Full time colorist here that's been on resolve well over a decade (among other suites).
Mac only color correction plugins cut out a large portion of the potential audience. Most suites I've been in recently are either Linux or their IT departments tell me they're planning on moving to windows boxes (two of my regular post houses already have). These are large facilities and the resolve trend is definitely in that direction.
In the home market where this might be even more popular (most post facilities and freelance pro colorists already have "secret sauces" that we use regularly), the vast majority are on windows in my experience.
There's another popular Russian film emulation plugin similar to this that is also Mac only, but they have plans for win/linux in the next few months because they've found they are hitting a limit in their potential market.
Resolve is not only for high-end anymore, but for the masses. Plenty of pros, semi-pros and enthusiasts are running imacs and macbooks and Resolve.
As a full-time editor and colorist Macs are my preffered choice. I’ll gladly take a small render-performance hit as it’s oversll a betyer experience working on a Mac.
Oh, i signed up but didnt see the small disclaimer.
Having a cross platform product would be super powerful, as we are using Linux and Windows machines for our heavy lifting, only dealing with Macs for exporting to Prores formats.
Consider this +1 for both versions. I'd love to play with this but I'm hardly in OSX suites currently due to covid (my suites are centos and win). Best of luck with the rollout.
If you shoot stills and want the positives of film and not the negatives, try my open-source photo editor Filmulator, which simulates the depletion and diffusion of developer liquid to enhance color, improve local contrast, and reduce global contrast, without any of the halation, grain, scratches, color shifts, or any of that nonsense.
I overcooked the samples a bit just to make the effect more noticeable. I usually edit my photos much less strongly than that.
Also, the appropriate size halos vary depending on the display size. If you're viewing on a phone, the radius needs to be larger to not be noticeable. If I print them out A3+, though, the halos fade away and my brain interprets them as contrast in the original scene.
“Halo a little too pronounced? Click here to see an image adjusted for your device” > Second page/popup/whatever > “I’m viewing on: iPhone, desktop, HDR, etc” > show appropriate image.
Points being: Don’t complicate the view for most visitors, but let the pros know that they are right to ask.
Wow mate, I'm just an amateur cosplay photographer, but legit thanks for sharing. I'll have to investigate further but this looks exactly like what I needed.
I think this sort of thing is great, but then the final, meticulously adjusted product gets compressed down to 7-8 megabit streams that annihilate all grain, and then shown on poorly configured TVs at 120Hz in bright rooms. It's hard being a detail-oriented colorist, DP, or producer right now! There's so much you can't control.
Yep, spot on. As a technologist (and person with eyes) it's frustrating when I visit family and friends and see just how much great technology, production craft and standards-setting effort ends up not making it to the average viewer's eyes for mundane reasons that mostly happen between compression artifacts in distribution, misleading marketing, misguided "sounds-good" featuritis, consumer device UX design fails and a typical haphazard living room install.
Also, average viewers like us just don't care about visual and auditory nuance.
My living room is a comfortable place optimized for living and conversation, and every now and then the TV gets rolled into the middle of the room at a comfortable distance from the couch and chairs. My speakers are $50 analog Logitechs under the TV (and most people don't even have that). If you're not targeting this kind of scenario, your great works won't be noticed except by awards committees and aficionados who are willing to spend the cash and time to set everything up "just right".
Yes, people should right-size their spend and effort to their goals. I'm thinking of the scenario where the person actually had an intent to have "good" quality and spent more money for what they were told would "look better", but due to inaccurate information sources (eg salespeople, buzzwordy feature bullet points on signage, friend, etc) they don't end up with what they thought they would get (and paid upward for). The frustrating part is there's no fundamental reason they couldn't have actually got what they wanted instead of being mildly disappointed that their extra $500 spent "isn't really as different as they'd hoped". Yes, there's a point of diminishing returns beyond which more money buys things that don't matter (like 4k resolution vs good 1080 when the viewing distance-to-screen size makes the difference optically negligible to human eyes).
However, under that point of contextual diminishing returns, a little bit of on-point knowledge or information can really maximize the return on incremental spend and effort.
This does not appear to be a valid Show HN. There needs to be something more than a signup page for people to try out (see the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html) so I've taken Show HN out of the title for now.
Whoops, totally fair! Sorry about that! I can't read!
I don't want my Show HN bungle to give the impression that Filmbox is vaporware! We think it's ready to go, we're just trying to roll it out to certain types of productions first to manage feedback, hence the sign up process.
Filmbox's sister product, Scatter, was fully released today and can be purchased and tested. Filmbox works just like Scatter and demonstrates our technology for the diffusion filter use case. https://videovillage.co/scatter/
If you want to figure out a way to let people try out the product beforehand you're certainly welcome to do a Show HN (for either of these products). We'd be happy to help if you email hn@ycombinator.com.
> A complete reproduction of photochemical motion picture imaging.
The end result appears to be a near perfect emulation in the final image, however the other qualities of film, for example overexposure tolerance for negatives and reciprocity failure in general, can't be emulated or simulated due to the nature digital sensors. Additionally, digital sensors have their own quirks like bayer pattern filters and moiré interference that will have an effect on what is recorded.
Not to say this isn't amazing, just that the statement quoted above is not a totally accurate claim.
Maybe it would help see the more important difference if they showed what video looks like without any such transformation, or the typical post-processing someone would do without this tool?
I.e., I'm not comparing against film, I'm comparing against what comes out of the video camera.
This type of comparison is a pretty natural one to want. We are still thinking about ways to best demonstrate Filmbox. The best way is to use it, but we will try to come up with a way to show this.
This particular comparison raises some interesting philosophical questions, which is why we haven't gotten to it yet. The comparison could be pretty misleading if done wrong.
Filmbox is designed to produce an accurate film look from scene-referred footage. But digital image data really has no look in any meaningful way.
We could, for example, show the video in a log color space as it’s encoded, but that's an arbitrary encoding that is not even intended for display. We could apply some "video" LUT or simulate how someone might "typically" color grade the footage, but that's a creative choice - and one that can still be performed in addition to the Filmbox emulation pipeline.
The right way to think about it is perhaps that video can be prepared to look like anything, But modern motion picture film has a fairly defined look. Filmbox is designed to provide ways of processing video that are closest to processed film. So we feel the meatiest comparison is Filmbox to actual film.
That is a good point, I guess any output has some transformation applied, just a question of what you are aiming for.
Maybe the best way to put it could be, "if someone tried to get it to look as much as film as they could, what would they lack that your tool provides"?
The answer to that probably gets a bit tautological and sounds cheeky – if they did a great job making it look like film, then nothing!
But in practice without a clear target and a lot of empirical data about the various properties of photochemical imaging they would end up with a subjective look that may look filmic on a limited range of shots but would not represent a dynamically functional model of the response of the photochemical process.
This is why we think the most apt comparison is our output compared with film, because that's the target look. We don't think the existing solutions do as good of a job of it as easily as Filmbox.
Curious to see hear what makes this different to other players in this space (eg Cinegrain, Filmconvert, etc)? Or what your ideal user is?
After all:
- Halation tranforms are pretty easy to create.
- There are plenty of 4k film scans out there.
- Film stock transforms are everywhere.
- Gate weave motion is not hard to mimic.
If it were a combination of all of the above then I can see it being useful for people wanting to grade something pretty quick. But colorists are always going to want to get in there and manipulate these kinds of details.
We also released Scatter today, a complementary emulation of diffusion filters. There's a separate Show HN thread and here is the website https://videovillage.co/scatter/ (I guess that's the right way to organize it?)
Filmbox currently emulates Vision3 250D 500T 50D at 16mm and 35mm gauges and prints to 2383. We may expand this as needs arise. We are experimenting with ektachrome, a black and white stock, and have plans to do variable bleach bypass on the print.
You can see muddiness in the really dark areas in the digital version (left ear area for example). Also depths of field are noticeably different in some parts of the image.
But they don't say anything about exposures and focal lengths between the two versions so while I'd like to think I could tell digital apart from film, I'm probably wrong.
This strikes me as the same sort of fetishism as the CRT emulators for video games and the vinyl editions of modern albums. Nice for people who like that sort of thing, but it's still a deliberate distortion to evoke nostalgia.
This is certainly true in some sense! (And kind of the point.)
Reproducing reality as exactly as possible is one use case for video, but typically for cinema we want to provide a subjective artistic interpretation of the imagery.
But yes, the look of film is hardly the only valid way to present a movie. There are lots of interesting looks that can be achieved that don't look like film at all.
Film emulation is an artistic tool, like other tools that bring the look of a movie further away from reality and toward some thematic goal (depth of field effects, framing, camera movement, aspect ratio, color grading, music, not being 3D, etc.)
Filmbox is meant to be a particular interpretation of camera data, one rooted in the history of motion picture imaging, available for artists to use as appropriate.
Emulating film ought to be on the way out by now. Nobody still uses photographic film end to end. Somebody in Hollywood tried to edit physical film last year, and she had to call in favors just to get blank leader and film cement. Trying to emulate film is like making sepia-toned pictures.
The industry has been through this before. With the end of silent films. With the end of showing an orchestra if the film had music. (That's credited to Irving Thalberg). With the end of editorial geography. (That ended with Jean-Luc Godard's "Breathless" in 1960). The industry got over those, and they'll get over 24FPS and film grain.
There are reasons for favoring 24fps and grain even into a digital era. Studies are still ongoing on how brains interpret different frame rates and how they effect the suspension of disbelief.
Clean grain dramatically increases the acutance of an image and additionally helps to prevent compression banding issues for cleaner, better looking videos (as long as delivery compression is done properly). There's basically nothing that you see on TV or in cinema that hasn't had grain added. It makes such a huge difference that oftentimes actual film grain is removed, color and vfx are done and applied, and then digital grain is put back on because the image improves so much. Even many video games add subtle grain (not the over the top grain settings) because of how it improves things. Film's natural grain is the gold standard here and it's definitely not going away.
Many productions do not use grain. Roger Deakins for example does not use grain on any of his digitally shot films - so everything since ‘In Time’. I do like grain personally on the right project and used in the right way. It’s another creative aesthetic tool.
In the art of bonsai, the Yoshino Momiji holds a place of high esteem. Because of its naturally small leaves and tendency to develop fine branching, it is an ideal subject for miniature landscapes. A bonsai master cultivating a Yoshino Momiji spends decades encouraging nebari (root flare), selecting the primary branches, and wiring the twigs to mimic an ancient mountain tree battered by wind. The goal is not perfection in a geometric sense, but wabi-sabi —the beauty of impermanence and imperfection. In autumn, the bonsai grower will often strip the leaves (a technique called metsumi ) earlier in the year to produce a second, even smaller and more brilliantly colored flush of leaves. Each tiny, star-shaped leaf becomes a universe of color, from lime green to vermilion to deep burgundy. To observe a Yoshino Momiji bonsai in October is to witness a silent explosion of life force, contained yet boundless.
The practice of (hunting red leaves) is the autumnal equivalent of cherry-blossom viewing. And Yoshino remains one of the premier destinations for this ritual. Unlike the cultivated uniformity of maples in a Tokyo park, the Yoshino Momiji on the mountain’s three distinct zones (lower, middle, upper, and deep mountain) creates a dynamic, layered spectacle. The leaves turn at different times depending on elevation, meaning the "flame" of autumn seems to climb the mountain over several weeks. Walking the ancient pilgrimage paths, one sees the Yoshino Momiji framed by Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples—a deliberate aesthetic arrangement known as shakkei (borrowed landscape). The maple leaf is not just a tree; it is a screen, a painting, a prayer. A single crimson leaf falling into a clear mountain stream is a classic haiku moment, embodying the mono no aware (the pathos of things) that defines Japanese sensibility.
In conclusion, Yoshino Momiji is far more than a biological specimen of Acer palmatum . It is a poetic conceit, a religious symbol, a horticultural challenge, and a national treasure of seasonal emotion. From the sacred slopes of Mount Yoshino, where monks once practiced austerity under the turning leaves, to the serene trays of a bonsai master’s collection, to the delicate patterns on a wedding kimono, this maple embodies the Japanese ideal of transience. The Yoshino Momiji teaches that beauty is most profound not when it is permanent, but when it burns most brightly in its final moments. As the leaf detaches and spirals toward the earth, it does not fall in defeat; it dances. And in that dance—silent, scarlet, and fleeting—the entire cosmos of Japanese aesthetics is revealed. yoshino momiji
In the contemporary context, the Yoshino Momiji has found a new global audience. As Japanese maples became coveted ornamental trees in Europe and North America, the name "Yoshino" was borrowed to evoke authenticity and exotic beauty. While many "Yoshino Maples" sold in Western nurseries may be hybrids or look-alikes, the true cultural ideal persists. It represents a specific aesthetic promise: a tree that demands full sun to achieve its legendary red, that prefers slightly acidic, well-drained soil, and that rewards patience with an annual conflagration of color. For the gardener in London or New York, planting a Yoshino Momiji is an act of pilgrimage in miniature—a way of bringing the sacred mountain home.
In the grand tapestry of Japanese aesthetics, few motifs are as potent as the autumn leaf. While the cherry blossom ( sakura ) heralds a season of beginnings and fleeting beauty, the crimson maple ( momiji ) speaks of maturity, poignant decline, and the quiet courage of letting go. Among the countless cultivars of Japanese maple, one name resonates with a particular, almost sacred, resonance: Yoshino Momiji . More than a mere botanical classification, Yoshino Momiji exists at the intersection of geography, poetry, and horticultural artistry—a living symbol of a place and a philosophy. To understand this specific maple is to journey into the heart of Japanese nature worship, the refined world of hanami ’s autumnal counterpart, momijigari , and the enduring human desire to capture perfection. In the art of bonsai, the Yoshino Momiji
The cultural weight of Yoshino Momiji derives almost entirely from its geographical namesake. Mount Yoshino is a sacred landscape, deeply entwined with the Shugendō sect of mountain asceticism and the imperial lineage. For centuries, poets and painters have made pilgrimage to Yoshino. While the Manyoshu and Kokin Wakashū are replete with references to Yoshino’s cherries, the Heian and Kamakura periods saw a growing appreciation for the autumn maple. A famous waka by the retired Emperor Gotoba (1180–1239) captures this shift: Though I have seen many springs on Yoshino Mountain, I have never grown weary of the deep crimson of its autumn leaves. This poem is pivotal. It suggests that while cherry blossoms offer a spectacular but uniform beauty (pink and white), the momiji offers depth—a "deep crimson" that changes with the light, the moisture, and the angle of vision. The Yoshino Momiji , therefore, became a metaphor for refined, mature beauty. Where sakura is the effervescent young maiden, Yoshino Momiji is the wise courtier, whose brilliance is tinged with the knowledge of imminent loss.
Furthermore, the Yoshino Momiji has permeated Japanese visual and textile arts. The yūzen dyeing technique of kimono often features a stylized Yoshino Momiji pattern, distinguished by its sharply pointed, five-lobed leaves and a specific gradation of red. In ukiyo-e woodblock prints, artists like Hiroshige and Hokusai depicted the maples of Yoshino alongside waterfalls and teahouses, cementing the image in the popular imagination. The motif is also common on lacquerware (with leaves rendered in raden —mother-of-pearl inlay) and ceramic ware. To drink sake from a cup painted with Yoshino Momiji is to participate in a centuries-old tradition of seasonal appreciation. The goal is not perfection in a geometric
First, it is crucial to distinguish the term. Botanically, Yoshino Momiji can be ambiguous. Strictly speaking, the archetypal Japanese maple is Acer palmatum . However, the name "Yoshino" immediately invokes (Yoshinoyama) in Nara Prefecture, a site so legendary for its cherry blossoms that it has been celebrated in poetry for over a thousand years. Yet, Mount Yoshino is equally revered for its autumn maples. Therefore, Yoshino Momiji often refers not to a distinct genetic cultivar but to the spirit or ideal of the maple as it appears on the slopes of Mount Yoshino—a wild, deeply hued, five-lobed leaf that turns a brilliant, almost blood-red crimson. In the world of bonsai and garden nurseries, a cultivar labeled Yoshino Momiji typically denotes a vigorous, upright-growing Acer palmatum with small, delicate leaves that transition from bright green in spring to a spectacular, uniform fiery scarlet in autumn. It is prized for its resilience and the purity of its fall color—an unadulterated red, unmarred by the orange or yellow tinges common in other varieties.
Mac only color correction plugins cut out a large portion of the potential audience. Most suites I've been in recently are either Linux or their IT departments tell me they're planning on moving to windows boxes (two of my regular post houses already have). These are large facilities and the resolve trend is definitely in that direction.
In the home market where this might be even more popular (most post facilities and freelance pro colorists already have "secret sauces" that we use regularly), the vast majority are on windows in my experience.
There's another popular Russian film emulation plugin similar to this that is also Mac only, but they have plans for win/linux in the next few months because they've found they are hitting a limit in their potential market.