I’m a photographer but I’m constantly in awe of the advances, life hacks, and analyses you guys all do. Then you kick things up a notch with brilliant dialogue. Massively impressed with both the talk and the results. I assume it’s safe to say that whatever is being said here (barring color spaces (eg REC 709 oh god that’s not a color space is it ) native to the input or output sources) is equally applicable to stills ? I’d love to see some of these analyses and what have you tackling black and white imagery. This is getting wordy. Great video!
Sorry for the late response, I’ve been prepping and shooting my second feature and have been out of the country for around three months - but yes, fundamentally all of these can be applied to stills as well!
This looks very good. Very filmic color rendition. Much appreciate your effort on this project. I'll donate. I found applying the lut as a third node worked well for me.. First node being a neutral rec709 style grade, ideally from a color checker correction.Then 2nd Lut 'Saturation/curves' decrease saturation from 50 to around 30 in resolve and then a little shadows raise, or contrast reduce with ideal pivot pinpointed . I'm Shooting on older BM Micro Cinema camera.
We have finally launched an application for iOS and a plugin for Final Cut Pro with 60+ film profiles, Bloom, Grain, Halation and other analog tools which will help you create unique film looks!
Great job with this. I have a beginner question (I'm new to Resolve), if I wanted to use this on a Rec709 shot, would it be: Node 1: CST Node 2: PostromoEm65 v2 LUT That was my initial idea but I'm not sure which options to choose in the CST. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Hello, sorry for the late reply - Have had a busy few months with a feature shoot. You will want to apply a CST to the Blackmagic Gen 4 colourspace for any non-Blackmagic footage
Hey, I'm really loving this. I just discovered your channel/site today, so I apologize if there's an obvious answer to my question, but basically what is the "talk to me like I'm 5" version of how to use this? For example, if I shoot S-Log3, then I transform S-Log3 to black magic gen4, and *then* use Postromo 65? Thanks again and great work!
Maybe I'm a little dense, but what steps need to be taken in Resolve prior to applying the V2 EM65? Additionally, are the URSA_ARRI files to be applied after an ARRI match LUT is applied?
Hey, not a dumb question at all - the LUT is designed to be used in camera as well as in post so if you’re in Gen 4 colour shooting on Blackmagic, the LUT can be applied to images straight out of camera. If you’re using another camera (with slight exception to arri cameras, which I’ll explain shortly) you’ll need to use a transform to get to the Blackmagic Design gen 4 colourspace. Shooting on an alexa (except for the new 35 which I’ll be getting my hands on sometime in the fall), I found the LUT looked quite good applied straight onto the footage but also transforms can be applied if you desire. The different versions of the LUT (the originals, as well as this Yedlin update and the newest Malick update) all work the same, just took inspiration from different directors and cinematographers for what the colour actually looked like.
Yes - The only part of this process that uses Dehancer is the grain and halation, both of which can be done without Dehancer (I just like Dehancer’s grain over filmconvert, and their new halation is really nice to work with). Grain can be taken from Filmconvert, however halation would have to be done with the glow effect in Resolve, using that to adjust parameters until you get an accurate halation result. Gate weave as well can be done in Resolve (which is what I use) by lowering the parameters of the camera shake OFX.
@@allenpayne9182 Curious what settings you use for resolve's grain. I understand it's situational, but is there any go to settings? If I click on any of their preexisting emulations I feel they are all too weak. Opacity at 100% or do you mess around with that too? IDK I just stick to Cinegrain scans for now because it's easier for a guy like me who is trying to master it all from shooting to delivery.
@@allenpayne9182 cool! Thanks for the feedback. Also solid suggestion on trying to match it to a reference. I'm a bit lazy with my approach and never pull screen grabs in but I gotta sit down some day and do that and mess around with it more. I certainly trust you that Resolve is top notch with their grain plugin. They truly created a program that is incredible value yet used by pros. Thanks again!
Really great look! I think you're nailing the feel of these shots and it's nice that you're supporting everyones creativity by making these available for all. I downloaded the file, but it's a .cube LUT. Is there anyway to download your powergrade? Much appreciate!
I think this kinda proves a lot of misconceptions people have about film - You say it looks nothing like “real film”, what does real film look like? Film is just as grade-able and dynamic as digital in post. I guarantee I could show you 6 images, 3 on film and 3 emulated, and you wouldn’t be able to tell which were emulated and which were on film; I know that because I’ve done this with cinematographers who have spent half of their careers shooting solely on film and they too have a misguided and often mystical way of thinking about film, but the truth is film is just as authored of a look as digital, and when you say it looks “nothing like film”, what you mean is “it looks nothing like the high grain, low contrast, soft 16mm look that is so popular with shooting on film today” - which is a comment I’ve seen before but is rarely ever elaborated on (mainly because I don’t think that’s actually true, because again, film can look like pretty much anything, and this process forensically emulates the look of 65mm film).
To further illustrate my point, can you tell me which of these images (numbered in the bottom left corner) are film and which are digitally shot with film emulation applied? It's not an even split (ie, there aren't 3 film and 3 digital, it's varied) - but if you identify one as film and one as digital, etc, can you explain why that is? (Note that, as is this video, these are all compressed differently. Some more, some less). drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FiBFKB9yk1s_MUB1T0e5leP_4QnYiNFb?usp=sharing
Show some skintones - those are terrible examples to try to judge anything from. All of them also lacks tone mapping which makes it even harder to look at. And not cineon scan flat but without proper gamma curve. And photochemically there is no difference between 16, 35 and 70mm except the size of the grain. It doesn’t look like film but it doesn’t look bad either.
@@Murmeldyrful When you're sitting in a movie theatre watching something, are you able to look at tone mapping? The point of the comparison is to prove that film can look like anything, using a variety of compressions - it is just as versatile as digital imagery is. The idea that there is a specific "film look" is a myth perpetuated by a romantic idea of what different mediums can achieve, when in reality the two mediums (film and digital) have far more in common than they do different. The fact that you're unable to discern which of those images is film and which is digital proves that point.
@@PostromoPictures I can appreciate that, but maybe in your next update you could shorten the radius of the film halation, as its currently the size of s35. Perhaps the grain may need to be finer, too?
Download the PostromoEm65 LUT collection here: www.postromopictures.com/file-share
I’m a photographer but I’m constantly in awe of the advances, life hacks, and analyses you guys all do. Then you kick things up a notch with brilliant dialogue. Massively impressed with both the talk and the results. I assume it’s safe to say that whatever is being said here (barring color spaces (eg REC 709 oh god that’s not a color space is it ) native to the input or output sources) is equally applicable to stills ? I’d love to see some of these analyses and what have you tackling black and white imagery. This is getting wordy. Great video!
Sorry for the late response, I’ve been prepping and shooting my second feature and have been out of the country for around three months - but yes, fundamentally all of these can be applied to stills as well!
This looks very good. Very filmic color rendition. Much appreciate your effort on this project. I'll donate.
I found applying the lut as a third node worked well for me.. First node being a neutral rec709 style grade,
ideally from a color checker correction.Then 2nd Lut 'Saturation/curves' decrease saturation from 50 to around 30
in resolve and then a little shadows raise, or contrast reduce with ideal pivot pinpointed .
I'm Shooting on older BM Micro Cinema camera.
We have finally launched an application for iOS and a plugin for Final Cut Pro with 60+ film profiles, Bloom, Grain, Halation and other analog tools which will help you create unique film looks!
thanks for sharing your process and findings, just getting into film emulation and your videos help me a lot. appreciate it!
Great
Great job with this. I have a beginner question (I'm new to Resolve), if I wanted to use this on a Rec709 shot, would it be:
Node 1: CST
Node 2: PostromoEm65 v2 LUT
That was my initial idea but I'm not sure which options to choose in the CST. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Hello, sorry for the late reply - Have had a busy few months with a feature shoot. You will want to apply a CST to the Blackmagic Gen 4 colourspace for any non-Blackmagic footage
Hey, I'm really loving this. I just discovered your channel/site today, so I apologize if there's an obvious answer to my question, but basically what is the "talk to me like I'm 5" version of how to use this? For example, if I shoot S-Log3, then I transform S-Log3 to black magic gen4, and *then* use Postromo 65? Thanks again and great work!
Ye, you'll want to move it into Gen 4 and then can apply the lut!
What color space were you using when you made the lut?
This was all done in Davinci yrgb (from the Gen 4 Blackmagic Raw files) as I use these Luts to shoot/monitor in camera :)
@@PostromoPictures Thanks !! I think you should put this info on the description, and if it's already there sorry I didn't notice ^^''
Maybe I'm a little dense, but what steps need to be taken in Resolve prior to applying the V2 EM65?
Additionally, are the URSA_ARRI files to be applied after an ARRI match LUT is applied?
Hey, not a dumb question at all - the LUT is designed to be used in camera as well as in post so if you’re in Gen 4 colour shooting on Blackmagic, the LUT can be applied to images straight out of camera. If you’re using another camera (with slight exception to arri cameras, which I’ll explain shortly) you’ll need to use a transform to get to the Blackmagic Design gen 4 colourspace. Shooting on an alexa (except for the new 35 which I’ll be getting my hands on sometime in the fall), I found the LUT looked quite good applied straight onto the footage but also transforms can be applied if you desire. The different versions of the LUT (the originals, as well as this Yedlin update and the newest Malick update) all work the same, just took inspiration from different directors and cinematographers for what the colour actually looked like.
@@PostromoPictures Oh great! Thank you for the detailed reply
So, if I'm using Gen5 Black Magic colour space, would it still need to be transformed?
@@SneekeeMonkee Yes, you’ll want to change it to Gen4!
What lens did you shoot these tests on?
Good stuff !
Thanks! These were primarily shot on the DZO Pictor 20-55mm and the Rokinon 16mm on the Ursa Mini Pro G2
I don't have Dehancer, but could this be done with FilmConvert?
Yes - The only part of this process that uses Dehancer is the grain and halation, both of which can be done without Dehancer (I just like Dehancer’s grain over filmconvert, and their new halation is really nice to work with). Grain can be taken from Filmconvert, however halation would have to be done with the glow effect in Resolve, using that to adjust parameters until you get an accurate halation result. Gate weave as well can be done in Resolve (which is what I use) by lowering the parameters of the camera shake OFX.
@@PostromoPictures okay. Thanks.
@@allenpayne9182 Curious what settings you use for resolve's grain. I understand it's situational, but is there any go to settings? If I click on any of their preexisting emulations I feel they are all too weak. Opacity at 100% or do you mess around with that too? IDK I just stick to Cinegrain scans for now because it's easier for a guy like me who is trying to master it all from shooting to delivery.
@@allenpayne9182 cool! Thanks for the feedback. Also solid suggestion on trying to match it to a reference. I'm a bit lazy with my approach and never pull screen grabs in but I gotta sit down some day and do that and mess around with it more. I certainly trust you that Resolve is top notch with their grain plugin. They truly created a program that is incredible value yet used by pros. Thanks again!
@@allenpayne9182 Ah company3. Can't get anymore official than that!!
Really great look! I think you're nailing the feel of these shots and it's nice that you're supporting everyones creativity by making these available for all.
I downloaded the file, but it's a .cube LUT. Is there anyway to download your powergrade?
Much appreciate!
I should have a powergrade download available around the time the Alexa version is up!
@@PostromoPictures You're the best! Can't wait to see whats next.
@@PostromoPictures keep it up pro, looking for that.
Why so noisy?
Looks pretty cool but it looks nothing like real film.
I think this kinda proves a lot of misconceptions people have about film - You say it looks nothing like “real film”, what does real film look like? Film is just as grade-able and dynamic as digital in post. I guarantee I could show you 6 images, 3 on film and 3 emulated, and you wouldn’t be able to tell which were emulated and which were on film; I know that because I’ve done this with cinematographers who have spent half of their careers shooting solely on film and they too have a misguided and often mystical way of thinking about film, but the truth is film is just as authored of a look as digital, and when you say it looks “nothing like film”, what you mean is “it looks nothing like the high grain, low contrast, soft 16mm look that is so popular with shooting on film today” - which is a comment I’ve seen before but is rarely ever elaborated on (mainly because I don’t think that’s actually true, because again, film can look like pretty much anything, and this process forensically emulates the look of 65mm film).
To further illustrate my point, can you tell me which of these images (numbered in the bottom left corner) are film and which are digitally shot with film emulation applied? It's not an even split (ie, there aren't 3 film and 3 digital, it's varied) - but if you identify one as film and one as digital, etc, can you explain why that is? (Note that, as is this video, these are all compressed differently. Some more, some less). drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FiBFKB9yk1s_MUB1T0e5leP_4QnYiNFb?usp=sharing
Show some skintones - those are terrible examples to try to judge anything from. All of them also lacks tone mapping which makes it even harder to look at. And not cineon scan flat but without proper gamma curve. And photochemically there is no difference between 16, 35 and 70mm except the size of the grain. It doesn’t look like film but it doesn’t look bad either.
@@Murmeldyrful When you're sitting in a movie theatre watching something, are you able to look at tone mapping? The point of the comparison is to prove that film can look like anything, using a variety of compressions - it is just as versatile as digital imagery is. The idea that there is a specific "film look" is a myth perpetuated by a romantic idea of what different mediums can achieve, when in reality the two mediums (film and digital) have far more in common than they do different. The fact that you're unable to discern which of those images is film and which is digital proves that point.
@@PostromoPictures I can appreciate that, but maybe in your next update you could shorten the radius of the film halation, as its currently the size of s35. Perhaps the grain may need to be finer, too?