Some might say film looks like Vision3 negative stock scanned at their favorite post house and graded by their favorite colorist or processed by their favorite LUT. This is especially the case now that almost nothing is actually printed to film, and many people’s memory of “film” is actually of some hybrid film/digital processes.

It’s worth noting that both film and Filmbox can be made to have many looks, and what people think “film” looks like is a bit of a moving target. We encourage you to try it and see if our model of film lives up to your mental model of film. We certainly tried to gather good data and stay close to that data but our methods are not prefect and there were subjective decisions made about how to tune and implement the data into a functional system that produces creatively satisfying results. They say this:įilmbox does not represent pure empiricism. Having said that, I've been experimenting with Video Village's Filmbox lately, and I really like their philosophy and approach. I think a lot of the so-called Print LUTs and plug-ins out there are a lot of smoke and mirrors with very little real science or usefulness behind them.

In truth, I think if you're just trying to get the 'look' of 2383 print stock - which is more contrasty than I think most people know (particularly people who've never done a film-out and struck a print from digital files) - you can actually fake it pretty well. If the end result is correct, then it IS correct. I have actually worked in workflows where the LUT comes first.

Lut davinci resolve 17