The 16mm seemed to have the truest red on the dress (at least on my monitor) while the digital cameras all seemed a bit orange to me. But this is a really cool comparison and they all looked great!
I think one of the main problems of digital cameras, has to do to a large degree with the recording of movement and the way the sensor captures the flow of motion of the idol, in relation to its available light. One can have excellent looking results with advanced softwares like dehancer, can spend a great amount of time experimenting with grain layers, color adjustments etc, but something will seem to be constantly missing. The irony of digital revolution, is that, its aesthetic advancements are more or less based on recreating the impressionism inherent in the medium of film and its unique way of capturing to the celluloid 24, 18 or whatever fps. Having said that, I’m really enthusiastic with Dehancer's approach here and the creative outlets it gives for independent filmmakers and professionals alike.
@@DehancerQuestion, the numbers posted in this tutorial are different from selecting “16mm” on the various options for all of the effects, and this tutorial seems to create a more accurate 16mm look. Will the preset film effects (grain, bloom, halation, gate weave, film breath) for 8, 16, 35, and 65mm be updated for more accuracy ? I’m experimenting a lot with ultra 16 and super 8
@@jarrodbarker Hey! We urge you to read our blog post on ‘Tool Profiles’ as well as our manual on our website (unfortunately, we cannot provide the links here, though). Note that our profiles are largely provisional and reflect our own perceptions.
I think analog cameras might be a little too nostalgic / that was the reason why dune was shot digitally and converted to film ( to be converted to digital again ), and that's really similar to what enhancer is doing
А можно ссылку на файлобменник хотя бы со стоп кадрами DNG с видео что бы полностью понять все детали? А то в ютюбе такие тесты анализировать не оч корректно.
@Dehancer, have you noticed any changes in the level of grain and contrast after uploading the video to TH-cam? Many creators have been discussing this phenomenon in recent months, and as of now, it appears that no one has found a universal solution for it. In your video, the quality seems to be on point. Could you share more about your approach and any advice you may have on this matter? I would love to learn more from your experience.
Hey! It’s hard to say but you have to pay attention to your video's color grading. Bright, vibrant colors tend to fare better after TH-cam's compression and processing. Avoid extreme adjustments that can result in inconsistencies or loss of detail.
Hi, I’ve noticed that the Dehancer website was recently updated to claim full native ACES support, but it’s unclear to me what that actually means. There’s an old blog post about ACES from last year, but that’s been around for quite a while. Does Dehancer now work WITHIN the ACES scene referred linear light environment, and with the 16bit half float precision that entails? If so, that’s huge news.
"Digital footages graded in Dehancer using Kodak Vision 3 500T film profile and Kodak Vision Color Print Film 2383 profile." film stock = Kodak Vision 3 500T print film = Kodak 2383 I think the print stock has a greater impact than the neg. film stock. Just my opinion. I would also put 2383 in the title, too. We are seeing the end result. The final print. We are seeing a "2383" print.
@@ilyacosmonaut Разница действительно небольшая, и она действительно есть, мы не утверждаем обратного. При этом важно понимать, что добиться полной идентичности (при условии честности эксперимента) - невозможно, поскольку разные камеры обеспечивают разное качество цветоразделения, а зависит это в первую очередь от плотности байеровских фильтров на сенсоре. В нашем случае наилучший результат достигается с камерами RED, что подтверждается и производителем - у данных камер цветоразделение на уровне матрицы действительно лучше, чем у конкурентов.
@@ZaueDP мы Вас поняли! обновляем и добавляем по возможности, поэтому рекомендуем следить за соц сетями, так как точные даты мы Вам, увы, сказать не можем!
I LOVE Dehancer's grain feature. It's without a doubt the best film grain emulation you can get, and most importantly the only one that is truly reconstructing the image with grain, along with LiveGrain (which is pretty much completely out of reach for most of all). I also really love the bloom and halation features. The only thing that bugs me quite a bit is that no matter what i do... i just don't like the colors i get from this plugin (even though I love authentic film colors). I own a BMPCC 6K, along with an ''extremely'' accurate ARRI LogC conversion perfectly taylored for it, and no matter if i'm using pure straight BMD Film footage, or perfectly converted to ARRI LogC, or even perfectly converted to ARRI REC709... i always end up with completely different results, which are all weird looking (even though i have perfect white balance, it always looks like i'm using a LUT that isn't made for this camera). I tried adjusting every setting to get there, but it just doesn't work for me. I get way better results using Film stock/Print Emulation for ARRI LogC in LUT format. Even in this official Dehancer comparison, the texture is very impressive, but just look at the bowl of fruit (especially the pineapple). All digital cameras has yellow-ish/brownish greens instead of blue-ish greens. That's a huge difference. The reds are also all too much on the yellow side. Nothing that can't easily be fixed with manual corrections though. Maybe there's something i'm doing wrong? I truly hope so... In fact, I'm clearly doing something wrong since i've seen lots of amazing results using Dehancer. I just don't get what i'm doing wrong, which makes me very sad cause I really wanted to buy this plugin.. but I might end up only buying the Film Grain only version :(
Hello. Indeed, there is a special knowledge which makes working with whatever source material easier. First of all, your own practice in interpreting a particular camera is entirely compatible with our plugin in terms of the ‘proper’ workflow. Please, read this article for better understanding the pipeline and possible solutions on every grading stage: blog.dehancer.com/articles/how-to-manage-image-contrast-and-avoid-clipping/ And this one is very useful too: blog.dehancer.com/articles/dehancer-in-davinci-resolve-node-sequence/ In this way, you will understand that: 1. The built-in interpretations of the cameras are not intended to be generic and reflect our own vision of aesthetics (based on our extensive experience in film photography). 2. Dehancer certainly requires a ‘special’ attitude regarding the source material, specifically for the plugin. 3. There are at least half a dozen obvious and ‘conventional’ ways of interpreting the source material that result in vastly dissimilar images. 4. We provide a rich correction toolset, and yes, these corrections is a natural part of operating the plugin, but not an indication that something is wrong. In analog processes, such corrections are introduced at almost every step - from shooting with filters, through development parameters, to corrections when printing. Dehancer is the kind of software that, as you master it deeply, will give you a great time and a rewarding creative and practical outcome.
@@dmitry_novak Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you took the time to give that much infos on the subject. I will certainly look deeper into it. Although, could you explain why none of the digital cameras in your comparison matches the green color? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that to be mean at all… but I’d like to understand why this specific color is so far off on every digital camera, even when the color match has been done by you guys. Can a perfect result (or near perfect) is possible to be achieved all within Dehancer (without spot corrections)? Thanks for your help!
@@davidmultimedia2024 Your personal expectations and personal taste largely form the attitude towards the preferred aesthetics of particular colours. We can assure you that our processes involve colorimetrically accurate reproduction of the film printed on a particular medium. Also in Dehancer's track record you will find numerous clips in which the greens are quite adequate and artistic. In fact there is a lot of different and distinctive greens. At least during recent project history, we have not received any negative feedback about major colour issues like described. Maybe there is some sort of pipeline issues.
Can you list what you think is better or worse, and point to specific areas or differences? An alternate perception is always worthwhile. Thank you.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +2
@@dmitry_novak I think it looks better to them, as it says Kodak below lol. I bet you 100$ that they wouldn't be able to identify what is film and what not in an A/B test study... Of course there are still differences, but no viewer would ever notice. At least in the controlled scene. - other shots might be a different story
@ Agreed. Like a cheat in a composition, or even just grading to match cameras, this plug-in's contribution to immersion is what makes any effect worthwhile. This is in contrast to any effect included for the sake of itself at the cost of distraction, which pulls the viewer out of immersion unless such an interruption makes a point unavailable from within the suspension of disbelief.
@ Wrong. Part of it is color rendition as the red dress does not look as accurate in the digital camera footage. Also movement is something that still doesnt feel filmic in any digital camera. That one is hard to explain but it is a definite issue.
ปีที่แล้ว
@@mpbootcamp7009 obviously, but do you really think, that without the reference film footage right next to it, anyone would care? Especially the audience? I would argue that Dehancer isn't even a that good film emulation in most cases. But in this demo they obviously matched the footage to the film footage to sell their product. It won't look like this when you use Dehancer on your footage if you don't have the same film footage as reference. So obviously I know that film will still look better than Dehancer in the real world (there are way better emulations being used by Hollywood btw) But to say that film looks "sooo much better" and that it's "not even close" in this polished advertising video is BS in my opinion
chemist is still wiser than digital sensor engineers. kodak can not be beaten by digital sensors. especially the cost down version of the modern bayer array sensor. but on the other hand, this plugin is excellent. the grading is beautiful. I'm getting into davinci to do post work for the interview shot I'm working on. I will get dehancer.
The 16mm seemed to have the truest red on the dress (at least on my monitor) while the digital cameras all seemed a bit orange to me. But this is a really cool comparison and they all looked great!
I think one of the main problems of digital cameras, has to do to a large degree with the recording of movement and the way the sensor captures the flow of motion of the idol, in relation to its available light. One can have excellent looking results with advanced softwares like dehancer, can spend a great amount of time experimenting with grain layers, color adjustments etc, but something will seem to be constantly missing. The irony of digital revolution, is that, its aesthetic advancements are more or less based on recreating the impressionism inherent in the medium of film and its unique way of capturing to the celluloid 24, 18 or whatever fps. Having said that, I’m really enthusiastic with Dehancer's approach here and the creative outlets it gives for independent filmmakers and professionals alike.
$400 is a bit steep for something like this
Amazing! Care to do a tutorial on matching these to the Kodak? Would be significant, a tutorial from Dehancer creators themselves
Here is it blog.dehancer.com/articles/dehancer-vs-16-mm-film/
@@DehancerQuestion, the numbers posted in this tutorial are different from selecting “16mm” on the various options for all of the effects, and this tutorial seems to create a more accurate 16mm look. Will the preset film effects (grain, bloom, halation, gate weave, film breath) for 8, 16, 35, and 65mm be updated for more accuracy ? I’m experimenting a lot with ultra 16 and super 8
@@jarrodbarker Hey! We urge you to read our blog post on ‘Tool Profiles’ as well as our manual on our website (unfortunately, we cannot provide the links here, though). Note that our profiles are largely provisional and reflect our own perceptions.
Can't wait for the FCP plugin to drop
Aaah...warm and fuzzy vintage look ☕
I love you Dehancer team!
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Works great on the RED. The Bmpcc6k is a bit too sharp here.
Yes, but our Film Grain tool has the dedicated parameter ‘Film Resolution’ that allows to fine-tune the emulsion softness in a wide range.
I think analog cameras might be a little too nostalgic / that was the reason why dune was shot digitally and converted to film ( to be converted to digital again ), and that's really similar to what enhancer is doing
That was ONE reason they shot digital. Another was the organic qualities of film unavailable to digital. Not just grain.
both beautiful no question but damn on the left shes majestic
Просто нифига себе!
Dehancer охуенен, надо брать
Дайте две
А можно ссылку на файлобменник хотя бы со стоп кадрами DNG с видео что бы полностью понять все детали? А то в ютюбе такие тесты анализировать не оч корректно.
Вот ссылка на статью про экспермент, там есть файл с грейдом:
dehancerru.wordpress.com/2021/11/29/dehancer-vs-16-mm-film/
@Dehancer, have you noticed any changes in the level of grain and contrast after uploading the video to TH-cam? Many creators have been discussing this phenomenon in recent months, and as of now, it appears that no one has found a universal solution for it. In your video, the quality seems to be on point. Could you share more about your approach and any advice you may have on this matter? I would love to learn more from your experience.
Hey! It’s hard to say but you have to pay attention to your video's color grading. Bright, vibrant colors tend to fare better after TH-cam's compression and processing. Avoid extreme adjustments that can result in inconsistencies or loss of detail.
Hi, I’ve noticed that the Dehancer website was recently updated to claim full native ACES support, but it’s unclear to me what that actually means. There’s an old blog post about ACES from last year, but that’s been around for quite a while. Does Dehancer now work WITHIN the ACES scene referred linear light environment, and with the 16bit half float precision that entails? If so, that’s huge news.
Hi. Currently Dehancer supports ACES as the complete pipeline with all benefits and technical standards.
Ну это охренеть, я считаю
Would be awesome if you guys can sort out Panasonic Vlog for the S Series
@Dehancer does this benefit grain reduced films you see I’d like if this could help films like back to the future 1 and 2 to name a few.
Разность в резкости чувствуется все равно. А эксперименты с 35мм пленкой будут?
Пока не планируем.
Hola sirve para el premiere?
Hola :) Producimos plugins de emulación de película para DaVinci, FCPX, Ae/Pr Pro, Photoshop, Lightroom, Affinity y Capture One.
@@Dehancer como lo puedo adquirir? Estoy interesado.
Добрый день! Скачал деханмер пробоую версию но в программе выдает ошибку? Где можно обратиться?
Добрый день! мы бы очень хотели Вам помочь с этой проблемой. Подскажите, пожалуйста, Ваш имейл! И связывались ли Вы с саппортом?
здравствуйте! пишем снова, хотели бы разобраться с проблемой.
Hey! I have purchased two dehancer plugins seperately, is it possible to upgrade the two plugins to dehancer pro?
I was already going to buy this but this video is just another reason to haha
Wow! Can you do the same for 2383?
"Digital footages graded in Dehancer using Kodak Vision 3 500T film profile and Kodak Vision Color Print Film 2383 profile."
film stock = Kodak Vision 3 500T
print film = Kodak 2383
I think the print stock has a greater impact than the neg. film stock. Just my opinion. I would also put 2383 in the title, too. We are seeing the end result. The final print. We are seeing a "2383" print.
Плёнка рулит)
Разница прям неуловима ! Что и радует
Жаль нету на файнал кат этого плагина
Мы работаем над этим.
да ладно, реально разницу не видите ? )
@@ilyacosmonaut Разница действительно небольшая, и она действительно есть, мы не утверждаем обратного. При этом важно понимать, что добиться полной идентичности (при условии честности эксперимента) - невозможно, поскольку разные камеры обеспечивают разное качество цветоразделения, а зависит это в первую очередь от плотности байеровских фильтров на сенсоре. В нашем случае наилучший результат достигается с камерами RED, что подтверждается и производителем - у данных камер цветоразделение на уровне матрицы действительно лучше, чем у конкурентов.
@@dmitry_novak Я согласен по всем пунктам собственно, просто удивился, что разница для комментатора выше неуловима )
Totally unrelated to the video, but which source/vendor do i use for the blackmagic pocket cinema camera(original one)?
we reccomend checking out our manuals and workflow articles on the website.
здравствуйте , будет ли добавлен профиль zcam zlog2 в будущем?
Добрый день! следите за обновлениями у нас в соц сетях :)
@@Dehancer слежу, но не увидел ничего нового из камер)
@@ZaueDP из больших обновлений: добавили много профилей Sony в сентябре и ноябре и Arri Alexa 35 в августе!
@@Dehancer так я о zcam zlog2...
@@ZaueDP мы Вас поняли! обновляем и добавляем по возможности, поэтому рекомендуем следить за соц сетями, так как точные даты мы Вам, увы, сказать не можем!
How I export lut & where are my export lut file location?
Check the manual on the website help folder. LUT export available in paid pro version.
I'm Using Dehancer Pro 5.3.2 OFX
FCP version please!
All the digital footage just needs to be just a tad bit softer. It's literally almost 1:1
Indeed, but Dehancer provides the opportunity to adjust the Film Resolution setting to match almost any analogue media at your taste.
@@dmitry_novak Would you suggest using something like a pro mist filter on camera, before dehancer?
I LOVE Dehancer's grain feature. It's without a doubt the best film grain emulation you can get, and most importantly the only one that is truly reconstructing the image with grain, along with LiveGrain (which is pretty much completely out of reach for most of all). I also really love the bloom and halation features. The only thing that bugs me quite a bit is that no matter what i do... i just don't like the colors i get from this plugin (even though I love authentic film colors). I own a BMPCC 6K, along with an ''extremely'' accurate ARRI LogC conversion perfectly taylored for it, and no matter if i'm using pure straight BMD Film footage, or perfectly converted to ARRI LogC, or even perfectly converted to ARRI REC709... i always end up with completely different results, which are all weird looking (even though i have perfect white balance, it always looks like i'm using a LUT that isn't made for this camera). I tried adjusting every setting to get there, but it just doesn't work for me. I get way better results using Film stock/Print Emulation for ARRI LogC in LUT format. Even in this official Dehancer comparison, the texture is very impressive, but just look at the bowl of fruit (especially the pineapple). All digital cameras has yellow-ish/brownish greens instead of blue-ish greens. That's a huge difference. The reds are also all too much on the yellow side. Nothing that can't easily be fixed with manual corrections though. Maybe there's something i'm doing wrong? I truly hope so... In fact, I'm clearly doing something wrong since i've seen lots of amazing results using Dehancer. I just don't get what i'm doing wrong, which makes me very sad cause I really wanted to buy this plugin.. but I might end up only buying the Film Grain only version :(
Hello. Indeed, there is a special knowledge which makes working with whatever source material easier.
First of all, your own practice in interpreting a particular camera is entirely compatible with our plugin in terms of the ‘proper’ workflow.
Please, read this article for better understanding the pipeline and possible solutions on every grading stage:
blog.dehancer.com/articles/how-to-manage-image-contrast-and-avoid-clipping/
And this one is very useful too:
blog.dehancer.com/articles/dehancer-in-davinci-resolve-node-sequence/
In this way, you will understand that:
1. The built-in interpretations of the cameras are not intended to be generic and reflect our own vision of aesthetics (based on our extensive experience in film photography).
2. Dehancer certainly requires a ‘special’ attitude regarding the source material, specifically for the plugin.
3. There are at least half a dozen obvious and ‘conventional’ ways of interpreting the source material that result in vastly dissimilar images.
4. We provide a rich correction toolset, and yes, these corrections is a natural part of operating the plugin, but not an indication that something is wrong. In analog processes, such corrections are introduced at almost every step - from shooting with filters, through development parameters, to corrections when printing.
Dehancer is the kind of software that, as you master it deeply, will give you a great time and a rewarding creative and practical outcome.
@@dmitry_novak Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you took the time to give that much infos on the subject. I will certainly look deeper into it. Although, could you explain why none of the digital cameras in your comparison matches the green color? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that to be mean at all… but I’d like to understand why this specific color is so far off on every digital camera, even when the color match has been done by you guys. Can a perfect result (or near perfect) is possible to be achieved all within Dehancer (without spot corrections)? Thanks for your help!
@@davidmultimedia2024 Your personal expectations and personal taste largely form the attitude towards the preferred aesthetics of particular colours.
We can assure you that our processes involve colorimetrically accurate reproduction of the film printed on a particular medium. Also in Dehancer's track record you will find numerous clips in which the greens are quite adequate and artistic. In fact there is a lot of different and distinctive greens.
At least during recent project history, we have not received any negative feedback about major colour issues like described. Maybe there is some sort of pipeline issues.
@@dmitry_novak Is this possible to send you a picture?
the film grain color subdivision algrthm can be better
Film is still king.
Лучшая реклама дехансера - только от про колористов :D
Wow, film still looks so much better, it's not even close.
Can you list what you think is better or worse, and point to specific areas or differences? An alternate perception is always worthwhile. Thank you.
@@dmitry_novak I think it looks better to them, as it says Kodak below lol.
I bet you 100$ that they wouldn't be able to identify what is film and what not in an A/B test study...
Of course there are still differences, but no viewer would ever notice. At least in the controlled scene. - other shots might be a different story
@ Agreed. Like a cheat in a composition, or even just grading to match cameras, this plug-in's contribution to immersion is what makes any effect worthwhile. This is in contrast to any effect included for the sake of itself at the cost of distraction, which pulls the viewer out of immersion unless such an interruption makes a point unavailable from within the suspension of disbelief.
@ Wrong. Part of it is color rendition as the red dress does not look as accurate in the digital camera footage. Also movement is something that still doesnt feel filmic in any digital camera. That one is hard to explain but it is a definite issue.
@@mpbootcamp7009 obviously, but do you really think, that without the reference film footage right next to it, anyone would care? Especially the audience?
I would argue that Dehancer isn't even a that good film emulation in most cases. But in this demo they obviously matched the footage to the film footage to sell their product. It won't look like this when you use Dehancer on your footage if you don't have the same film footage as reference.
So obviously I know that film will still look better than Dehancer in the real world (there are way better emulations being used by Hollywood btw)
But to say that film looks "sooo much better" and that it's "not even close" in this polished advertising video is BS in my opinion
Убедительно
IN DAVINCI RESOLVE IS CRUSH ALL TIME IS NOT GOOD
It is possible that your device is not suitable for working with Dehancer according to the technical requirements :)
chemist is still wiser than digital sensor engineers.
kodak can not be beaten by digital sensors. especially the cost down version of the modern bayer array sensor.
but on the other hand, this plugin is excellent. the grading is beautiful. I'm getting into davinci to do post work for the interview shot I'm working on. I will get dehancer.