Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
supernova87a
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
This. As a non film person, I basically have no clue what this does.
hnlmorg
If you don’t know what DaVinci is then this isn’t any use to you because it’s an industry specific application. It’s a little like how Docker or git doesn’t need explaining to (non-junior) engineers.
I’m very surprised to see DaVinci make the front page on HN but also very glad too.
varun_ch
That's not very helpful... people come here to learn about new things. Maybe it wouldn't be of any use to them, but it's clearly something that piqued their curiosity.
kristiandupont
I know what DaVinci is and even a bit about film and the film look and I would still like what GP is suggesting.
flakeoil
I'm a senior engineer and I don't know anything about Docker.
somnic
I get your point, and maybe as someone who's not part of said industry I'm missing something, but it seems like it'd be helpful even to the target audience to actually show how this plugin can transform video.
helsinkiandrew
> If you don’t know what DaVinci is then this isn’t any use to you because it’s an industry specific application
It may not be of any use but its still of interest to many people that some kind of explanation would be useful
SomeBoolshit
It's a Snapchat filter for videos.
dmonitor
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.
Lockal
Kind of expensive if you are a Linux hobbyist, $5000 (*$4999) for collection of filters over another proprietary film editing software, which was designed to be a good standalone color&fx software, but apparently isn't.
chefandy
I'm not surprised they skipped the intro-level demo because it's a pretty niche industry-specific product. I can't imagine even the prosumer market would use Davinci, let alone get excited about plugins for it. Kind of surprised that this is getting general-audience traction here. This isn't my exact area of expertise so I could be wrong, but I'm in a parallel field, and I can't imagine non-film folks would fall into any useful target demographic for them, even accidentally. My guess is they're hiring developers.
bux93
Davinci resolve is great for prosumers and hobbyists.
Youtube is awash with Davinci Resolve tutorials for everything from basic non-linear video editing to compositing, sound editing and grading.
The basic version is free, and the paid version is a one-time $300, or 7.5 months of Adobe Premiere+After Effects or Audition.
BlackMagic also produce gear like the atem mini beloved by streamers and the BMPCC (blackmagic pocket cinema cameras) that are very much aimed at prosumers.
If any one needs to edit any video, even just a short recreational youtube video, I point them towards Davinci, because the price is right and there are so many tutorials.
mschuster91
> I can't imagine even the prosumer market would use Davinci, let alone get excited about plugins for it.
For what it's worth: DaVinci has both a free and a paid version - and the paid version is not even 300$. If you're an indie filmmaker or hobbyist, it's certainly a better offering than a Premiere Pro subscription unless your muscle memory is trained too hard on Adobe tooling.
> and I can't imagine non-film folks would fall into any useful target demographic for them, even accidentally. My guess is they're hiring developers.
Many tech people have to deal with video shit at some point in their career - it helps to at least know some basic cutting to make a screen recording for a tutorial way better for the viewers.
atoav
As a non-film person you'd very likely not have a clue how to use a professional color grading solution like Davinci Resolve (for which this is a plugin) to begin with.
As a VFX-person I'd be curious about a before and after on a crisp digital image with multiple settings.
nailer
Yes I think comparing film to filmbox is useless without showing the pre-filmbox digital.
IshKebab
Yeah I also don't understand that comparison because... how was it shot? A film camera and digital camera next to each other?
Etheryte
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?
azov
You may be interested in checking this out: 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.
chrstphrknwtn
> [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.
aidenn0
I just tried to bend my CMOS sensor around a film spool, and can confirm. Film is more flexible...
More seriously it does depend on your definition of flexible. Being able to switch speeds (ASA numbers) without having to replace the film or carry multiple cameras is a huge flexibility win for digital all on its own.
perardi
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…
kqr
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.
chrstphrknwtn
> 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.
coolandsmartrr
By flexible, do you mean the dynamic range?
chrstphrknwtn
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.
wilg
> Have you considered creating a parallel product as an Adobe Lightroom plugin and/or a standalone app for still images?
Yes.
Etheryte
While this does answer the plain question, would you mind sharing any more details? Did you come to a decision, is there a planned release date, is there a way to subscribe to updates, etc? I'm saying all of this as a potential future customer of yours, I feel I shouldn't have to, for lack of a better word, try and force this information out of you.
wilg
I was trying to be coy, sorry! We don’t have anything to announce at this time.
You can follow us on Twitter or Instagram for updates.
rayshan
+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
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/
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-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://marcrphoto.wordpress.com/
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
Arn_Thor
I got an RNI pack and have been very pleased. Especially the slide simulations. https://reallyniceimages.com/
rileyphone
I use the velvia function + artificial grain in Lighttable, though I am very amateur.
8f2ab37a-ed6c
Please!
imaginamundo
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 that have recipes for simulations for fuji, but there are some other resources for Ricoh and Nikon cameras.
thejarren
My understanding is that you can edit images inside of Davinci Resolve just like video, though I haven't attempted it myself.
undefined
buildbot
I second this, many photographers would be very interested, myself included.
photoGrant
Put a DNG into Resolve, enjoy a node based workflow, use this plugin, and export the frame at the same res :)
buildbot
Oh cool, for some reason I did not expect resolve to support DNGs!
t0bia_s
Not usable in hard workflow.
8f2ab37a-ed6c
Came here to ask the same question, thank you!
codetrotter
> 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
> 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
Thank you for coming back to respond to this as well :)
wilg
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.
undefined
codetrotter
Makes sense, thank you :)
GoofballJones
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?
atoav
My theory as a film person (worked as a DoP, colorist and VFX guy) is that the grain of a film has three main appeals:
1. It simulates detail and depth where optically it may be lacking. This gives the imagination of the viewer some space to operate (think how pixel graphics in video games work)
2. The moving grain makes the glow of time visible. A grainy still picture of a empty room feels different than the very same image without it. The one without grain feels like a photograph.
3. Grain on an image can make the image feel like something you look onto rather than into depending on how it is used in editing. Just like the visible brush stroke in a painting it can be artistically desirable to make the viewers aware they are looking at a picture that has been made.
In the end more often than not it is just a matter of taste. Personally I like the feel film gives
Netcob
I agree, I'm also usually the one person arguing in favor of high framerates, I find it silly when people pretend that vinyl records are in some way "superior" to digital and so on.
But I don't really see the website going out of its way to say that this look is the way it should be. Maybe a bit of light marketing speak that is talking to people who like this. I don't think there's anything wrong with turning a necessity of the past into a style choice of the present, now that we can do basically anything we want. Pixelized games are a popular thing, cel-shaded graphics even when there's no need to actually draw anything by hand, black and white used to be popular in film making long after color had been introduced.
Also I think the "empirical data" isn't as much an argument for using the style everywhere, rather for the effectiveness of the plugin.
yladiz
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
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.
projektfu
I think to some extent, there is a desire to make period pieces look like they are on period stock. The 70s had a very Kodachrome feel, the 80s were more saturated. The 50s and 60s were Technicolor mostly.
I almost believe that the 70s had that overriding yellow tint to it even though that's really just the film stock. And that was such a grainy film as well, it really fit with the dirty appearance of major US cities of the time.
On the other hand, if you drop the nostalgia, you can make old time periods look fresh. The 70s was a time of vibrant color. Cars, clothes, rooms, signage was all bright, though it got dirty and faded quickly so that in the 80s we mostly saw it as a relic.
josephg
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.
lm28469
De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum
jcynix
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/, publish and review various film simulation recipes.
bredren
I use latest gen iPhone pro and haven’t considered an actual camera to record video.
I’m filming family events, do you find using an actual camera changes the dynamic of collecting memories? (For example the amount of additional attention the size of the device draws?)
Also, I shoot RAW photos on iPhone pro and am very happy with the results and editing capability.
The hardest time I have is making the time to properly edit the originals to something ready to share.
It seems like dealing with another transport method from a camera would add to the friction of a workflow. Do you find that to be the case? For example, does taking on an x-systems workflow mean a greater commitment to the process of producing a finished product?
komali2
I shoot raw jpeg on fuji and basically never edit. The workflow friction is high enough to cause month or more delay between taking and sharing pictures. Plus I find it tedious and boring.
All I do when I shoot on camera is plug it into my laptop or PC and immediately upload the good jpegs to Google photos. From there I can download on phone and reupload to wherever (not Instagram, I don't care about it).
I have plans to put a section on my website for my favorite photos.
So no I don't find x workflow to require a commitment to process. It's only slightly harder than just shooting on the phone.
I disagree with others saying phone is good enough. Lens characteristics (shooting aperture priority to choose depth of field) alone is a good enough differentiator for me to justify carrying a camera.
Luckily there are very portable solutions for those that want better than phone without dropping 2k and 500 on camera and lens. Old Fuji mirrorless are all basically phenomenal and only miss out by having lower rez sensor, slower autofocus, and maybe missing one or two film sims. I shot on an xe2 with the f2 23mm for years to great effect. I hear and see great things coming from Ricoh as well which is point and shoot and very portable, not sure price though.
I think phones take phenomenal pictures but their sensors and lenses are quite tiny.
spindle
For my purposes (recording memories plus just a tad of artiness), my phone camera is at least as good as my Fujifilm X series big camera (and actually probably better), except for zooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom. That is a very big exception. There are so many great photos I could never have got with my phone because the subject was too far away.
Another positive is that you can get a big camera that's virtually indestructable, unlike any phone (but then you probably had the phone anyway).
Also, yes, I find getting the photos off the camera does add friction to the workflow.
actionfromafar
Even an ancient Mini-DV camera looks... better somehow despite the potato resolution. I think it's the optics, but I'm not sure.
girvo
It's the optics, plus the computational photography on phone cameras (done to make up for the limited optics) giving a certain "look" to most phone photos. Not a bad look, most love it! But certainly different to other devices.
caseyohara
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.
spindle
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
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.
jcynix
> 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.
chimerasaurus
Capture One also supports Fuji sims natively. It’s an excellent combo of you shoot Fuji. It’s so handy to swap the sim in post.
girvo
Fuji's film simulations and hardware are the reason I continue to shoot with their cameras today, so it's awesome to see a product like this extending that awesome output to others in an integrated fashion.
I still don't shoot RAW on my X-E4, weirdly enough.
t0bia_s
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.
Flatcircle
These guys actually filmed every film stock and offer a similar thing. Think their stuff is used in all the big movies.
phatbyte
And at a reasonable price. Thank you for sharing this.
amarshall
> 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
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.
wilg
I should add we do plan to make the Indie license available for Linux this year sometime.
amarshall
That would be great! I meant it as less of a slight and more of a reflection of disappointment after seeing Linux headlined in the title, only to see a tiny footnote exclude it for many cases.
isaacaggrey
> Our Linux product is currently focused on big budget post facilities which often use Linux.
What's the value prop for a studio to run something on Linux vs Mac / Windows?
This is interesting to me to hear as the trope for Linux is that it's not used for audio/video work (and couldn't find much online about real world professional usage without pulling up reviews of best video editor / etc sort of results).
Also, congratulations on the release - rewrites are a huge undertaking.
gary_0
Linux is the main OS at quite a few 2D and 3D animation studios. (I suspect because the industry started out on SGI machines running Unix.)
reitanuki
I think the parent's point is still valid, though? It's unfortunate to assume that use of Linux implies big budget. Of course we know it has a lot of hobbyists too.
phren0logy
[flagged]
WantonQuantum
This is an astonishing and totally unjustified ad-hominen attack. Please read the "In Comments" section of the guidelines:
moritonal
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
Thank you for your feedback.
girvo
Massive production houses use Linux extensively: that's who this is targeted at.
subhro
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. :(
deaddodo
The part that I found oddest was showing off the physical film vs digitally altered. Instead of having a neutral comparison.
As a non-Photographer, the film versions looked better in almost every case. I wasn’t sure what the filter was actually meant to be used for. But a comparison with neutral stock would have made it look better, in all probability.
asciimov
Shooting film is a different skill. You really need to have experience with the medium to understand how it performs and when to use it.
Film has a long expensive feedback loop, with limited exposures, processing time, and associated costs; most users they would be better served using a digital filter.
actionfromafar
Exposure latitude is pretty darn good actually, at least if you are using Kodak Vision film. It's just that it's the exact opposite of digital.
The rule of thumb on digital is, "don't overexpose". On film, it is "don't underexpose".
moffkalast
All this effort is likely still cheaper than shooting real film.
actionfromafar
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
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.
Kevcmk
I shoot exclusively film and am thrilled to see attempts at this. The medium is far too expensive and need not die in the name of exclusivity
chamsom
There’s an handful of people Ukraine and Russia who services a specific model of 16mm cameras. I just don’t know how much longer these film cameras will be around.
actionfromafar
There's still a ton of Arri 16 for rental out there, even from Arri themselves.
jrm4
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.
valeg
The only recent movie which duped me and looked very film-like was "Dark Waters". But Edward Lachman designed it to be as close to 70s film look as possible. It is pointless otherwise.
t0bia_s
Most of recent films and TV series has some kind of "film simulation" in post-production. You wont be able to watch raw film footages without any colour grading. Grain is usually added in post as well.
ahoya
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
klabb3
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
The link you replied to is the free version with fewer options and without time limits or watermarks, aka Filmbox Lite.
Joeboy
No Linux version though.
pinum
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
It’s real-time and not temporal.
CarVac
How does this compare to my Filmulator, which basically runs a simulation of stand development?
(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
I remember trying to get this installed on my Mac a while ago. Do you know if it can run on M1 now?
CarVac
Unfortunately there are no volunteers with Macs forthcoming. Even the far more established darktable project is looking for a new provider for Mac builds.
undefined
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
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.