I can definitely see the advantage of this. The only issue might be when you have to hand the footage off to someone else and you have to relinquish control of your image quality.
I love scatter. I did a couple of tests with Hollywood Blackmagic and Pro-Mists and could see the difference. I think the way that physical light hits the filter and the glass is almost impossible to replicate. It still looks like a real thing, even with the slight differences. I'm happy to make these decisions in post.
I believe that we are getting to the point where audio plugins were about 10 years ago. Currently, there’s a clear winner. The real thing. But the benefits and ease of use of the plugin are undoubtably worth the trade off. Give it a little bit of time. Pretty cool! I think it’s more fun to shoot with the real thing - but if it’s mission critical and you GOTTA get it right - you could be SOL easily if you bake it in. Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
How could you see the difference? It's not visible at all in the tests he did in this video. AT all. If you have to think THAT long to the point of pixel peeping, then there is no difference for all intents and purposes. Do you have any video demonstrating how you can see the difference?
I have been using black satin as my go-to filter for the last couple of years. I recently did a commercial with a lot of night work and decided to forgo filtration to avoid all the double reflections and hassle that goes along with it. (especially when shooting cars) It makes a lot of sense if you know you will have a hand in the finishing process but the agency and client can often overwhelm that part of the process so its nice to be able to burn it into the digital neg when you are confident to do so... Insightful video, thank you.
Bought the full license. I'm hobbiest, well worth it to me. I've heard of it before as bought filmbox but never seen scatter in action till your video. Time to sell the tiffen filters now, very happy. I love how how highlight roll-off looks so good after applying. My wife said should add up cost of every filter they offer to see how much value you're getting in the app. Thanks for the video, you've been on fire lately.
Hey thank you! Glad you bought it and hope you love it as much as I do. Good idea on the calculation, whoever gets back here first with a number wins. Ready set go!
Never been super stoked on how the "glow" feature works in Resolve. Filters just look better, but I hate baking it into the image. This plugin would be slick. They should make a "Helios" setting that just destroys your image completely lol
@@andersistbesser I’ve been using it the way that Waqas Qazi teaches to use it. There’s many times where it looks great, but it is still a different thing than using an actual filter. I’m definitely still learning
This is definitely a great option for a lot of projects. I really dig the flexibility here. I still have a high volume client that we like to bake in a 1/8th BPM just because we cycle through a lot of footage regularly and going in on every shot and doing it in post isn’t a good use of time. We know we like it though and it works well, so having it on the lens is good there. But for a lot of stuff, this is great, when you have the control.
“Going in in every shot and doing it in post isn’t a good use of time.” Apply to one clip, Ctrl+c, select all the other clips, ctrl+v. Or middle click.
Alternatively you could apply in a group pre clip in resolve as it is meant to be used before any grading. That way you add it once and it’s on all your clips.
@@YaYousef5 I know it’s easy, but when you have clips being sent out to other post houses, and it’s beyond your control, you can’t always expect that to be done.
I think filters are like gear in general. Its not black or white. I use filters (although not pro-mist) because having the most complete image possible before post is generally time saving in my work. If you know the image you want, I don't think "baking" in a filter look is a problem. In my case, keeping all the latitude for post (raw, no filters, etc.) is a transfer of workload more than a "better" way to do things.
fully agree with you. I guess one of my issues is not a problem with filters, but sometimes being indecisive if I should use them or not. I am extremely decisive with most other aspects of the image capture.. but sometimes am unsure if I want filtration or not. and this is not me trying to sell scatter, I have no affiliation with them.
I love this. I'm using a net behind the subject in place of haze lately, and a filter for the FG just brings it together, but now I can just tweak it in Resolve. Great options.
its great but 499 is quite expensive for just a plug when whole davinci is 299. if it was reasonable price id look in to it but it feels like a cashgrab to me.
@@BlaineWestropp1yeah i agree but I’m sorry that doesn’t seem right price for a plug-in anyway. I’m not saying they have to charge it 5 bucks but come on 500 usd for filter emulator is steep
I'm a total beginner, and i was searching for information about what filters to buy and why. I'm so glad i came across this video before spending money.
It is pretty cool. Keep in mind there is a difference between this and glass filters, as mentioned in the video, I consider this a spectate type/set of filters.
I’m an early Scatter buyer and they really helped create a look for my festival shorts. I tend to use the Scatter filter - not sure if it’s linear but I know it’s the second choice. You really need a Davinci Panel! It’s so helpful to use physical dials while keeping your eyes on a large monitor to see how it’s going to look in a theater. I use the advanced panels V2 but I’m sure the mini would help dial in the look you need.
A couple projects ago, the one I mentioned in this video, I was very torn. Glad I didn’t use filtration, but may have to demand that scatter is used in the grade. A lot depends on which lens you’re using.
I was sold when you said "It really really looks real". Given the price of these filters and give that I recently broke my glimmerglass that cost me 150 euros, this actually seems a good deal. I learned about this because the DP of "The Killer", Erik Messerschmidt, talked about this on an interview. But not only that, they used a lot of stuff in post, like adding barrel distortion (that I know you love), adding flares, defects. I'm actually kind of excited because as an aficionado that also happens to make videos on RU-vid, being able to do more in post, seems easier than having to always be buying gear... although Scatter is $499.
It’s quite a nice tool. I recently used it on a project and it was so nice to add a subtle little magic! I say very worth it.. but depends on how ya work and what type of image you are going after.
Also I’m glad they used this on that film. I also love changing distortion in post (yes towards barrel). I don’t think a lot of people do that.. but I know Fincher and I do 😂. Time for you to join the club.
You are cranking the videos out lately... Love it.. I'll take the filters if you don't want them Video Village is just way out of most peoples budgets, at least mine. Even though less than film box and probably buying those filters. Thanks for the information, looks amazing.
Yeah I’ve always wondered why pro mist vibes weren’t a post thing. It’s completely different for ND’s to the point that it’s almost irrelevant to mention, but I’ve never understood locking yourself into a stylistic image in a way that affects so much of it.
Yea I feel you. Some lenses though can benefit from a filter in front of them for certain projects. Like sigma cine lenses look pretty nice with 1/8 BPM.
Years ago, I went down the Davinci rabbit hole just to learn coloring. After I while, I completely left PP (for the most part). DR color grading options are already amazing. These awesome 3rd party plugins just make the experience worth it. I think I bought every lens filter in the market years ago, even for my matte box. I hated spending so much money on beautiful lenses only to put filters on them. I feel like I was degrading the lens's properties by doing this. After discovering the Fast Noise in the color tab, I just never bothered with the filters, especially my fav 1/8 pro mist. I liked that I could put windows on specific areas of the shot to get an equivalent 1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 filter mist look. Thank you for sharing. I'm checking out the Video Village now. Do you have an affiliate link to purchase from?
Interesting about the fast noise! Also if you really don’t need your filters you could probably sell them for a good price, but since you have them it may be worth it to just keep them. No affiliate link :(
Thank you for a very interesting video. It seems that, as more and more can be done in post, the need for filters, with the possible exception of the polariser, is becoming less as less. Do you have any thoughts about replacing ND filters with adding blur in post to emulate 180 shutter angle? It is a real shame that the plugin that you review is so expensive putting it out reach of most hobbyist, I suspect.
I view scatter as a different type of softening/diffusion tool. Glass has its advantages, scatter has its advantages. I personally really enjoy scatter as you can tune it and decide later, but sometimes you want to lock it in, in camera. All depends on the project, but I like dialing that part in post. As far as ND, I like doing that in front of the lens. Too much processing power and finesse needed in post to make it perfect.
Really cool tool! Even though I like the idea of baking in a look on set (especially as I don’t always have influence on the post production), I love the idea of adding digital filtration to my earlier work before I became aware of diffusion filters.
hey thank you! scatter is definitely cool. im using it on a project right now and its great! I do also understand the desire to use glass filtration during production of course. I consider both 2 different tools!
I really love this. My only concern is if it will slow down post production. Otherwise I honestly think this is the best option. It saves you the risk or using the wrong filter.
@@BlaineWestropp1 that’s a good point. I should have clarified, whether it slows down your computer cause of the processing. This effect does seem pretty light on processing tho
The accuracy of virtual filters like this is highly dependent on the amount of highlight information your camera has, and let’s be honest… your ARRI is a “best case scenario” in that department. Still an incredible tool especially for professional workflows that can support it, but sorry to say, some rando with a Sony mirrorless and Sigma photo glass isn’t going to get an equivalently subtle and accurate filter emulation.
@@BlaineWestropp1yeah the other similar one is halation, very similar limitation. The new Alexa-35 can probably manage halation that’s indistinguishable from real film.
great video! I'm happy to finally see some tests with it. This plug-in is definitely a gamechanger. For sure it's a fantastic tool when you have control in post and for short-form content. But most of the time I get 5 days of color for a feature film and there is never enough time... I think committing to the physical filters is still a better option (for long form), but I will definitely use it here and there.
As a VFX artist it always kind of surprised me that DPs still use mist filters. Literally any characteristic of a lens can be replicated in post anyways whenever CG is added on top. Glows are one of the easiest to match. It looks like all the scatter plugin does is calibrate it to the existing filter brands.
@@BlaineWestropp1 Just so you know, anamorphic barrel distortion is also a pretty easy effect to do in post and lens manufacturers even sometimes have distortion maps available for download for easy matching in post. I keep a folder of all the Panavision C-series ones for quick looks.
Lot of people mentioning this. I felt that scatter was working better than what I’ve seen built in but maybe I need to explore more. Scatter so simple. So fast.
being able to manipulate is really really cool. this is why I say scatter is like a different set of filters. I have used it since this video and it continues to surprise and impress me. also, you can bring stills into davinci. I do it all the time!
Thank you! One reason I have no problem with the price of this is that I do have a problem with the price of all the glass filters I wanted to buy. Many thousands of dollars. So I didn’t buy them, but got this. That’s not to say I’ll never use filters again, they will just be a rental item for me for now.
I've been pushing off buying Scatter for a year now (I own everything else they make lol). It's become a daily fight not to go ahead and buy it; so so good.
I recently purchased the film emulation from Video Village and I absolutely loved it. I originally planned to hold off on purchasing Scatter, but now I can't help but feel a twinge of jealousy. Filters belong to post. This is logical.
@@BlaineWestropp1 Yes. It's amazing as well. They say dehancer get the same or similar results in less money - I can't tell honestly because watching a RU-vid video is not the same as trying. I am very satisfied with filmbox, but it is very expensive. I looked at it differently. It's less expensive than buying arriflex camera
This was somewhat usefule to see - but I really would have like to see some camera movement in the A to B comparisons, I imagine that's where it gets harder to emulate optical filtration, when the reflections and glow are warping around a light source.
Congrats on 10k +! Yes!!! Hey Blaine, do you know any channel that compares Cooke to like G master or lower price lens and shares the characteristic difference of why the huge investment?
That would be awesome. For example on your fx3 what budget lens have you used on that vs throwing on a Cooke, Arri Prime, or Leica lens. what characteristics stand out the most of why you would throw down 5k or 50k. I know something is there but Im ignorant of it. @@BlaineWestropp1
The one difference you can't capture in post is how really bright lights react. Davinci can't tell if a light is clipping by an inch or a mile. A filter will give more glow to the brighter light whereas a plugin will treat them the same.
This is why I say that I consider this a slightly different set of filters. Also, the tunability. For a lot of projects I think this wins by a mile compared to glass filters. There are so many benefits. But, it’s just a choice that one can make or not. Same as a filter.
I'm not a videographer but a photographer and kinda settled on GG1 as being my default filter, but I also like the idea of being free from the baked in decision. I wonder if such filter effects are sold as a preset or something for LR? I'll have to look into that. Thanks!
I´ve one question Mr. If I would like to use this app, shooting from my IPhone 13 Pro Max, what would be the best settings on formats and app to shoot to then use this plug in?
Do you think it would work to soften how harsh the highlights can be in some of the more affordable DSLRs out there? A lot of the times the image out of those cameras can look on par with some cinema cameras, but the way highlights look when they're blown out is always a dead giveaway. This kind of thing would make it harder to tell the difference I think
those higher end cinema cameras have more dynamic range and latitude than the best Mirrorless cameras. Pro mist wouldn’t fake dynamic range, it would just bloom the highlights. Those Alexa and Venice cameras handle brightly exposed imagery in a way that mirrorless cameras just can’t yet.
@@hunterhawkins8754 of course bro. The cinema cameras are in a different league and always will be. But people are still trying to get the best look out of their camera as possible and we do that by trying to mimic the traits we see in the higher end cinema cameras. Maybe I should have used the term ‘mirrorless’ instead of ‘DSLR’ because I’m talking about cameras like the FX3 or BMPCC6K, but my point remains the same: dynamic range only matters when you’re shooting in a high contrast situation and that’s not necessarily the case all time. When you’re shooting in a situation that is pretty evenly lit, without harsh highlights or deep shadows, you can put just about any cinema camera next to just about any mirrorless camera and get more or less the exact same image. Plus if you’re shooting in log you can match them together even more accurately. The difference between cameras shows in high contrast situations where the limits of the DR is put to the test, and one of the first signs that show you which camera is which is how they retain highlights. Mirrorless cameras have a harsh pure white look when they’re clipped and the arris and venices have a smooth and soft cinematic look to them when they’re clipped. (In my opinion). So if this tool being spoken about in the video is right, it’s just one more way for run and gun filmmakers to get a step closer to that cinema camera look without having to spend a lot more money 💰
Yes I imagine you can soften the highlights on any camera. If you want to send me a clip I can zoom with you or screen share and show you. Let me know.
What’s up Blaine - 1 year later, you using Scatter still? Have a project coming up that I’m curious about it on, but they don’t offer a trial so curious on your thoughts.
I like it and still think it’s an amazing product. Would be happy to set up a screen share and cycle through some options on some of your footage if you want to take a closer look!
is it anamorphic ? what lens did you use to film this video. and thankyou dude! you just saved me from buying a expensive filter! I have an fx6 would you mind suggesting some good lens for day to day filming, I have 24-70 2.8 already.
ya know I forget what lens was used here :( love scatter! so useful. just used it on a commercial instead of using glass filters. was great. are you looking for a zoom lens? do you need auto focus?
@@BlaineWestropp1 I wouldn't mind a manual lens as my budget is kinda low, I need something that gives cinematic but vintage with lot of character. something fast also, clients loveee blurr lol
Cool. I really like the Contax zeiss lenses. Jenas are also great and look more vintage. DZO vespids have a great look too and are t2.1 and provide plenty blur on FF sensors! Those are just a few options. You could also rent lenses for different projects and then buy the versions you like best!
I’d say it depends how much you desire diffusion. For me $500 for all these options is not bad at all. Some of the things I saw in my tests I had never seen before.
I’m a new at filming videos. I’m starting off with IPhone 15 Pro Max. I plan to shoot raw HD in log. Would this also apply to the new iPhones? I was ready to drop $200 for Pro Black Mist w/ variable ND filter and a special iPhone case. Now I’m wondering if I can just learn how to do it in post. Thank you!
hey! the iPhone 15 definitely has some great quality video. I am a fan of scatter, I find it super useful. of course an actual glass filter is slightly different, but I have had scatter work magic on footage and yes it will work on iPhone footage!
Just bought a BPM 1/8 and saw this video and I was like WTF....then I saw the price of the perpetual license and I don't feel as bad. I think locking in to a style is a bit tough for post, but I hate editing (maybe I'll learn to love it) so anything that can help even a bit I am down to trying. If not, I can always sell off a BPM 1/8 I am sure it will hold its value pretty well lol.
I think as long as you keep the filter clean it’ll hold value. And also, I don’t think it was a mistake to buy one. There are tons of use cases. This is just another way to make a look!
I know it’s a lot, but I think it can be worth it for a lot of people. Things that make nice images are expensive.. If you consider the cost of glass filters, and the fact that if this is something you use on a bunch of projects it kind of just pays for itself. It’s not for everyone, depends on what you want to make. Also, I do love Dehancer.
Have you tried dehancer at all for the mist/bloom effects? If so how do you think it compares to these tools. I’m Still using ND mist filters for my Sonys but not having it on there would be amazing.
I use Dehancer all the time and love it. I’ve used their bloom and it’s cool but never really tweaked it much. With scatter I just kind of had amazing results that feel like a separate treatment/approach from the grade which is cool.
While this plugin is impressive and great for jobs you color yourself, you could always do this in resolve, with or without the plugin. The reason why we use filters is because most of the time we do not get to dial in the look with the colorist in the grade, so baking these decisions into an image is the way we ensure our vision comes through. When you start doing bigger agency and narrative work you will end up back to traditional filtration.
As mentioned in video, there will always be times when you want actual filters, and on bigger stuff you do sit with the colorist, Im just happy I didn’t ruin the Cookes I’ve used on my last 3 projects with a filter, but may end up using this in post for all 3 of those projects.
yeah i think its great for jobs where you have control of the image pipeline or you get to sit in. and sure, on bigger narrative you will likely get a chance to sit in on the color. also true for a lot of music videos. but most TV and bigger commercials the DP is pretty much cut out of the entire color / post process. you are often lucky if you can get the agency to tell you who colored it, let alone to sit in. @@BlaineWestropp1
This excessively expensive plugin seems to cater only to those unsure of their desired 'look'. In contrast, most professional cinematographers-excluding influencers-conduct test shoots to settle on their preferred aesthetic, including lens choices, color schemes, contrast levels, and the application of diffusion filters. Opting to adjust these elements in post-production is a weird decision (unless previously decided) that affects the intended appearance. Although I'm intrigued by the potential of this plugin, the lack of a trial version and subpar customer support are significant drawbacks. The company's responsiveness to product inquiries leaves much to be desired.
I just shot a commercial where it was decided to use this in post instead of filters in front of the lens and I couldn’t be happier. Maybe it’s not for everyone, but it works very nicely. There are times for it and times not for it. Fincher used it in the killer.. you can use glass filters, this is just another tool and it is extremely useful.
@@BlaineWestropp1 Yes, I agree with you, especially in the commercial world where time constraints often prevent thorough deliberation over the client's desired look. and clients themselves are frequently very uncertain about their preferences, making the application of diffusion in post-production a better approach. I am not opposed to this plugin and, as mentioned, am eager to test it someday, hopefully at a reduced cost (and with better customer support). However, it's too expensive to justify experimenting with it for just a few days. I hope a trial will be available one day.
Man, thank you so much Long time i was thinking about how can i have ND with mist filter together? And it wasn’t that much easy. this video is game changer for me🙏🏼🔥
@@BlaineWestropp1 wow, didn’t expect Yoda to reply :) Thanks loads Blaine! I’m finally getting all the other aspects of my game together where my comps and edits work, but now I really recognize that the clips are often just too sharp and digital looking when the subject is in the envelope of focus, even at 24p. I’ve taking the detail setting all the way down to -7 on my Sony camera… but it’s still jarring to see follicles of hair on the talent’s head so defined. So this seems to be the next step to get a more filmic dreamy look? Hope that makes sense :)
@@BlaineWestropp1 Cool, so yeah.. i can shamelessly say i'm still using my Sony A7S2 , heavily rigged up to make power & false-colour-level monitoring & focus-pulling never an issue and have a set of C/Y mount CZ primes i've adapted to the e-mount... last i've created a home-brew picture profile using Cine2 where i've adjusted some of the color depth that works for my scotland outdoor project work and have a Cine2 PP version for a spectrum of black level settings, so pretty much dial it all in camera for a given contrast situation. I've thought of using log as the light changes so quickly here and my skins can get blown if i expose for them, only to have a cloud move.. but i've tried to do it all in camera because up until recently story-boarding, shooting, realizing the sequence doesn't work, back to the drawing board has been my scope.. so colour grading is a recent interest... but yeah.. i hope i'm revealing how basic my level is.. I made a recent edit public called Blaine Sample to show the kind of outdoor lighting this project is being shot.
No shame! A7s2 is great. I always think you should shoot in log, unless delivering right away. But even then you can just put a Lut on and be good. But really whatever works to get best image for you is a fine way to operate! I will check your video now!
Ive been using Smoque 1 a ton lately. Occasionally throwing in black pro mist or glimmerglass. But with this... wow. I'll maybe use the filters for some quick turn stuff or when it's being edited by someone else and I don't get post input. But I'm about to go broke buying everything this company offers.
Hahah I agree with you. This company is great. I emailed them this morning asking for a discount code for y’all but I don’t think they do that. We will see.
@@BlaineWestropp1 oh I'd be on that in a heartbeat. They also need to offer a discount lifetime package for all 4 of their products. If you could buy all of them for like 20% off when combo'd together that'd be too hard to resist.
Competely correct, digital is much safer. But you are only having half of the fun! With a digital filter add it onto a nod and draw round your subject and invert the node. then background is foggy, subject is not. Or any other combination you want. To some the digital filter packs are not even needed as you can do it on a node with gauzian blur only above 80% or whatever you want.
@@BlaineWestropp1 i do not even have the money for that i am pretty Broke okay :D i get the value and the purpose of the plugin but i have to stay with cheap alternatives ... sadly
Год назад
@@BlaineWestropp1 or imagine a free version with one filter or a setup with micro transactions. so a cheaper base price and then you buy the digital version of the filters you like ... then a broke person like me could enjoy that plugin
