[HN Gopher] Create Vintage Videos Using FFmpeg in 4 Simple Steps
___________________________________________________________________
Create Vintage Videos Using FFmpeg in 4 Simple Steps
Author : ponderingfish
Score : 199 points
Date : 2020-11-15 16:33 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ottverse.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ottverse.com)
| ux wrote:
| You forgot to add a vignette filter :)
|
| Also, the vignette preset for the curves filter is a bit over-
| the-top, you may want to get a smoother preset (the vignette
| filter can import Photoshop preset files, so you can look if you
| can find a free preset somewhere). Alternatively you can find out
| strategic keypoints within GIMP and translate them to FFmpeg
| parameter (a bit more hassle I admit), but note that the
| interpolation between points might not be exactly the same.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Slightly off-topic, but why do old time football videos always
| seem like they're played at 80% speed?
| frankzander wrote:
| Site doesn't work well with disables JS because of AMP. please
| disable this useless crap.
| frankzander wrote:
| But cool effect without expensive tools :)
| __zayne__ wrote:
| It's cool to see more people writing posts and experimenting on
| this topic. I was surprised at how little info I could find
| trying to research this about a year ago, and spent a decent
| chunk of this year experimenting with trying to create
| vintage/retro video filters using FFmpeg. If anyone is curious, I
| shared a bunch of my notes on this topic here a little while ago:
| https://zayne.io/articles/vintage-camera-filters-with-ffmpeg
|
| Disclaimer: I'm still an FFmpeg noob
| johnchristopher wrote:
| I'd add some blur, applied in random spots but large enough not
| to notice it's shifting.
| [deleted]
| ExcavateGrandMa wrote:
| "Secure Connection Failed"... your secure socket layer lacks
| compatibility...
|
| It's bad to share information with the public :)
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Every single vintage effect misses out on one crucial factor -
| Resolution. Vintage films (even when scanned in 4K) do not have
| the same type of aliasing and sharpening aspects that digital
| cameras have. This effect is what "makes" it vintage for me.
|
| If you haven't seen, Apollo (2019) documentary is simply stunning
| and even though it's in 4K, it appears vintage.
| vmception wrote:
| Then add that affect lol. In production you don't just apply
| one filter and be done with it, and you don't just apply the
| filter evenly, you want to layer mask and add something dynamic
| to it. A proper tutorial won't tell you about all the other
| filters, just the one specific effect it is talking about.
| HelloNurse wrote:
| There's vintage and vintage. Old film scanned today (with
| modern resolution and chromatic fidelity, reproducing
| accurately chemical and optical issues in the original) is very
| different from old TV footage (with anisotropic filtering and
| old magnetic tape degradation effects) and from early digital
| cameras.
| [deleted]
| warpech wrote:
| Which Apollo documentary are you referring to? There were a few
| last year according to IMDB
| yalooze wrote:
| Not OP but can only assume it's this one
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8760684/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 lots of
| new footage and a great documentary.
| leeoniya wrote:
| somewhat related:
|
| https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/KylePittman/20150420/241442/...
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm curious what you're referring to specifically, since there
| is incredibly sharp film footage out there.
|
| Are you talking about resolution from film grain? Because 35mm
| film is generally to be considered a good bit higher resolution
| than 4K.
|
| Or the noise properties of film grain, which is a separate
| issue from resolution? Which shows up some in well-lit
| conditions, but is even more obvious in nighttime shots? That's
| certainly easy to add.
|
| Or are you talking about lower-quality lenses (e.g. chromatic
| abberation), or focus issues?
|
| Or something else? I don't know at all what you mean by the
| "aliasing and sharpening" that you claim professional digital
| cameras perform. (Since we're not talking about iPhone camera
| processing, but rather the cameras movies and broadcasters
| use.)
| simias wrote:
| Analog support doesn't sample individual pixels in a grid
| format. That's why it's rather meaningless to talk about the
| resolution of analog photos or video, the actually
| information density will vary depending on a large number of
| factors and may not even be the same depending on what you
| measure. For instance old school analog TV had significantly
| more information in the lumas than in the chroma.
|
| And then you have old school lenses vs. modern lenses and
| many other factors.
|
| I agree with the parent that the end result is an amusing
| novelty but if the intention was to fool me into thinking
| that it was actually an ancient recording I don't think I
| would've fallen for it. It's too sharp, the blurring effect
| on movement feel wrong too and the dynamics are off I think
| (film has amazing contrast that digital sensors still
| struggle to emulate).
| schrijver wrote:
| > For instance old school analog TV had significantly more
| information in the lumas than in the chroma.
|
| That's the case for the large majority of digital content
| as well, in a codec like H264 the chroma resolution is a
| quarter of the luma resolution.
|
| > but if the intention was to fool me into thinking that it
| was actually an ancient recording
|
| To be fair, no one claimed this. I think it's almost
| impossible to do because so many factors come together.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Sure, but I wouldn't go so far as to say resolution of
| analog is "meaningless". I'm not aware of a precise
| quantitative measure of film "resolution", but simply from
| a qualitative sense of resolving detail, it's quite
| meaningful and useful to say that 35mm film is generally
| considered to lie somewhere between 4K and 8K. Which is
| _far_ higher than 1080p.
|
| In other words, if you're watching a 1080p video and
| complaining it appears too "high-resolution" to have been
| transferred from film, that's almost certainly incorrect,
| and it's something else that cluing you in it wasn't film
| -- probably grain and/or color characteristics.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Isn't the opposite the case? If I see aliasing and
| sharpening, I see it as digital distortion you wouldn't
| expect from film. When I see a bunch of digital artifacts
| on a film transfer, I think of it as a bad transfer.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| For home movies, at least, 8mm and Super 8mm was a very
| common format. An 8mm frame has a lot less resolution than
| 35mm. Kodachrome and Ektachrome film have very identifiable
| artifacts, too.
| ponderingfish wrote:
| Excellent point. Perhaps, a blurring filter would help with
| that.
| atonse wrote:
| And a little bit of grain?
| kawsper wrote:
| I would consider also getting some old lenses like the
| Krasnogorsk if you're recording this yourself.
|
| https://youtu.be/2YzFPruwXyk
|
| https://youtu.be/XelO_3rrkeA
| ponderingfish wrote:
| Nice! I am actually just using my iPhone videos and
| converting them this way! The output is pretty good and
| when I shared them with family, they loved it. Thanks for
| the lens links.
| minimaxir wrote:
| For working with FFmpeg for programmatic video editing, I also
| recommend using moviepy: https://github.com/Zulko/moviepy
|
| Discussion a few years ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16297295
| [deleted]
| deeblering4 wrote:
| To me the film damage/dust/hair overlay seems a bit severe. It's
| kind of a default "old stuff looks like this" filter, but I don't
| think old films were actually this damaged unless it was stored
| outside for years or something.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-15 23:00 UTC)