Film Convert (http://www.filmconvert.com/)

Done.

Not a bad start, it's definitely got something going for it, but I feel the yellow and amber tones are not very pleasing to my eye.

Other options include the Osiris LUTs, which come in log and rec709 flavours (rec709 being the ones you'd use with DSLR footage). Also, Juan Malera has some nice Kodak print film stock emulation LUTs too, and they are free. You might want to give them a shot.

http://juanmelara.com.au/print-film-emulation-luts-for-download/

Really though, getting as close as possible to the look of film is more than just a plugin or LUT, I recommend spending a little time in Resolve working on some power looks built off of a LUT to get the best results.

Some people swear by FilmConvert, it IS good, but personally, I prefer a little more control, so I like Resolve and some LUT options to build from.

That's a good point Burnet and an interesting workflow, I haven't spent too much time evaluating any destructive nature of filmconvert, but one of the reasons I prefer to use film emulation LUTs in Resolve on a node close to the end is I can mitigate some of the image destruction from the filmstock emulation on nodes before it. Applying Filmconvert first, then grading from there doesn't really give me that option, though, as I said, I haven't evaluated FCs destructive nature, so maybe it's a moot point.

edit: I didn't realize you could use FilmConvert INSIDE Resolve, I thought it was just standalone or Adobe plugin (which has been my experience with it). Being able to use it inside Resolve changes my perspective on it for sure.

Thanks guys, I will try those osiris LUTs, also will do some more research. You see my main target is to make it all possible for amateur users who cant purchase resolve or doesnt know how to use luts or whatever stops them from using those PRO grading techniques. I try to make it all possible inside AE without external plugins - simply using ffx file. Sure I know its much different and not as versatile as filmconvert, and it's great! I am not trying to invent another bicycle I want to give people a possible way to make footage look cool without shooting it as flat as possible and without knowing how to use resolve or anyother external coloring engine.

Well, there likely isn't anything being done in the Film Convert plugin that you couldn't do in an AE pre-comp. Same goes for Magic Bullet, in fact, I know MB was all prototyped in AE as some very complex composites, including all the now more-or-less defunct operations that cleaned up DV colorspace artifacts, did the 60i to 24P conversion, etc. Once you get the process and formula down, however, deployment becomes much more practical if you can reduce all that you did to streamlined code as a plug-in.

AE isn't very efficient, after all. Quite a few steps might include an AE operator where only one of a dozen controls is modified from its default, but the whole thing had to be loaded and processed. This is how the AE version of Shian Storm's ColorGHear functions. I use it a lot but I bet his Davinci version is a lot faster and more efficient doing the same exact things.

What Film Convert also did was separate the objective from the subjective as much as they could. You can't really make something that "emulates film" when you use finished film as a reference. That's a conflation of the inherent qualities of the film stock, possibly one or more film-to-film optical processes, color timing and grading and the perceptual differences inherent in each type of exhibition.

Removing all of the playback variables, you still are likely trying to come up with a formula that is tainted by the colorist and DP. For instance, above I mentioned Kodak 500T (Vision3), a really popular stock with lingering film production. Take a look a The Place Beyond the Pines, The World's End from earlier in the year along with the recent The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and the new Coen Bros film Inside Llewyn Davis. They all used the 500T stock. Hell, just compare any of the others to the Coen Bros film, or just compare that to The Place Beyond the Pines.

Where does the look of the Kodak stock (not to mention their different lens packages) end because I only see the work of the colorists + DP and they all look entirely different. You just can't build a meaningful "look" even for a single film stock based on observing the end results. You can emulate specific movies, however, hence Magic Bullet Looks and DaVinci Power Grades.

That's why the Film Convert folks based their conversion on controlled photography of known color and value scales, calculating the delta between results from target film stocks and popular camera + profile combinations. After that the look is up to you.

edit: Examples

Here's some more test ;))

LOG grades differently from rec709. Osiris also comes with a rec709 to LOG conversion LUT. To my eyes, a direct rec709 film LUT seems more intense than the same LUT designed for LOG which is applied downstream from a rec709 to LOG conversion.

Osiris LUTs do a lot with skin tones, they also change the DR and create a smoother highlight roll off which is another characteristic of film.

These are just starting points of course, for further grading.

@rNeil Here's a video2log LUT for download: http://juanmelara.com.au/downloads/video2log_lut.zip

Conversion to LOG just expands the color space for grading, some LUTs only work on LOG footage. As with anything, YMMV

@Mistas something "odd" came out that LUT, is Melara's? I compared it with the one I posted in @maddog15 's GH3 Best Video Settings thread, checked it also in AE with different bit depths. At 8 bits gave same lines, with 16 and 32bpc was not noticeable, worked best with 422. In photoshop was like that despite any colour depth; it's like it had the shadows pushed too hard. So to be in the safe side, I'll venture to say IF to be used in AE, only in 16 or 32bpc, do not use it in photoshop, davinci dunno, probably is where would work best

I will probably start a shit storm here, but with the exception of BMD and other raw camera formats which are much easier to remap, remapping linear video into a log type environment is as much an art as a science. I know cuz It's been my job to explore this for the past 8 years.

The thing to keep in mind, and I did this with CGP, is that different film emulsions respond differently to each color channel of light with a different curve. And so the process is much like the process of audio sampling. To accurately remap the "line" of your video to this curve you will need somewhere between 16-32 sample points for each channel along each channel's curve, and a way to squish your original video into a faked log environment and then "project it onto" or remap it along the various curves.

This is how my LUTs work, and how Film Convert works (behind the curtain). I can't say which is better, or easier. I'm not here to sell you anything. only to tell you, that in order to do it accurately by hand you'll first need to know what those curves are, what their "inverse" is, and how each channel correlates not only to linear light, but to the unique color channel response of your particular camera. And then to finally bring them back into "white balance" because all of this will cause a noticeable color shift. And that's the magic ingredient. That is the hardest thing to accomplish. And the most misunderstood. Different film stocks will color your images differently. Fuji stocks sometimes produce ultra pink skin tones... like fuschia, and bluer than blue skies. Kodak stocks deliver a more red tone on the same skin without the blue burst, as I call it...and the idiosyncrasies go on and on. Or you need a shortcut, where someone else has figured this out and crammed into a LUT or series of LUTs like I have with CG Pro. And/or film convert. Osiris is a joke.

BUT

Be aware that most simple solutions are not gonna get you there. In my experience you need to "develop" your images in a 3-4 step process just like developing film, before you get an accurate result. And then there's grain which is a whole other can of worms.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76276262@N04/sets/72157632784156675

Oops, sorry. That's cuz I left out the snarky remarks about how most of what has been discussed here is just people talking out of their depth (sometimes referred to as talking out of one's ass)... I decided to be civil for a change. I apologize. I don't know what came over me. It won't happen again. :)

@BurnetRhoades - [copied from a response to a PM from another user] LOL no worries - It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it's just a subject where everyone is looking for an easy fix, and everyone has opinions on how best to do it, but I did it at the highest level possible. I worked at Lowry Digital for 3 years as a Film Restoration Specialist and a Colorist where part of my daily duties was research and development for processes such as these.

Unfortunately those processes are patented by the company (Now Reliance Mediaworks) and I can't use them, so I had to go back to square one and develop my own processes. The rough basis of which I laid out in the post. I laugh at all those Osiris LUTs and people saying, "just download this Kodak LUT and apply it and it'll look like film." It won't. The footage has to be prepped, then remapped, then graded. It's very much like developing film. There is no other way. Film Convert does 1 and 2 for you. CG Pro gives you a lab in which to do all 3 in a way that gives you custom control over the "development" process from start to finish.

Reading that thread just made my roll my eyes. And it's a little like listening to a bunch of pre-teens talking about the best way to please a woman, when they've got no idea what the clitoris is, or where to even begin looking for it.

For actual results here is a comparison of raw GH2 footage shot in available light at golden hour with Pancake 20mm lens - with different film stocks applied - Vision 2 and the other with EXR. Created using the remapping process I discussed earlier, and then pushed down a bit to get the blacks to be inky.