Thanks to Dehancer for sponsoring this video! I’ve always wanted to try there plugin to see how well it can emulate film, and I’m impressed. I hope this video is helpful to anybody looking to recreate the film look or anybody wondering what’s inside Dehancer’s program. Get a 10% discount on Dehancer with my code fujicinema Have fun color grading!
This is a really well scripted review! Great job, i just uploaded my review which is more a real time reaction as I grade my vintage motorcycle and car project. Your video is an amazing walk though with great footage, thanks for sharing and enjoy your new software 🙏
Thanks for sharing! It’s good to know that other people are expressing similar views on the plug-in. My camera didn’t get a camera profile until just recently and I mistakenly was using another profile thinking it was for my camera. I have the BMPCC6KG2 and was using tbe pocket 6k camera profile, they added several new blackmagic ones. Where this plug in starts to shine for me is when I’m look developing over a good period of time. Whenever I’m trying to turn around something quick, I don’t get the best results. And also I can create a look, erase it, try again and get a completely different result. So, it’s great that it’s very nuanced but even using the plug in for a year, it still takes a lot of concentration to get the looks right for me.
It's not quite there for me with Dehancer. You need to shoot with a vintage lens or with something like the Module 8 Tuner to make the footage really pop.
@@fujicinema For analog color contact printing to intermediates or release print, contrast could not be controlled at all, as pushing or pulling intermediates would clip tonal information of the previous generation (OCN to intermediate), likewise from intermediate to print, so it was never done. Color timing is only akin to offset adjustments, the contrast of intermediates and print were fixed, if they wanted to change contrast they could only push or pull the camera negative, retain silver in one of the generations, or simply choose a different print stock such as using 2393 over 2383. So a tonal contrast parameter doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for an analog color printing pipeline of these materials. An exception is printing to black and white paper as color casts are no issue.
@@SHDEdits Yes, I see. I believe Dehancer has the contrast there for the print more as a digital contrast since the print has a fixed contrast. I’ve noticed though with dehancers pushing and pulling of the negative stock, there is still no overdevelopment or underdevelopment process. It seems it just leaves it in the middle ground area. How would you go about color grading it more accurately with Dehancer to make it a more analog process without being able to choose the processing of the negatives? Also let me know if I’m getting anything wrong about the process! I’m more familiar with processing photo film, and I know motion picture film is different in some ways.
@@fujicinema Yeah I suspect a preliminary digital contrast might be their angle for it, so a digital intermediate adjustment to then film out to print. From the samples you shared I honestly wouldn’t change much about your process, dehancers strength is in their spatial emulations of film, although in the case of your shots they’re definitely closer to the granularity of a smaller negative, maybe super8, the granularity of modern stock is very fine, even through multiple generations, I do think there’s a massive bias for those using these film emulation tools today to really push for 70s level granularity, perhaps it’s a kind of amplification of their memory of film. On the topic of profiling, dehancers stock gamuts are not very authentic, at least as far as print emulation is concerned. When the projected light of real subtractive dyes are measured and mapped to a common display gamut there’s a significant correlation between color purity and luminance, by definition if light absorbing dyes or pigments in reflected objects are both high reflectance and high in color purity, they would not be reflected media, they would be fluorescent or light emitting. This is because (partly due to the conservation of energy) color purity (how spectrally pure the light is) will only increase if theres also an increase in the concentration of such pigments, at lower concentrations the color converges to the achromatic illuminant. The whole reason why film gamuts are desired is for this correlation as most light we photograph is reflected light. Dehancers film gamuts cover much more of those fluorescent regions in common additive display gamuts so seem to lack those important subtractive correlations.
@@SHDEdits Yeah, I’ve noticed the grain is very prominent and that to get a realistic 35mm look I have to turn the grain preset all the way down and adjust multiple factors. Most of the emulations I did for the video though were done in super 8 because many might use this program for a home film look as well. I also thought about how colors may look between being projected vs scanned. Do you have any thoughts on how to replicate the luminance of color more accurately? I know Dehancer has their color density slider which mimics subtractive color, but am not sure if this completely mimics what’s happening within the film. There’s so many variables to the film look such as the light reflecting and refracting in the silver halides to make it bleed slightly. Also scanners vs projection isn’t taken into account in Dehancer. Older films were scanned on different machines and every scanner is different and every file type is different. It would be cool if they incorporated tools to help replicate what processes were done in that time period. Anyway if you have any suggestions for getting the best and most accurate film looks (modern or classic) I’d love to hear them!
Interesting video. From previous videos I've watched, it looks as those there is full support for F-Log 2 in Dehancer despite its omission from Davinci Resolve. Have you graded any F-Log 2 footage using Dehancer yet? EDIT: I just remembered you said you shot with an X-T3 which I don't believe has F-Log 2 as an option. So you can probably just ignore my question...good video though.
Sadly I don't have any cameras that support F-log 2 yet, though I will say the conversion should yield similar results as the f-log conversion, since it's taking log and correcting it. Though the conversion for f-log is different from DaVinci's conversion. It's slightly less contrasty and more saturated than DaVinci's color correction. I hope this helped!
Actually, in this video I use the free version of DaVinci Resolve to review the program. It works great! Currently I don't have the budget for DaVinci Resolve studio so every video about color grading and plugins on my channel can be replicated for free.
Yes, like I said in this video, you can't replicate the look of film perfectly with digital footage, but this program is the closest I've seen it. Even in Hollywood, some films add grain and halation in post production to try and mimic the look. It's easier to fool those who don't work with film than those who do. This program will most likely make footage look like film to an untrained eye. It also comes down to the person color grading. How much does a colorist want it to look like film? I hope this helps explain this isn't a film replacement, but is still a great program to get the colors, grain, gate weave, and halation of film.
You're one of those people who complain about CGI and point to examples of movies that don't have it - except they do but it's so invisible you don't realize it's CGI.
