Ok, that's for now:
Hollywood Film Look 17 - Canon HV30 - 24P on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/1857607)

Hmmm . . . I think we might be in danger of doing this one to death!

But, at the risk of being accused of immediately ignoring what I just said, I think thawould say the examples Brian put up on YouTube are so heavily compressed (by YouTube, not Brian) that it is impossible to judge how good ANY filter is going to be.

Feel free to shout me down but I guess we've reached the conclusion that a) there are a number of tools we can use and b) we aren't going to agree that one tool is better than another because it is a matter of personal taste and individual requirements.

Right, time to get on with some paying work!

I also have it on Vimeo, but even there that's doubly compressed (first to h.264/.mov, second to whatever Vimeo uses in Flash.)

Magic Bullet Looks Test/Experiment on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/1853961)

Trouble is all that compression introduces nasty artefacts and banding. Nice shots though! And I like that music - what is that from?

Brian! Excellent visual reply to the question: "magic-bullet-worth-getting"!

Although the samples you provide are straightforward, and not exposing many of the expandable features of MBL, what you have done is to provide people with a sense of just how vast the range of colourisation and filter manipulation is available, that can be invoked to enhance the underlying narrative. Well done!

Where MBL scores for me is the opportunity and immediate way I can experiment with the "instruments", tools, to explore what I want from my footage and dig out that all important narrative.

I used MBL in my last project - vignette, spot-expo and an ND Grad - to "pop" a CEO from his office's background. Knowing I had MBL back in the studio, I set my capture levels to take this into account. Meaning, to get the most from MBL, I design my camera work to allow MBL to give me what it could from the captured footage. As long as you have levels that are realistic, a tweak with MBL will make your work jump of off the screen.

Be warned - MBL is rather addictive!!

Grazie

Trouble is all that compression introduces nasty artefacts and banding. Nice shots though! And I like that music - what is that from?

Calexico's latest album.

Be warned - MBL is rather addictive!!

Grazie
The more I see what MBL does, the more I strengthen my position...

The more I see what MBL does, the more I strengthen my position...

Which is?

Plamen, your "Hollywood Film Look 17 - Canon HV30 - 24P" on Vimeo is absolutely gorgeous!!

My "addictive" comment is NOT about getting away away from the organic and strong feel of the dynamic, but in the way one can spend time in juggling the "tools". And no, MBL is not a panacea for understanding what a film/video look is - if that is what you are implying? I'd be interested to hear . . .

Now, seeing a difference - your example Plamen - is truly mind-blowing! On a HV30?? You are a true artist, with a very fine understanding of the dynamic of film/video.

Great thread!

Grazie

Great thread!

Grazie
Great thanks! Soon I will try to process some video taken with some of the hi-class professional cameras. I plan to use RED ONE video. The results will be .... mmmmmm.

Now, seeing a difference - your example Plamen - is truly mind-blowing! On a HV30?? You are a true artist, with a very fine understanding of the dynamic of film/video.
Grazie
Thanks again! But the next shocking revelation about me is that I am a professional musician, video is just my hobby. Actually, achieving this look costs 3 years of my life of expierence about that matter. Because whatever I did, with any plugin, I couldn't get a real simulation of the Hollywood movie studios. And after using one of the most serious plugins - MBL, I felt desperate. I still have miniDV cam JVC GR-DVL520A (model 2002) and it is much below my abbilites. Still thinking about which HD model to buy.

Just wanted to say that the video that I put up on Vimeo was really an "extreme" case of showing what MBL can do; that is, when you actually use it in a project, you'll probably mix it with the original footage so that it's not so "artificial."

Second, if you're shooting in HDV, it has advantages that Hollywood doesn't. I don't want a "film look." I want the look that will best convey the material that I want to convey in the way I want to convey it. I think we need to get out of the idea that what Hollywood does is best just because Hollywood did it.

There's a sociology paper in there somewhere about how indie filmmakers are using plugins to do things like add grain, add chromatic abberation, etc, in order to purposefully degrade the footage... so that it looks like the pros.

With all the talk about film looks, I am reminded that video will pretty much look like video most of the time, unless it is shot to look like film to begin with, and then it still cannot fully reach the heights of film.

I watched a movie the other day (John Wayne and "The Three Godfathers") and it was unbelievably beautiful...one of the best looking movies I have ever seen.

It really took the shine off of anything shot in video for me, at least for a day or two.

" . . when you actually use it in a project, you'll probably mix it with the original footage so that it's not so "artificial."

Brian please explain the "mix" part?

There's a sociology paper in there ... so that it looks like the pros.

Now that IS interesting, Brian. Have you a link?

Grazie

Grazie, at a guess I think Brian is suggesting layering a Looks-effected track above the original track and mixing the two to taste.

Well said Brian and Jeff.

Film is film. Video is video . . . with some tools that mimic some of the characteristics of film to a certain extent and allow us to easily manipulate video to suit the mood/personal taste/material/client requirement/story/whatever.

At the risk of being shot down for sarcasm, if I had spent three years of my life trying to achieve a realistic film look it would have been a lot more cost effective to go out and hire an Arriflex and a few cans of the real stuff! And the results would have been better.

Grazie, at a guess I think Brian is suggesting layering a Looks-effected track above the original track and mixing the two to taste.

I was wishing for Brian to explain what this process - the mix part - would entail? What reasoning would be behind the various parts of the application of the "mix"? What decisions Brian would make to achieve the "look" as a result OF that mix? What settings he adjusted for the compositing? Or does Brian simply mean to "mix-in" other clips? "Others", reading this, might consider, think it is the latter.

I too have employed a 2-Track mix. The Angels are in the detail.

Grazie

I was wishing for Brian to explain what this process - the mix part - would entail? What reasoning would be behind the various parts of the application of the "mix"? What decisions Brian would make to achieve the "look" as a result OF that mix? What settings he adjusted for the compositing? Or does Brian simply mean to "mix-in" other clips? "Others", reading this, might consider, think it is the latter.

I too have employed a 2-Track mix. The Angels are in the detail.

Grazie

Nothing so complicated - after you apply a look in MBL, if you go back into Final Cut Pro, you can then adjust a slider to determine how much you want to blend the processed MBL footage with your original footage - anywhere from 0 to 100 percent. I suppose you could do the same thing with opacity and compositing, but not what I meant at all.

That's a nice feature. Forgot you were a FCP user, not Vegas.

Brian, thank you.

Grazie