The Agfa Ultracolor both cools and intensifies the reds very heavily, and also introduces an overall bluish cast. It is eye-catching, if not accurate. I also notice a slight degradation to foreground textures which I don't like. I always want more texture, not less.
The Fuji Provia 400 does not change the colours much that I can see, but it does add a fair amount of film grain. In the real world, I've used Provia-400 in my Rolleiflex very recently, and did not notice any film grain at all.
"Infrared" is one of the generic filters available in FilmPack. It doesn't look like any Infrared that I've ever seen, but it does make a very nice black and white, adding just a little bit of grain and beautifully enhancing the foreground texture. On the down side, I think it turns the entire scene overly grey, but that can easily be adjusted with a bump in the curve, or with a bit of Channel Mixing. I just don't understand why they called this Infrared.
The Kodachrome 200 is one of my favourites. It is free from grain, adds some warmth and almost a luminosity to the picture. Texture is preserved but not enhanced. Overall, very nice.
The Elite Color 400 is a bit like the Agfa Ultracolor 100, with an overall cooling, perhaps leaning toward Cyan instead of Blue. It is a lot less grainy than the Fuji 400, but does reduce my texture a bit, though not severely.
The T-Max simulation does not work well with this picture at all. It might be good in other circumstances but here, it seems to soften the picture overall. Do people like Kodak T-Max for it's softness? If so, it has a nice tonality which is not too grey, but is a real contrast, and texture killer.
This is something I don't need, as GIMP has several variations on the "nostalgia" theme built right in. It works OK, but overall, isn't this the kind of thing that's making everybody ga-ga for Instagram?
With this very brief trial of DxO's FilmPack, I've not seen anything yet that makes me want to buy it. I will certainly keep using it until the trial period expires in a couple of weeks - I might discover something about it that makes it worth the price. But so far, my experience tells me once again there is an inherent advantage to film that post-processing software such as this can never emulate. A film camera "catches light" in a very simple manner, whilst a digital camera is a complex machine that will always bends over backwards to "normalize light", and if it's unable to do so, it simply leaves you with blown highlights or noisy shadows. For an example of what I mean, you would never be able to point a digital camera into the sun, without a lens hood, and still be able to capture this: