Edward, I have NewBlue VE Color Fixer Plus. But I wouldn't use it, at least in this case. You've just auto balanced the color of my look. The question is "WHY?" Yes, there is a lot of literature about that matter and you did it really good. But what would happen if we start to correct the color balance of "Sin City", "Saving Private Ryan", "Lord Of The Rings" and many many many more movies?!? I don't think that they forgot to do that, right? Same about my conception in this case - I applied such a look exactly because that is what I was looking for. As I said earlier, I choosed the formula of Apple - Movie Trailers - watching and comparing helped me too much about my opinion. And MB didn't help me at all. Meanwhile, I used every version of MB looks and editors before and whatever I tweak the parameters, the result is so far from what I focus to...

I agree, I applied a DIFFERENT LOOK to the snapshot. I also agree that if #2 is the look you're going for, you hit it and I wouldn't change it on your project. From the single snapshot, I really didn't like that "look" as well as the other one. But I don't know how that single snapshot fits in on the rest of the project. It's all about options, getting the look YOU need, and ending up with results you're happy with.

Some MBLooks examples
 

I put up some MBLooks examples up on YouTube.

YouTube - Magic Bullet Looks Experiment

If you CAN do this with a plug-in chain or with Apple Color, by all means, do, but MBLooks really is catered towards the non-pro who wants some nice effects without spending months studying Color or hiring a colorist. It really is an amateur, rather than pro, tool. Rendering took forever but designing the looks took minutes.

Then again, as I -am- an amateur...

You might upset a few Looks-using pros with that statement, Brian! ;-)

Then let me qualify it.

Magic Bullet Looks is for amateurs to color grading; this can include anyone of any professional level at filming, editing, etc. but just doesn't have the time to learn color grading at the level of a full-time colorist.

If you ARE, however, a full-time colorist, MBLooks probably isn't going to be the first choice - it doesn't give you quite as much control over what you need to do as something like Apple Color would. But for most of us, we don't need that fine level of control.

I guess I should say I was being flippant! But in fact your qualification makes perfect sense and I think you're spot on. I guess there's the MB Colorista argument which is more of a competitor to Color - not sure that Looks is expecting to compete in that space.

BTW, I remember watching your Makers doco - great fun!

which FX filters did you use and what nle

I suppose the answer to the main question: Is Magic Bullet Looks worth getting? That question would have to be answered in a flowchart.

If:
- you want to do some basic color correction for mood
- or you don't trust yourself to get contrast/saturation right if you did it by hand in Vegas or FCP/FCE
- like to have several pre-sets to choose from
- don't have the need for more professional color grading
- and don't mind spending $200,

Then:
- it's worth it.

If you want, just upload your original video, give me the link and I will process it with my own custom fx chain. The MB Looks you used is EXACTLY what I've used before. Whatever you choose from Looks or whichever parameter to tweak and adjust, the final result is as if as your video is projected on a textile screen. There is something wrong and not enough in Looks.
Ok, after few hours I will upload and show a link to my newest video processing. STAY TUNED!!!

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 I would 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!

Ok, that's for now:
Hollywood Film Look 17 - Canon HV30 - 24P on Vimeo

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

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

Calexico's latest album.

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 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.

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.

Brian please explain the "mix" part?

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.

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