rayshan 4y ago
      I do shoot with Fuji X-T30 sometimes, how did you know?! But mostly shooting with iPhone nowadays since it's always with me. Your links are awesome, I'll try them out!
    - sooheon 4y ago
chrstphrknwtn 4y ago
> [film] isn't even remotely as flexible as digital options I've pretty much only ever shot film, so my opinion isn't worth much, but colour negative seems to be way more flexible than digital if all you're talking about is the capture. In terms of using film in modern workflows, digital is easier.
- coolandsmartrr 4y ago
  By flexible, do you mean the dynamic range?
  - chrstphrknwtn 4y ago
    Yes, negative film is very tolerant of overexposure in a predictable way. But I never shoot low-light scenes, and as far as I'm aware the inverse is true in circumstances where you're trying to extract as much as possible from limited light, ie. digital is more flexible when underexposure is a concern.
- perardi 4y ago
  Hm? More flexible? Besides dynamic range, that’s a real stretch to say color negative film is more flexible. That sort of film arguably does a better job of preserving highlights, but I don’t see a plausible argument for any other aspect being better. Just getting the white balance right alone…
  - chrstphrknwtn 4y ago
    > Besides dynamic range, that’s a real stretch to say color negative film is more flexible. Yes, I suppose you're likely right. And like I said my opinion probably isn't worth much. At the end of the day they're just different, and have a lot or nothing to do with each other depending on how you frame things.
  - kqr 4y ago
    Film does not have more dynamic range than good digital sensors. In the end, it's about faithfully recording which parts of the site got hit by photons. Digital sensors do that more accurately than any practically-sized strips of plastic with silver grains on them do. Both in terms of location (resolution) and amount (dynamic range). It's true film handles blown highlights better, but not that much better, and digital handles underexposed shadows significantly better.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
Came here to ask the same question, thank you!
imaginamundo 4y ago
I don't know if it would be good enought for you. But some cameras you can try to simulate film simulations (I own an X100V, but there are many options). It is not perfect but I love the results, one source material that I like is https://fujixweekly.com https://fujixweekly.com that have recipes for simulations for fuji, but there are some other resources for Ricoh and Nikon cameras.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
azov 4y ago
You may be interested in checking this out: https://www.dehancer.com/ https://www.dehancer.com/. I believe they have Adobe + Da Vinci plugins for film & video (and maybe a standalone app as well. At least they used to when I played with the beta, but it may be plugin-only now, I’m not sure). As far as I remember, they try to do some physically accurate emulation as well. The founder is a big fan of film photography and also runs some interesting gigs (like, repackaging cinema film for use in still cameras) - also blogs about color and film photography.

VikingCoder 4y ago

Neat product. I know I'm asking in the worst possible place, but it'd be really cool if someone made some ShaderToy demos that do the same thing as a post-processing step.

thejarren 4y ago

What's the difference between this and Dehancer?

wilg 4y ago
Filmbox looks better.
- thejarren 4y ago
  I like things that look better

ahoya 4y ago

Is there a pricing for students or people who just want to make their videos look cool for their families and friends? Unfortunately I really like the effect but can’t afford this is a hobbyist.

jholtom 4y ago
https://license.videovillage.co/buy/filmbox-lite-ofx/non-commercial https://license.videovillage.co/buy/filmbox-lite-ofx/non-com...
- klabb3 4y ago
  This is pretty awesome of them. They also have a free version with fewer options but without time limit and watermarks. That’s very generous.
  - basch 4y ago
    The link you replied to is the free version with fewer options and without time limits or watermarks, aka Filmbox Lite.
- Joeboy 4y ago
  No Linux version though.

CarVac 4y ago

How does this compare to my Filmulator, which basically runs a simulation of stand development? https://filmulator.org https://filmulator.org (I've been too busy on another project to dedicate too much time to it the past year, and dealing with Windows CI sucks the fun out of everything, so it hasn't been updated in a while…)

expensive_news 4y ago
I remember trying to get this installed on my Mac a while ago. Do you know if it can run on M1 now?
- CarVac 4y ago
  Unfortunately there are no volunteers with Macs forthcoming. Even the far more established darktable project is looking for a new provider for Mac builds.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

conpervative 4y ago

Are there any demos showing a side-by-side comparison of raw footage versus post-processing by Filmbox? I'd be interested to see the difference.

wilg 4y ago
Last time I posted someone asked this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368352 The TL;DR is that "raw footage" is sort of meaningless with video. You could make the comparison look as good or bad as you want.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  It’s most definitely not “meaningless”. Your point is a semi fair one if you’re talking objective data; however, we have a general reference point and neutral space to refer to. If you want to continue to be obtuse, you can use the same colorspace/LUT that any generic phone camera is tuned to.
  - fooker 4y ago
    > any generic phone camera is tuned to That's not how it works lmao
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      That's exactly how it works. Take your source digital image/video, run it through a neutral DCI-P3 output LUT and you have exactly what people are asking for as a "before" video. Pretending image mastering and color correction is incomprehensible doesn't make it so.
  - wilg 4y ago
    You may download Filmbox Lite for free and compare it in any way you wish. We have an opinion on it based on our deep understanding of this subject matter.

codetrotter 4y ago

> It's been a huge rewrite to get this working on Linux and Windows from our original Mac and Metal code. Would be interested to read more about the technical details in a blog post. Did you end up porting your Metal code to something else which is then translated into Vulkan, Metal, DX12? Or do you now maintain your original Metal code alongside ports to Vulkan and DX12? Or something else? If you were to start another project today, would you go the same route of Metal first and then whatever else you did? Or would you go directly to the way that you are currently doing it?

wilg 4y ago
Resolve only supports Metal, OpenCL, and CUDA extensions. Filmbox currently uses Metal and CUDA and we are probably going to support OpenCL to support AMD cards.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- codetrotter 4y ago
  Makes sense, thank you :)
wilg 4y ago
> If you were to start another project today, would you go the same route of Metal first and then whatever else you did? Or would you go directly to the way that you are currently doing it? Forgot to respond to this. We didn’t come up with a write-once GPU programming solution. So yeah, it’s just write it and maintain it two or three times sadly. We would probably take the same approach if we were to do another plug-in for simplicity. We went Metal first because we only made Mac software at the time.
- codetrotter 4y ago
  Thank you for coming back to respond to this as well :)

ladberg 4y ago

Out of curiosity, is it normal for the Mac-only (until now) software in the film industry to get any traction like this one has?

gnopgnip 4y ago
Arguably the most popular software in the industry is Mac only, Final Cut Pro
- deaddodo 4y ago
  Which part of the industry are you talking about? Final Cut Pro is most definitely not the most used by television and film studios. The Avid/Nuke/Maya stack is far more popular, in that realm. Followed up by Adobe’s stack on the lower end.
  - packetslave 4y ago
    yup. the Nuke -> Avid -> Resolve pipeline probably covers at least 80+% of post-production in film and TV. on the VFX side, Maya -> Mari -> Clarisse is still overwhelmingly common unless it's a studio that has their own custom tools. Throw Houdini in there for good measure (starting to replace Clarisse more and more for lighting and scene assembly).

keepquestioning 4y ago

[dead]

jansan 4y ago

The skeuomorphic user interface below "A tool for purists and mad scientists alike" is really nice, but I doubt that is really how the app looks like.

dusted 4y ago

A part of me think this is great, I love how film look.. Another part of me hates the idea, that something merely _looks_ like a thing, rather than _being_ the thing.. Can't explain why.. Especially since I can't watch film anywhere anyway, not even in cinema anymore..

kmoser 4y ago
Not sure why you're picking on this particular simulation of film when everything you view on a screen (computer, TV, movie) merely _looks_ like a thing, and is not, in fact, _being_ the actual thing?
- dusted 4y ago
  I think you're confusing the subject and medium. Media are things too. Consider a glass of wine. That could be described as a physical thing. Now, consider some pictures of that glass of wine. The pictures of the glass of wine is not the glass of wine, there, we agree. But the pictures of the glass of wine is not nothing either, they are their own things. Let's consider a fully-analog picture, it could be described by the following properties: Lens particularities, camera particularities, film particularities, development particularities, photo-paper particularties, storage particularities. Together, these make up a the analog picture. It is a thing, and those particularities are part of the identity of that thing, in addition to the subject (a glass of wine) and the other particularities surrounding the actual scene that was portrayed. Now, change one parameter, and it's a different thing! You can change something about the scene (a different table for the glass of wine to stand on) and it becomes a different picture, obviously. You can change lens particularities, it becomes a different thing. Anything you change here, it becomes A DIFFERENT THING. If we scan the picture, it becomes a different thing, added to it's identity is the particularities of the scanning process.. For sanitys sake let's assume we store it losslessly, exactly the bits we get from the scanner. If we have such a scanned picture, it's _NOT_ the same picture as the one we had on the paper, it's a different thing. If we took the picture with a digital camera, changing nothing else, we still end up with a different thing, it's a picture of a glass of wine, and part of it's identity is the particularities of the lens, and the sensor and if it's a good camera it's stored in raw and nothing more is changing the information, and so that's what makes up that pictures identity. Consider the fully analog and fully digital pictures, how may they be experienced? The analog picture could be framed and hung on a wall and viewed by the human eye, this is the only way that particular picture can be seen, if you scan it, you can see a scan of the picture, but not the picture itself. What is the true representation of the picture ? Probably there is not one, it depends on the light reflecting off of it. The digital one can only be shown on a screen, it's identity will change if we print it, or develop it on photographic paper.. But the screen also is no true representation, it depends on the particulars of the screen. It's the same for projection of pictures.. There is a physicality involved when a piece is captured on physical film, it's part of it's identity, along with development particularities and the particularities of the receiving medium, physical or digital. So it's simply NOT THE SAME THING.. I'm not saying it's worse or better, only that it's different, and that I know it's different, and my knowing it's different makes.. a difference. So as I said, I love the look, but _part_ of why I love it because I know it's there for a very real and physical reason it looks like it looks.. And if that's faked, then at least that part of the love for that aesthetic is gone for me. A physical lens distortion is significant for me not only as a purely visual aesthetic, but because my brain recognizes that this is an artifact of light going through glass. A digitally applied lens distortion may look the same all day long, but it's not real to my mind in the same sense, it's simply something added later. Now, don't get me wrong, the simulation is _AWESOME_ and I'm happy it exists, and I'm going to play around with it.. But I do reserve the right to both like love and hate it at the same time.

jcynix 4y ago

Film simulations are cool. While I always take RAW images, I often use the builtin film simulation bracketing of my Fuji X-Systems to generate three JPEGs at the same time. This often gives me nice JPEGs which I can immediately pass on to family and friends, who view them on the smartphones or tablets and are happy without me doing time consuming RAW processing. Interestingly you can generate those simulations later in camera too while reviewing your images. And Darktable has some Fuji film simulation recipes builtin too for a start. Last but not least some sites, for example https://fujixweekly.com/ https://fujixweekly.com/, publish and review various film simulation recipes.

caseyohara 4y ago
Fuji's film sims are lovely and make for great images right out of the camera. I have an X-T4 and X100V and the simulations are one of my favorite parts of the X system. I also bracket the film sims, but I often have trouble choosing my favorite between the three.
- jcynix 4y ago
  > I often have trouble choosing my favorite between the three. Same problem of choice here too, and that's where the somehat tedious manual post-processing in-camera comes to the rescue, if needed.
- spindle 4y ago
  I love the film sims when I'm feeling arty, but most of them are so far away from realistic colours that I've ended up almost always using the plain one (Provia) unless I'm photographing someone who's monochrome. (A lot of my best friends happen to be monochrome, and then I can use film sims to change the colours of the background.)
  - smogcutter 4y ago
    FYI, the provia colors are so rich because it’s simulating low speed, color-rich positive slide film. If you ever have the opportunity to shoot and project actual provia slides, go for it-they’re gorgeous. Velvia is a slower, even more saturated slide film. Its sim colors probably read as more “unreal” to you. Fuji negative reads colder and more desaturated (to my eye), which is also probably why it may appear more manipulated and “unrealistic” in a digital context.

pinum 4y ago

Those results look excellent. I'm trying to gauge whether something like this could potentially work in realtime, i.e. in games. I know it inevitably depends on hardware, resolution, settings, etc but do you have a ballpark figure for how long it takes to apply this to a frame? (And does it have a temporal aspect which requires access to frame N+k to render frame N?)

wilg 4y ago
It’s real-time and not temporal.

ipsum2 4y ago

Can you discuss the technical details of how this was implemented? From a high level perspective, I can imagine it involves creating a 3d LUT from a color chart.

subhro 4y ago

Not sure how many people shoot film here, but I could have one look at the lite version processing and say this is just an emulation, especially in the shadows. The grain is predictable unlike "real" film. Funny that people will spend so much time, money and effort in making digital photos look like film, but refuse to shoot film. Just sad. :(

jrm4 4y ago
What you're saying is probably true, and also almost certainly will be false in the long run. Given art AI, etc, it's not hard to predict that this will get to the point where it would be indistinguishable.
moffkalast 4y ago
All this effort is likely still cheaper than shooting real film.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  That is not a given, at all. Sets push more and more shit downstream to editing, it's not even funny. Because they can. This will cost, a lot.
  - ancientworldnow 4y ago
    I'm a colorist. It's dramatically cheaper to emulate than to capture on film. Not even close except for massive productions (tens of millions) where camera dept is a small line item.
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      As you say, when you get into tens of millions, film vs digital is less important cost wise. I'd argue somewhere between no-budget and massive, there is a sweet spot to be had. Everything else being equal, shooting on film is of course more expensive... however film can be a forcing function, especially if you are on budget. (But not low enough you can't handle the fixed costs of film.) It's all in the planning: - you can't get "free" re-takes. That keeps everyone focused, including actors. - you must have more light, so you are more likely to plan out your light, instead of shooting in different conditions and try to correct later - film lends itself to a certain look. Shooting digital, you have so many options in postprocessing, you can lift stuff out of the shadows etc. Too much freedom can be a bad thing, film forces some coherence. - the fact that you can't see the filmed results the same day means you get really disciplined and focused making sure everything works beforehand. When you have many people involved, this is key. (If you trust your process and use a video tap to see if scenes were nailed, you can even skip dailies to cut cost.) - less raw video data to handle, post process, grade and cutting. The less film shot, the faster everything post shooting takes. There are many films which could have been cut into several completely different movies because there was so much material shot, and the "risk" of this being possible increases with the lure of cheap digital capture. So to be clear, I think film can in some conditions be cheaper than digital, for social reasons. If someone has the skill to push back and keep such a tight ship on digital set, of course they will be cheaper and faster. I base this on listening to producers saying they went for film for nostalgic or aestethic reasons, but were surprised to same or less total spend as their digital projects. I may be full of it, feel free to shoot this all down, you are obviously in the industry and I'm just jealously peeking from the outside. So I'm not saying film is inherently cheaper

thot_experiment 4y ago

Cool software though not something I would pay for. If you're interested in getting most of this effect for free I highly recommend using the venerable Hald CLUT library found here: https://github.com/cedeber/hald-clut https://github.com/cedeber/hald-clut These are lookup tables made using film scans and do a damn good job of emulating the film "feel" especially when used with HDR input without burnt highlights or crushed blacks. I personally recommend RawTherapee for photo editing, which includes native support for these. To further emulate the effect you can use a film grain overlay (hundreds available one google away) and a color-weighted bloom filter. ffmpeg and OBS also natively support this LUT format, I'm sure there are ways to use them in the FOSS video editing suites as well, but I basically do everything in ffmpeg commandline nowadays so I don't have firsthand experience.

xwolfi 4y ago
[flagged]
wilg 4y ago
Our value proposition is doing this all correctly for you. The LUT is not the biggest thing here, as we attempt to describe on our marketing page.
- thot_experiment 4y ago
  Yes, I get that. I don't think I can describe how to replicate your process in an HN comment (I probably couldn't replicate it even if I wanted to, though I am no stranger to DSP, film simulation and characterization, and I believe I am most of the way there). I care about this field and find myself working on the same problems, it's frustrating to know that I'm replicating work that's already been done (and done well!) because our economic system necessitates the use of artificial scarcity to extract value from information. The things I mentioned will get people close, or at the very least set them on the right track. Perhaps some of them will be inspired push the envelope and contribute their research back to the commons instead of guarding it in order to collect rent.
  - 4y ago

amarshall 4y ago

> Linux support available for Studio license holders. Apparently using a free OS implies one is doing a “high-budget production” and thus demands 5x cost. Of course the “lite” version does not support Linux at all.

wilg 4y ago
This is a limitation of our engineering bandwidth. Our Linux product is currently focused on big budget post facilities which often use Linux. There is no need to frame it as a slight, thanks.
- phren0logy 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - moritonal 4y ago
    Just to counter this, I read the conversation and saw nothing dickish. It's easy to see why they might want to treat Linux differently, given the different audience it entails.
  - wilg 4y ago
    Thank you for your feedback.
  - WantonQuantum 4y ago
    This is an astonishing and totally unjustified ad-hominen attack. Please read the "In Comments" section of the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - phren0logy 4y ago
      The reply was changed after my comment. I stand by my response to the original statement.

sublinear 4y ago

"Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them." - Brian Eno

snicky 4y ago
Are you saying loading spinners will be the signature of our time?
- alpark3 4y ago
  I'm sure loading spinners will be used to some aesthetic purpose in the future
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Waiting for the day in AR when you get loading spinners above people's head as they are trying to remember who you are and why they know you before giving up and just saying "Hey man! Good to see you again!"
- mywacaday 4y ago
  It might be a function of my age but I find the lottery app in Europes ability to scan the barcode so fast from the camera on my phone that I don't trust it. It's almost as if I don't trust things that happen too fast with my 20+ years experience with IT
  - ketzo 4y ago

calini 4y ago

Something like this, but for VHS (aka something better than a simple filter), would be amazing

ChicagoBoy11 4y ago

Have you all been hugged to death by any chance? No luck with email for the lite version. Seriously impressive results, can't wait to give it a go!

satvikpendem 4y ago

This is cool, technologically speaking, but not sure I'd ever want movies to use it. I particularly don't want film grain, motion blur, low 24 FPS framerate, depth of field, chromatic aberration, etc in the movies and shows I watch.

wilg 4y ago
I agree actually! It’s not the only valid look for a movie and people should explore others! Some people want to make movies look like film though for various reasons, which is fun and so we made a product for it.
- flkiwi 4y ago
  It's such an interesting dilemma. I've been photographing things since I was 8 (which, for the record, was the early 80s). I know what certain Fuji and Kodak and, more recently, Ilford films look like, how to shoot with them, and what looks good to my experienced eye. I have spent a great deal of time trying to find an excellent film simulation workflow in linux because my "headcanon" of a photo is very clear. But I don't try too hard, because there's a hell of a lot of merit in either (a) just whacking some sliders around until I hit an unexpectedly great look for the shot or (b) just letting the camera give me a JPEG that is better than just about anything I'll end up with and spending my time shooting. I still use emulation, and probably always will (and someday I'll find a good emulation of the VSCO A-series iphone filters) because of that easy headcanon situation, but the fear of getting stale is real.
prvc 4y ago
"Depth of field" is neither a defect, nor anything to do with the sensor/ film, yet I have seen this misconception repeated all over the place for years! (why?)
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Because it shows up in video games where it's an artificial effect and many including me people turn it off.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

moolcool 4y ago

Please please please please make something for CaptureOne

theschwa 4y ago

As an artist and shader geek, I just want to say that this looks awesome. I'd love to see that blog post on Swift + Electron.

supernova87a 4y ago

On the front page of the site, something that could add to the compelling side-by-side comparison between Filmbox and real film is to show a 3rd image/synced clip, the digital image starting point, without any manipulation. (and hence the value add of Filmbox -- because as it is now of course it looks like the footage is identical, which is your point. But showing 2 basically identical clips doesn't add much). Maybe show the buildup of layers? That would be really interesting.

nartz 4y ago
This. As a non film person, I basically have no clue what this does.
- SomeBoolshit 4y ago
  It's a Snapchat filter for videos.
  - dmonitor 4y ago
    it’s crazy that something that can be demonstrated with a single comparison photo or short clip is for some reason being met with resistance.
    - hnlmorg 4y ago
      There is a short comparison clip on that landing page. Granted not at the top but it’s definitely there. The complaints I’ve seen have been more around whether that site should explain what DaVinci is.
    - SomeBoolshit 4y ago
      I'm not resisting, I think.
      - actionfromafar 4y ago
        Stop resisting!

SeanAnderson 4y ago

https://i.imgur.com/fTySVgd.png https://i.imgur.com/fTySVgd.png Is it just me or are the expressions shown in these comparisons not identical? The top one looks like a smirk to me. The bottom looks more somber? Maybe the comparison videos are not synchronized perfectly? Or is it something more technically concerning?

pshc 4y ago
I presume the stills are taken with two different cameras, film and digital.
stdgy 4y ago
They look different because they ARE different. One was shot on film and the other was shot digital and then they used Filmbox to apply the film effect. It's two different pieces of source material, which means they had to act/film the scene twice.
- SeanAnderson 4y ago
  Ah, oops. Thanks.
- ireflect 4y ago
  I did the same "wait these are different source materials" double-take. I think it's deliberate that they are different enough to notice. It reinforces the point of the comparison, because it would be impossible to do the comparison correctly using the same source material. It makes you consider what you're looking at.
xwdv 4y ago
Marketing trick. Make the film version more somber so filmbox is perceived as the better, happier choice.

ahoya 4y ago

Thank you for making it work with Davinci resolve

rtodea 4y ago

Does anyone the source of the movie sequences from the Filmbox presentation page? Thanks!

RamblingCTO 4y ago
I would also be interested in this! A reverse image search didn't bring up anything.

Flatcircle 4y ago

http://www.cinegrain.com/ http://www.cinegrain.com/ These guys actually filmed every film stock and offer a similar thing. Think their stuff is used in all the big movies.

phatbyte 4y ago
And at a reasonable price. Thank you for sharing this.

suction 4y ago

[dead]

dang 4y ago

Related: Filmbox – Physically accurate motion picture film emulation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367371 - Dec 2020 (49 comments)

eps 4y ago

> It's been used in huge movies like "Everything Everywhere All At Once". An odd question, but I always wondered how do movie-related product developers learn about where their tool is used. Can you tell how it happened in your case? (The product looks fantastic.)

GoofballJones 4y ago

I'm an old guy...in my 60s. I grew up with film and love the look of old movies. But this is 2023. Why are we still hanging on to a "look" that peaked in the 50s and 60s? Technology moves on. I mean, I get it. People are stubborn in their ways. They don't like change. It's SUBJECTIVE that someone may not like the look of something. But it drives me batty when people want their subjective opinion somehow presented as "fact". "Based on empirical data". Okay...so?

yladiz 4y ago
Partly because it looks pleasant, and partly because it “became” part of cinema’s visual language (photography too). The way that light interacts with the film is something that people have positive associations with, and they want to keep and use that look. The reasons are varied but just because the technology has improved doesn’t mean that the old way didn’t function better in certain ways (and, outside of purists who really just want to use it, film still has a place in larger formats which either don’t exist in a comparable digital form or are way too cost prohibitive). One note: I think you’re reading something that the creators did not intend. When they say “based on empirical data” what they’re referring to is the way that a specific color would look at a specific intensity based on how films actually do.
kristiandupont 4y ago
Because it's a nice look? I like it not for nostalgic reasons but because I think it looks good. I also like guitar music even if that sound can be said to have "peaked" many years ago.
josephg 4y ago
It’s not about better or worse. These filters aren’t useful in every film. It’s style. Some styles will work better for some movies than others. The color palette, the lenses used, lighting, color grading, music and, yes, film grain are all things filmmakers use to subtly guide your experience watching a movie. It’s like the wallpaper in a meeting room - you can have any meeting in any room, but a second date in a corporate white meeting room will feel sterile and bad. Digital cameras with digital CG have a certain look. If your movie is set in the 80s but it has that crisp modern netflix look, it’ll feel kinda wrong. High quality filters like these prime the audience just as much as 80s costumes and 80s music.

throwaway290 4y ago

Very light on detail. Is it different than just processing raw footage with already available fully free, high quality film emulation CLUTs and adding some grain? (Also I can't believe anyone would use everything everywhere all at once as a selling point, easily one of the worst movies I had to endure lately)

vijish 4y ago

[dead]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

t0bia_s 4y ago

As pro photographer and video producer, I use grain quite a lot. Subtle, almost non visible. It reduce artificial digital clean look that modern cameras gave us and also deband critical gradients. BUT... It is not usable for YouTube. Compression basically delete grain just like that. It is visible on vimeo. So it's good to think about it before buying and using any kind of extra grain.

egorfine 4y ago

As a photographer I am very much interested. I have enrolled in the license, then got a link to download a separate software, which then requires my password to install something into launchd. And it's not yet the Filmbox itself. So, at this point I had to abandon the installation which sucks because I really wanted to try it.

1397063 4y ago

Sujauddin Roy

nicexe 4y ago

I'm getting "Main.Sudo.Error error 1." when I try to install Filmbox Lite on Windows. I didn't try using it on my Mac yet.