The film look script/plugin can be found on the VASST site. Stan Harrington and David Merkowitz have both won significant film fests using the Celluloid/ReelPak looks.

I have to pop in and add a comment - this is sort of a ironic/funny comment so don't take it wrong.

I see Vasst is doing full page ads now with the "winners use..." tag but whoever laid out the ads needs to look a wee bit closer at the actual "winner" picture that was used. I had to laugh because here we have an ad for Celluloid and the ad implies, as Spot said here, that one can win "significant film fests using the Celluloid/ReelPak looks". But if one looks at the "winner" photo in the ad and the "significant film fest" awards in ithe photo you will see they have nothing to do with editing, post prodution or cinematography. Matter of fact they aren't even for directing or "best picture" - one if for best actress and one is for best screenplay.

So Spot, dude, man - tell me how the Celluloid plug-in works to create award winning screenplays and make actors turn in award winning performances?

Anhow - to go to the question - If your question meant Celluloid, Spot already told you that link. If you mean the free film looks script than JetDV has that, here: http://www.jetdv.com/scripts/FilmLook(Vegas5).exe for Vegas 5 (And 6?) and here: http://www.jetdv.com/scripts/RC3_VegasFilmLooks.exe for Vegas 4 with the film looks.

Uh....Stan won Best of Show, but didn't have the award at the time the photo was taken. Deminish it if you wish; both guys that have won have contacted us to say that they don't believe they would have won without the film looks that they purchased. Neither of them were given software, remuneration, or any other consideration for their comments or endorsements because we were not aware of either of them until after they'd won. You can see verification of "Bred in the Bone" winning at the Action On Film site. If you'd read the large print in the ad vs the small print on the trophies themselves, you'd see where it says "I Won Best of Show" in there. (BTW, I did the ad layout, I'm aware of what the trophies say)

There are also around 30 free film look scripts on the VASST site. Celluloid (with 6 filmlooks) is also free. If the original post wasn't referring to the Celluloid script or the David Jimerson film looks, my apologies. Based on the 24p comment, I assumed he was referring to either US2 or Celluloid.

Glad I am working and happenned to log in to see this...Bred In The Bone was my film and if you care to log on to the website of the festival you will see quite clearly that the film won "BEST IN SHOW" also. Here's the link too...
http://www.aoffest.com/Results/results.html

Sorry that you feel the need to denegrate what was a great experience for me...I don't even know you ...but it might interest you to know that we also won the audience choice for BEST FEATURE at the only other competitive fest we have appeared in...do you want the link for that too?

I'll say again that I believe the Pushed 16 look I used made a huge difference in the way my film looked.

My experience on this post has been fantastic until this post...disappointing on thanksgiving. Check yourself,dude.

Stan Harrington.

In my opinion: Why limit yourself to the film look? Why not make video look better than film?

Anyways, film look:

A- Some parts of the film look may be impossible to emulate. Film shoots tend to have big budgets with talented and experienced crews, which is a little 'unfair'. Also, film has greater exposure latitude so it'll capture more detail. With DV(CPRO), highlights can blow out into big white blobs. Film doesn't do that, and DPs can let highlights blow out and they'll still look ok.

Your camera may have controls to increase exposure latitude. If it's the SDX900, check out the cinegamma feature.
One Panasonic HD camera I played with (not the varicam, it's this 1080i DVCPRO HD camera) has controls for R, G, and B gain. You can theoretically bring those settings down to gain increased exposure latitude. BUT... autoWB will destroy those settings, so that's really tempermental. And you need to figure out the settings beforehand... they do cause WB shifts if you lower them all by the same number.

B- if you want to emulate film's gamma response / contrast, then use color curves and use a s-shaped color curve.
See http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54544
if you're using the sony DV codec (default) and need to target DVD.

*Those color curves will desaturate highlights. You can use the secondary color corrector to bring back saturation in the highlights.
**You want also want to use the secondary color correct + its alpha setting on flesh tone, to "float" the flesh tone above the image. Higher contrast in flesh tone may not look that good (brings out wrinkles and stuff). Hold crtl while click-dragging to duplicate clips (or nested projects) onto upper layers.

C- If your camera shoots with lots of edge enhancement, then use the unsharp mask to knock off those halos around edges.
Amount = -0.500
Radius = 0.003
Theshold about 0.040~0.120

D- Vegas 6 has much better 60i-->24p conversion than Vegas 5.
If you want to use Vegas 5, then check out mike crash's de-interlacer. It'll convert to 30p, which I can't tell apart from 24p.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-52097.html

Spot said:
>>>Minimize it if you wish<<<

Stan Said:
>>>Sorry that you feel the need to denegrate what was a great experience for me...I don't even know you [SNIP] My experience on this post has been fantastic until this post...disappointing on thanksgiving. <<<

Um..guys...read what *I* said -

>>>This is sort of a ironic/funny comment so don't take it wrong.<<<

You know it is so sad that people can't make a few jokes here and there. I think it is great that more people are using Vegas to cut things. I think it is great that Spot is part of a company that now has things that are being used in films that were cut/created in Vegas. But as people who all watch films, and for sure those who edit, look beyond the obvious. And FYIW - both of you want to point out "that the film won 'BEST IN SHOW'" yet remember what I said - Did either of you see me say "Man what a full on lie. Stan didn't win best of Show!!!" No, I don't think so. I happened to see the ad and look at the photo - I found it funny because the bloody picture used does not have Stan holding the "Best of Show" award - it clearly shows him with two awards - for best actress and best screenplay. If both of you want to sit here and go off saying how I ruined your day/night than I can't say anything to you that will change that...you feel what you feel. Spot can, at least, be forward and say Stan "didn't have the award at the time the photo was taken", thusly he explains why the photo is not really about/for the "Best of Show" award - the gist of the ad. But think of everyone else who sees this ad, who does not read these forums, and takes the time to look at the photo...unlike me, they may make the assumption that there was no "Best of Show" award. As for me, I *still* think it is funny for the reasons I said. Come on - step back, look at the ad - read it and than take a close look at the photo. Just how does using Celluloid make for writing an award winning screenplay or making actors give award winning performances? It surely was not meant to be funny, but I found it funny. It even crossed my mind that maybe whoever laid out the ad wasn't paying attention and used the wrong photo, thusly my comment about having whoever laid it out take a closer look. But, again, Spot cleared that up, not a mistake but intentional. But whatever guys, I know what I meant and it surely was not what you are taking it as.

Stan - don't know you so I guess it would be very easy to skip over my first comment and only see what you feel is some sort of attack on you. Spot - I am kind of shocked at your response to me because you should know my sense of humor by now.

EDIT - Spelling and a few rewordings to be clear(er).

Stan, I'm glad you found the looks useful, and congrats on your awards!

As for 24p vs. 30p, there's a difference, and I can always see it. 30p looks more filmlike than video, to be sure, but it still has a very video-ish motion cadence to it.

Much of what makes cinematic film look like film is its motion render -- you're seeing 24 separate instances in time per second, which is much slower than the human eye. It gives things a very pleasing, dramatic look which takes you out of reality and into . . . something else.

Also, much of what we've come to think of as "cinematic" camera techniques developed over decades of working with the motion characteristics of a 24fps frame rate. Shooting 24p doesn't allow for quick camera motion and all sorts of thing which don't matter if you're sampling time 60 times a second. In short, if you're shooting with 24p in mind, you're already using a more cinematic shooting style.

Which definitely carries over if you're shooting in 60i AS IF you're shooting in 24p, and then convert to 24p. The results will speak for themselves.

I mean, I think that when most people say they want a "film look," they mean they want something like what they see in movie theaters. And that's all 24fps.

Everytime this topic comes up someone needs to bring up the idea of production value.
Lots of people always ask about film-looks but please remember that lighting is the #1 factor in achieving that. Video shot with cinematic lighting will always look better than film shot with crappy light.
Everyone that has posted here knows that (if you've read enough of their posts), but if you are a newbie and stumble upon this, don't think that a plug-in is going to do the trick.

Lots of people always ask about film-looks but please remember that lighting is the #1 factor in achieving that. Video shot with cinematic lighting will always look better than film shot with crappy light.

I'd submit that camera movement is as much a giveaway as lighting, but you're entirely correct in the above. If you don't start setting your "look" up for film in pre-production planning and then in the production stage, a plugin only goes so far.

Wow.

There's alot of info you guys bombarded me with and I need to furthur study. I'll start testing with the plugins and see if it's good enough for my needs.
I'm really impressed by you guys, what a great forum with soo much valuable information. This is a gold mine of info and have really helped a fellow vegasium.

I really appreciate everyone's input. Thanks

(ps. I own 2 DVCPRO D210 cameras..low-end of the digital cams)

I Julius,

Congratulations for your prize. A little question: the Panasonic DVC Pro is a costly cam. Why don't you consider trading it for a DVX100? You'l be delighted with the real 24 p. mode, numerous image customisation options and general quality. And the work with the 24 PA footage in Vegas is really snappy. No need to struggle with anything...

Hi Logiquem,

These cameras were bought about 5 years ago, and at that time my primary usage was weddings, and today it's still weddings :) I have inquired about the DVX100, but I have some budget issues and won't be able to purchase until I get more revenue. Ebay tells me that I can get about $1800 for my camera, and if I sell both, I could make the purchase..the only problem is I need both cameras because I often book 2 weddings.

I don't know about the others, but I don't get a steady stream of income..and it's comes in waves, and when that waves comes, so do the bills. I'm trying to make a break out of weddings and go into film production, something I always loved and this documentary was a first for me...my big dream is to have my films in Hollywood.

So for now I have to eat beans and really strech my equipment until the last screw falls :)

Does anyone else think that they can make better movies than Hollywood? (maybe not at the production level)

<<Does anyone else think that they can make better movies than Hollywood? (maybe not at the production level) >>

"Better" is a loaded term, and not a little bit subjective.

Hey Julius,

This is what I'm getting with a 200-series DVCPRO camera (not sure if it was the 200 or 215 or whatever).
http://www.glennchan.info/Proofs/dvinfo/EFP1-CC-comparison.mov

The right side is post-color grading.

Very nice-looking and VERY funny!

P.S. Amateurs or Indie Film-makers, whichever -- some of us want that film look. Unfortunately, presently it's very hard for me to achieve the depth of field look, but I can convert my 60i to 24p in Vegas and use Celluloid film-looks. If I were an Indie film maker I would definitely be doing everything I could with lighting, maybe buy a 35mm depth of field converter, etc., but still I'm at least approaching the Holy Grail, if not achieving it, and I'm one of those people that just likes the look. Maybe someday the "film-look" will be passe, but I agree with David Jimerson that the 24p cadence has something magical in it that says, "Story ... drama ... emotion" whatever and the 60i look says, "This is happening right now -- don't get too caught up in it -- it's just passing by."

Thanks Paul.

There's the letus35 adapter that's only a few hundred bucks, and you can get Nikon still lenses to use with it.
http://www.letus35.com/
Dvinfo.net has lots of good info on it... esp. user reviews and samples http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=53325

Unfortunately the image is inverted, so you have to operate the camera backwards (the camera is pointing behind you and you flip the LCD upside down) or buy an external monitor and physically turn it upside down.


Of course you can always strive towards the "better than film" look.

While watching the BTS on the DVD of Kingdom of Heaven (and i've noticed it before on other DVDs) they show raw filmed footage and it definitly doesnt look as good as when they show a final color corrected footage. In fact it looked just like the example above...

So i'm thinking that color "grading" has a lot to do with it also...

What does grading mean... is it just color correcting? Why do you need expensive davinci machines to do it? It seems it can be done weel enough with vegas (or other NLE's) is there any tutorials or anything for it?

While watching the BTS on the DVD of Kingdom of Heaven (and i've noticed it before on other DVDs) they show raw filmed footage and it definitly doesnt look as good as when they show a final color corrected footage. In fact it looked just like the example above...
Film by itself looks ok. If you look at old TV shows shot on film, you'll see that. Some new TV shows are also shot in film without much color correction/grading.
Recently there's been the proliferation of extensive color grading done on footage... especially look at commercials and music videos. They look a lot better than older footage.

The Wikipedia has some information on "color grading":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_grading

Color correcting implies fixing problems with color. A lot of the stuff being done on davincis (commercials, music videos in particular) goes beyond this... the term "color enhancement" is more accurate but few people use that term.

The advantage of systems like da vinci 2K are:
A- It comes with a talented colorist. It's all they do. Many colorists argue that the talent of the colorist is more important than the equipment. This is probably the biggest factor why something looks good.
B- Everything is real-time, including power windows (equivalent to bezier masking in Vegas).
C- Colorists, directors, DPs, ad agency clients are used to it. B may be particularly important in this regard... other systems are not real-time.
The da vinci is considered a hardware-based color correction system..

There are software-based color correction systems like Final Touch (several thousand), Discreet Lustre ($300k?), quantel iQ/qcolor (about a million dollars). They have a bigger toolset than hardware-based correctors, like motion tracking and bezier masks.
da Vinci (the company) also makes a software-based system called Resolve.
Software-based systems are slower and not always real-time.

Big differences between dedicated color correction systems and Vegas are:
A- Ability to use control surfaces. Like how you can use a control surface in Vegas for mixing audio, except they are for color correction.
B- Dedicated towards color correction, so you don't have to do silly amounts of button pushing to accomplish something.

That being said, Vegas is good at color correction compared to Final Touch (that's the only system above I have experience with).
Both are capable of things the other cannot do. Vegas has adjustable color curves (FT's curves can't be adjusted), unsharp mask, chroma blur (for killing noise for secondary CC).
FT has motion tracking, which really rocks.

Both have workflow problems that the other does not. Vegas has perfect conforms (of course), FT has problems with both XML and EDL. The FT interface is more conductive to grading... less button pushing with a control surface.

Vegas is definitely slower, although it's bearable if you use preview preview mode.
FT is buggy. It's more expensive because you need a top-of-the-line G5 and the control surface is really helpful (and expensive).

2- Other NLEs aren't that great at color correction as Vegas. It just so happens that you can hack Vegas to do useful color correction things... compositing mode + bezier masking to get something a little better than a da Vinci 2k's power windows feature (except much slower).

3- is there any tutorials or anything for it?
Unfortunately there's not much info available.

For the particular video I posted in this thread, see
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=43873 for what I did.

Also helpful:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54544

Tutorial on using levels filter:
http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/articles/glennchan/levels_in_sony_vegas_part_one.htm