After Effects + VideoCopilot's Fast Film Grain

[Khaver]

To add to my above post, color grading is another "artifact" that most film makers add. First you try to get perfect color for all your clips by color correction then you tweak the colors to your desired "look". Not many film makers color correct than stop there. Looking into a mirror and seeing perfection (myself not included) is not art. Just like there are different styles of oil painting, and some of the best paintings look nothing like reality, film makers are also free to tell their story not just through action and dialogue, but by framing, lighting, focus, coloring, and yes, adding "imperfections" to the images. A pristine image with perfect color might be a starting point, but as a final image for a work of art, in my eyes it would be pretty boring.

[Jim E]

Artistic preference would be one reason to add it. Just like adding lens flares. Anyone who's every watched a "shot on film" movie (99.99%), finds that one film artifact (grain) is totally acceptable. We don't bat an eye when we see it.

No, we don't bat an eye. But the day will come when audiences will at least blink a bit if they happen to catch an old movie that has 'film grain", because it will be the exception rather than the rule.

But when we see blocks and banding we notice it right away.

Because blocks and banding are gross failures of the technology, and they immediately take us out of the experience. Like looking at ourselves in a cracked mirror.

When cameras get to the point of perfect images, there will be those film makers that will add certain artifacts to convey a certain mood.

I wonder; what mood will they be trying to achieve? At present the only "mood" that film grain adds is old-fashionedness. Like when we add long scratches, film-gate jumps, variable focus/exposure, and a sepia tone to video to make it look like a silent film. It kinda works, but it gets old prettty quick, (no pun intended).

Incidenatally, for anyone who's thinking of doing that, here's a tip; movie film was very rarely sepia-coloured. Dyeing of film was for special effect only, to add the mood that was generally associated with the particular colour. The most common "look" for silent film was plain old black and white.

.

[Janke]

In fact, in the 1990s, film emulsions became so good that they were practically grain-free, provided you could light your scene in a somewhat intelligent way.

Remember that back in the 1930s, Technicolor had a speed of around ISO 12 - now, the fastest motion picture emulsions are ISO 800 or even more.

Grain is a choice, not a requirement these days...

[drapeama]

Grain is a choice, not a requirement these days...

Never said it was required, but it "helps" to make the video less "videoish" or close to "soap-opera-lookin' " and that's what this thread is all about.
But again, it's only the top of the iceberg as there's many other things to consider.

[drapeama]

I think I got pretty close to what I'm after with a very simple technique: 4k layer - Soft Light mode.



So it's basically, the VideoCopilot.net FastFilm Grain preset on a grey solid layer, 36% of noise, 0.3 of blur, on a 4096*2512 layer, stretched to 2.40:1 and set to Soft Light mode.
I think I like it like that.

[drapeama]

Here's a video showing "LIVE" what does it looks like.

[drapeama]

I think I was quite close, but I've read about FilmConvert, a plugin (or standalone software) that emulates the look of real film stocks (grain, color temp, saturation and contrast).
I've talk about it in this thread: FilmConvert - Plugin for After Effects.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

Drape, I'm interested in hearing what you think about this after you try it, what you think gives the most realistic effect.

There's another technique that is a little more low level that somebody came up with, I don't know if you heard of if, but I guess it's very similar to your original attempt. This guy seems to use that one: https://vimeo.com/43625636

[drapeama]

There's another technique that [..] This guy seems to use

It looks very familiar to me. I once read and watched a video (tutorial) about it from a guy on Facebook (Lucas Pfaff) about it. Can't find it back, but I remember he was using a large still of grain (stock scanned or something) and he was using The Wiggler to animate the grain. Kind of the same effects, maybe simpler, and probably more "on-the-cheap"!

So far, the 4k layer with the VideoCopilot's Fast Film Grain gives very interesting results, and it's free.

From what I've read, the FilmConvert plugin gives a very realistic "mimic" of the real film stock in terms of colors, saturation and contrast. There's not much presets in the menu (something like 12 or so). Some are B&W in it, very contrasty and grainy.

I'd say, for around 99$, as an AE plugin, I would have probably invested in it, but at 199$ it's a bit pricey. Especially when you think that the bundle (stand-alone + all plugins for AE, Premiere and Photoshop...PC & Mac) is 299$. For now, I'm fine with my experiments.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

It looks very familiar to me. I once read and watched a video (tutorial) about it from a guy on Facebook (Lucas Pfaff) about it. Can't find it back, but I remember he was using a large still of grain (stock scanned or something) and he was using The Wiggler to animate the grain. Kind of the same effects, maybe simpler, and probably more "on-the-cheap"!

So far, the 4k layer with the VideoCopilot's Fast Film Grain gives very interesting results, and it's free.

You are right, that's the technique that guy was using. I think the VideoCopilot's technique is a little more subtle, and you can't argue with free!

From what I've read, the FilmConvert plugin gives a very realistic "mimic" of the real film stock in terms of colors, saturation and contrast. There's not much presets in the menu (something like 12 or so). Some are B&W in it, very contrasty and grainy.

I'd say, for around 99$, as an AE plugin, I would have probably invested in it, but at 199$ it's a bit pricey. Especially when you think that the bundle (stand-alone + all plugins for AE, Premiere and Photoshop...PC & Mac) is 299$. For now, I'm fine with my experiments.

I hear you, Drape. Too much money, but if I were making money with video I imagine I would find it reasonable based on the results and ease of use.

Talking on the same theme, I'm still holding on to that Generic Anamorphic lens I got 3 years ago. It only cost me $115, and I think I could probably sell it at least for $500, since it's basically new (only used it carefully for those tests we did). It's getting awefully difficult to stay away from ebay with that one!

[drapeama]

I think the VideoCopilot's technique is a little more subtle, and you can't argue with free!

That's for sure!

if I were making money with video I imagine I would find it reasonable based on the results and ease of use.

That's another good argument! Of course, for us poor aspiring filmmakers, many things are out-of-range when money is involved.

I'm still holding on to that Generic Anamorphic lens I got 3 years ago. It only cost me $115, and I think I could probably sell it at least for $500

If you ever want to make someone happy, I'd be interested for sure! Unless you'd still sell it to me for 500$!
I'd like to be able to edit 1080p resolution in 2.40:1 projects!

Edit: maybe a trade!?

[MalfunctioningHuman]

That's another good argument! Of course, for us poor aspiring filmmakers, many things are out-of-range when money is involved.

I don't compare myself with you. You actually make films (even if they are short projects), I just *think* about doing films. I am sure making films bring you a lot of enjoyment, and that's the main thing. Plus, you create something tangible that is good. That's too much for me at the moment, but maybe in the future I'll shape up and actually produce something. My production has been in writing so far, and I greatly enjoyed it even if it never gets published. It's about what you get out of it when you are creating it, I think.

If you ever want to make someone happy, I'd be interested for sure! Unless you'd still sell it to me for 500$!
I'd like to be able to edit 1080p resolution in 2.40:1 projects!

Edit: maybe a trade!?

Drape, you got my word that if I ever decide to part with it, I'll contact you first. That Generic Anamorphic has its pros and its cons. I'ts very light and easy to work with (focus through), but it does become softer around the edges. I was looking at some video someone created using it this morning, and I was looking at the screen very closely to determine the "useable" area. It's not horribly bad, but I think that for production, maybe cropping the area by 25% and up-ressing would be best.

Don't want to hijack this thread though, maybe another Anamorphic thread is in order!

[drapeama]

I don't compare myself with you. You actually make films (even if they are short projects), I just *think* about doing films.

Well, I have done 2 short films in the last 2 years. Not much active. Never as I want though. Time, work, sleep...all these factors don't help!

My production has been in writing so far, and I greatly enjoyed it even if it never gets published.

Writing, books you mean? Would be nice if you'd work on short scripts and post them here. I'd like to see what I can make out of someone else' story.