I've seen some comparisons and reviews of Film Look Creator vs. Dehancer, but not a single one of them mentions the fact that Resolve comes with film print LUTs that you can combine their FLC plug-in with. I think any review of FLC is incomplete without exploring how using the LUTs influence the final result.
Can you comment on the peformance of the new Film Look Creator vs Dehancer? My biggest gripe with Dehancer is that once you add a few effects (film grain and something else) the performance tanks. If FLC doesn't tank performance, then I'd say it's got a great boost over Dehancer. Be interested in your feedback.
In my experience so far the Film Look Creator might run a bit better than Dehancer. But that could be because Dehancer handles the effects in a different way. From what I understand, the math behind how Dehancer processes things is more complicated. Could be wrong about that though. But yeah, the FLC does seem to be slightly less taxing, at least on my PC, which is pretty old at this point 😅
Great video George! I'm curious how you graded the talking head portions of this video. Is it just converted to rec709 or did you use dehancer for that as well? Thanks for the help!
Didn't use dehancer for the talking head. Though I do have a video exactly about how I grade my TH-cam videos. Honestly pretty simple: just convert to Rec709 with Phantom LUTs and then bring down exposure a touch and slightly adjust skin tone to make it look right 🙂
Could you please make a tutorial of how you make those transitions. I have some plugins from MotionVFX and I have managed to do it a bit like yours. But would really like to see how your process is. From the film burn, frame overlay, titles and the sound effect. Would really love it :)
I agree with your first point. If you never studied film than you won’t know the characteristics of each individual film stock to dial in a specific look.
Yeah, you're just hit with a list of film stock names and it's up to you to experiment with all of them to see what they do. I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't have the patience for that and just write it off as something they don't want to deal with haha
It should probably also be mentioned that nearly all of the film stocks and prints in Dehancer are photography stocks. Only a handful of the options are film stocks for motion picture film and all of those are the modern Vision 3 stocks from Kodak. You don't get any classic motion picture film stocks from the 70s and 80s etc.
Where did you get that film overlay (the frame on the left side of your screen) that you use in your transitions? when you see your chapters with the title and film burn.
The only negative points about dehancer are - imo opinion very expensive, even more expensive than Davinci Resolve Studio itself - the update process is still unnecessarily frustrating and unprofessional - imo some of the film stocks don't look like the original film stocks - too contrasty imo
Agree about the price, it's definitely on the expensive side. About the updates, I don't actually do it that often, but I guess it can be a little slow, yeah. About the film stocks, can't really comment there because I haven't had the chance to actually shoot with any of the real ones, all I've seen are references for what they're supposed to look like 😅
@georgekamenov_ Regarding the update process, I was told it only works if you deactivate dehancer inside Davinci Resolve itself and download the latest version and then active it again. Otherwise you loose one out of ten activation keys each time.
I have not had any problems with the updates, when they arrive I install them without doing anything and watch the new version on DVR and I do speak from experience.
Hii, i have a request. Can you make a video on how to use dehancer properly. When i use it and apply vision 250d and 2383 print, everything looks bad i mean very bad. Can you teach us how to make the image look great using dehancer .
In my opinion it's quiet impossible deliver the same look of film with any kind of plug-in film emulation. Results are always similar but absolutely not the same. You should have to shot same take with both digital cinema cameras paired with real emulsion (same exposure, same ISO, same angle, same filter, same ND etc) and compare (when applied the film emulation on Resolve) side by side and in this case too, you'll get similar but not the SAME look. So I guess Dehancer but also other emulators are too expensive for the goal
Well yeah, you obviously won't be able to get footage to look 100% like it was shot on film, unless it was shot on real film. That's why it's called emulation. You're trying to replicate that short of look with the tools you have. As far as being too expensive, like I mentioned in the video, it really depends how someone is going to use it and if it's a tool that will be used all the time or just once and never touched again.
@@georgekamenov_ Yeah, I agree... obviously... but I think there's too much misconception about film emulsions. Let's be clear: I appreciate the long, dedicated work of Dehancer's crew and so on, don't want absolutely underestimate their contribution. I cannot otherwise bear the hype about creators that claim the 'Kodak' look or anything else... Fuji, Velvia etc... maybe in one touch ;-) It's a kind of paranoic nerd breakdown ;-). I guess FLC in Resolve performs a great job: it allows to get very close to film curves (and that's what really matters in my opinion with the 'film look'); take for instance the bleach bypass and will see.
Cmon bro to be really unbiased you can’t be saying “I can say whatever I want but I have an affiliate code for you that will give me benefits” makes it really hard to trust what you’re saying if you’re affiliated in anyway
I understand that, however if you watched through the entire video you'd hear I said a bunch of things in favor of not actually buying Dehancer. And beyond that, if you watched the video all the way through you'd have heard I said you shouldn't buy something because I, or anyone else, told you to. Buy it if you need it, don't if you don't. Some people might have decided to pick up Dehancer already and this video might help to confirm that it is something that would fit their workflow. Therefore, they can use my code to get a discount and help the channel out. But again, the entire video is full of points that say Dehancer might not be worth it for a lot of people.
@@OnRoy Yeah, I'd prefer people buy the tools that they actually know they need instead of getting something because a person online, who might have completely different needs, said that it's a good thing to buy 😅
Thanks for your job !!! "Movie look" is a metaphor, it's not real. That simple. I am a professional photographer and I have used emblematic films depending on the type of report and that was my color palette/characteristics. Since digitalization appeared, this concept was sold as something ideal and the reality is that digital results, film recreations and all types of processes are a "color" in themselves, useful and that they can coexist. It's funny that those who want to get that look have never used film. When CDs came out there was another controversy with vinyl or tube amplifiers. Everything is valid creatively and I think we have to maintain objectivity about fashions.
George, thanks for your feedback! We are happy to answer any questions 😃
I've seen some comparisons and reviews of Film Look Creator vs. Dehancer, but not a single one of them mentions the fact that Resolve comes with film print LUTs that you can combine their FLC plug-in with. I think any review of FLC is incomplete without exploring how using the LUTs influence the final result.
Fair enough. Might be something that's worth looking into, yeah.
Can you comment on the peformance of the new Film Look Creator vs Dehancer? My biggest gripe with Dehancer is that once you add a few effects (film grain and something else) the performance tanks. If FLC doesn't tank performance, then I'd say it's got a great boost over Dehancer. Be interested in your feedback.
In my experience so far the Film Look Creator might run a bit better than Dehancer. But that could be because Dehancer handles the effects in a different way. From what I understand, the math behind how Dehancer processes things is more complicated. Could be wrong about that though. But yeah, the FLC does seem to be slightly less taxing, at least on my PC, which is pretty old at this point 😅
D hander is miles above it .
Great video George! I'm curious how you graded the talking head portions of this video. Is it just converted to rec709 or did you use dehancer for that as well? Thanks for the help!
Didn't use dehancer for the talking head. Though I do have a video exactly about how I grade my TH-cam videos. Honestly pretty simple: just convert to Rec709 with Phantom LUTs and then bring down exposure a touch and slightly adjust skin tone to make it look right 🙂
Could you please make a tutorial of how you make those transitions. I have some plugins from MotionVFX and I have managed to do it a bit like yours. But would really like to see how your process is. From the film burn, frame overlay, titles and the sound effect. Would really love it :)
I agree with your first point. If you never studied film than you won’t know the characteristics of each individual film stock to dial in a specific look.
Yeah, you're just hit with a list of film stock names and it's up to you to experiment with all of them to see what they do. I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't have the patience for that and just write it off as something they don't want to deal with haha
@@georgekamenov_ I totally agree
It should probably also be mentioned that nearly all of the film stocks and prints in Dehancer are photography stocks. Only a handful of the options are film stocks for motion picture film and all of those are the modern Vision 3 stocks from Kodak. You don't get any classic motion picture film stocks from the 70s and 80s etc.
what you are thinks about the dehancer lite version...because the pro version is a little bit to expensive for me :(
I'm also curious to see how Dehancer stacks up against Boris FX's Continuum film stocks so I just may download Dehancer and test it out.
Haven't tried those out personally. Might look into them.
Please give me a link where you got that cool film border overlay in your transitions :)
Where did you get that film overlay (the frame on the left side of your screen) that you use in your transitions? when you see your chapters with the title and film burn.
The only negative points about dehancer are
- imo opinion very expensive, even more expensive than Davinci Resolve Studio itself
- the update process is still unnecessarily frustrating and unprofessional
- imo some of the film stocks don't look like the original film stocks - too contrasty imo
Agree about the price, it's definitely on the expensive side. About the updates, I don't actually do it that often, but I guess it can be a little slow, yeah. About the film stocks, can't really comment there because I haven't had the chance to actually shoot with any of the real ones, all I've seen are references for what they're supposed to look like 😅
@georgekamenov_ Regarding the update process, I was told it only works if you deactivate dehancer inside Davinci Resolve itself and download the latest version and then active it again. Otherwise you loose one out of ten activation keys each time.
Wait, really? Damn, gotta keep that in mind...
I have not had any problems with the updates, when they arrive I install them without doing anything and watch the new version on DVR and I do speak from experience.
Hii, i have a request. Can you make a video on how to use dehancer properly. When i use it and apply vision 250d and 2383 print, everything looks bad i mean very bad. Can you teach us how to make the image look great using dehancer .
I've been planning on doing a more in depth video on Dehancer at some point soon hopefully 🙂
In my opinion it's quiet impossible deliver the same look of film with any kind of plug-in film emulation. Results are always similar but absolutely not the same. You should have to shot same take with both digital cinema cameras paired with real emulsion (same exposure, same ISO, same angle, same filter, same ND etc) and compare (when applied the film emulation on Resolve) side by side and in this case too, you'll get similar but not the SAME look. So I guess Dehancer but also other emulators are too expensive for the goal
Well yeah, you obviously won't be able to get footage to look 100% like it was shot on film, unless it was shot on real film. That's why it's called emulation. You're trying to replicate that short of look with the tools you have. As far as being too expensive, like I mentioned in the video, it really depends how someone is going to use it and if it's a tool that will be used all the time or just once and never touched again.
@@georgekamenov_ Yeah, I agree... obviously... but I think there's too much misconception about film emulsions. Let's be clear: I appreciate the long, dedicated work of Dehancer's crew and so on, don't want absolutely underestimate their contribution. I cannot otherwise bear the hype about creators that claim the 'Kodak' look or anything else... Fuji, Velvia etc... maybe in one touch ;-) It's a kind of paranoic nerd breakdown ;-). I guess FLC in Resolve performs a great job: it allows to get very close to film curves (and that's what really matters in my opinion with the 'film look'); take for instance the bleach bypass and will see.
Are you over-cranking your saturation on purpose? I was looking at your vector scope?
Nah, I just zoom into the vectorscope itself sometimes and it makes it look like that 😅
@@georgekamenov_ lol ok, I was like, wow, but the footage doesn't look over-saturated. Great content, by the way.
Cmon bro to be really unbiased you can’t be saying “I can say whatever I want but I have an affiliate code for you that will give me benefits” makes it really hard to trust what you’re saying if you’re affiliated in anyway
I understand that, however if you watched through the entire video you'd hear I said a bunch of things in favor of not actually buying Dehancer. And beyond that, if you watched the video all the way through you'd have heard I said you shouldn't buy something because I, or anyone else, told you to. Buy it if you need it, don't if you don't. Some people might have decided to pick up Dehancer already and this video might help to confirm that it is something that would fit their workflow. Therefore, they can use my code to get a discount and help the channel out. But again, the entire video is full of points that say Dehancer might not be worth it for a lot of people.
@@georgekamenov_ That shut him up 😂
Don't just spend money because someone said that you should get it! buy it if you need it, and don't if you don't ! sir - George !
@@OnRoy Yeah, I'd prefer people buy the tools that they actually know they need instead of getting something because a person online, who might have completely different needs, said that it's a good thing to buy 😅
Great video George! 🎞️🛸🎥
Thanks, glad you liked Aya 🙂
Thanks for your job !!!
"Movie look" is a metaphor, it's not real. That simple. I am a professional photographer and I have used emblematic films depending on the type of report and that was my color palette/characteristics. Since digitalization appeared, this concept was sold as something ideal and the reality is that digital results, film recreations and all types of processes are a "color" in themselves, useful and that they can coexist. It's funny that those who want to get that look have never used film. When CDs came out there was another controversy with vinyl or tube amplifiers. Everything is valid creatively and I think we have to maintain objectivity about fashions.
Does anybody really care if it looks like film anymore?
Yeah, people still want that look. But like anything else it comes down to personal preference 😅