Would certainly be interesting to put them up against each other… that’s definitely on the list of videos to make! Both have their strengths of course though.
I use Dehancer Pro. Their film grain requires several GB of VRAM on a 4K timeline. It looks great. I apply film emulation in a subtle way, I don't over do it. It's just part of the entire post process :)
I’m planning on doing a video comparing them! For me my computer is just so old Dehancer feels a little sluggish but when I need all the fancy tools I’ll bust it out!
I plan on diving into Cinematch soon! But yea Dehancer had a few tricks up it’s sleeve but for the price it’s hard to beat Filmconvert, especially now!
I have top line PC (13900k with 4090). Dehancer pro is barely useble in PR, I have to set playback quality at 1/2 to being editable and if I add other effect it will be a pain. It is probablly optimized for Mac and resolve. Quite disappointed. I might try filmconvert one day.
The previous version of the film converter (before the Nitro sign) was better for me in terms of image exposure. Somehow it was more organic and natural in the program. Now the exposure change is quite digital, almost on the basis of darkening and dimming. Maybe I'm wrong, but does anyone have the same experience?
I do find the images are initially quite over exposed, but I haven’t really noticed any difference in the quality of the exposure inside the when changed. I’ll have to look into this more…
I suppose it depends on the noise level. If I am shooting at a low or base iso there doesn’t seem to be much of a reason because it’s going to get mostly covered up. It also drastically increase is render times on mine not so great laptop. For more noisy shots or things shot in log or raw I can definitely see noise reduction been a lot more necessary. So long story short, it depends quite a bit on the project and situation!
Beats me! Sometimes it takes awhile for them to get the newest cameras but if that happens I just use the next closest profile till they update it since the Z9 and the Z8 for example are probably close enough.
Fantastic video! I LOVE LOVE LOVE filmconvert! Easily one of my favorite plugins! LOVE that AI scene! So trippy!
Curious how it compares to Dehancer. Seems to look just as good though. Great to see you having a sponsor!
Would certainly be interesting to put them up against each other… that’s definitely on the list of videos to make! Both have their strengths of course though.
I use Dehancer Pro. Their film grain requires several GB of VRAM on a 4K timeline. It looks great. I apply film emulation in a subtle way, I don't over do it. It's just part of the entire post process :)
I’m planning on doing a video comparing them! For me my computer is just so old Dehancer feels a little sluggish but when I need all the fancy tools I’ll bust it out!
Great combo with ciné match à Must if you shoot multicam Multi Brand…will Upgrade for sure!
IMHO we got closer to Dehancer for 1/2mof the price😊😊😊😊
I plan on diving into Cinematch soon!
But yea Dehancer had a few tricks up it’s sleeve but for the price it’s hard to beat Filmconvert, especially now!
@@RhettThompsonFilm Thx for your answer I Somewhere read that they will add New film stock as well soon...do you know when?
@@filipmichalsaffray441 I couldn’t say but I’ve heard similar rumors!
You shot all this? Either way damn that’s some really good cinematography.
All mine! I’m pretty happy with most of it but a lot of room to improve still!
Can't really use it for my own workflow since there's no ACES or RCM support. It's limited to SDR output in general.
Oh so you need an HDR output for your work?
Maybe I should ask about that!
As far as I gather they are aware people would love a HDR output and we make see it eventually! Thanks again for commenting.
I have top line PC (13900k with 4090). Dehancer pro is barely useble in PR, I have to set playback quality at 1/2 to being editable and if I add other effect it will be a pain. It is probablly optimized for Mac and resolve. Quite disappointed. I might try filmconvert one day.
filmconvert really does run like butter compared to Dehancer for me. I think both have their place for sure though!
The previous version of the film converter (before the Nitro sign) was better for me in terms of image exposure. Somehow it was more organic and natural in the program. Now the exposure change is quite digital, almost on the basis of darkening and dimming. Maybe I'm wrong, but does anyone have the same experience?
I do find the images are initially quite over exposed, but I haven’t really noticed any difference in the quality of the exposure inside the when changed. I’ll have to look into this more…
v-log vs v-log dr boost. You always record in dr boost?
As often as I can!
Do you denoise prior to filmconvert? I figure garbage in garbage out so I denoise first, but I'm curious what your workflow is.
I suppose it depends on the noise level. If I am shooting at a low or base iso there doesn’t seem to be much of a reason because it’s going to get mostly covered up.
It also drastically increase is render times on mine not so great laptop.
For more noisy shots or things shot in log or raw I can definitely see noise reduction been a lot more necessary.
So long story short, it depends quite a bit on the project and situation!
Doesn’t even support Nikon Z8
Beats me! Sometimes it takes awhile for them to get the newest cameras but if that happens I just use the next closest profile till they update it since the Z9 and the Z8 for example are probably close enough.