A Little Disappointed...But Still Good | Dehancer Film Emulation

[@Dehancer]

Thank you for your sincerity and your point of view in this great work, Michael. Your view helps us to grow a lot and we value your great contribution to Dehancer. ☺

[@mahartman]

Thank you for pushing for the best product you can make. I appreciate the opportunity!

[@isaacapon]

I mean idk why you had to flex and make the intro a movie, but you do you!

[@mahartman]

Had to do it in order to prove to Netflix that the BMPCC6K Pro deserves to be on the approved camera list!

[@collinausbury]

My body is ready for your Filmbox review

[@mahartman]

Thank you dude! I may consider it 🥸

[@sanadakhumanthem3557]

​@@mahartman Waiting for filmbox workflow😊

[@BrandonHartOfficial]

The fact that you ONLY have almost 5K subs is criminal. Your channel is killer. Also... that intro was insane. Keep crushing it, Michael!

[@mahartman]

Ha thank you! Appreciate the kind words.

[@timothylevi]

Dude im seriously gasping at how good that intro was.

[@mahartman]

Thank you!

[@guidedvisionsmedia]

You missed the linear option on film print bro, it’s great for those that don’t need a curve adjustment applied but still want to keep the film colors applied in the box above

[@mahartman]

In my testing, it did not seem very clear what the use case of "linear" was. It's the same as leaving the "print film" option turned off. I suppose if you wanted to adjust contrast, exposure, and color density particularly you could do so. Though throughout the plugin there are other ways to do this. I am glad you find it useful and have a workflow. That's what Dehancer is all about. I think 99% of the time, Kodak 2383 is a base at the end of my pipeline, so if "print film" is on, its on 2383.

[@northparkfilms3045]

great video very informative

[@mahartman]

Thank you!

[@Luke_van_de_Rest]

Filmbox workflow video?

[@mahartman]

I’m in.

[@mailais3403]

Can't you just use filmbox for the emulation and also dehancer for bloom/grain/compression at the same time lol. i feel like that would be the ultimate film look

[@mahartman]

That’s basically what I did for the talking head portion of this video, except it was filmbox + dehancers compression. It’s one expensive look, but it’s, in my opinion, solid!

[@lucrichter]

This Intro ist not worth 5k subs, more like 500k…. Keep up buddy!

[@mahartman]

Appreciate the kind words!

[@Carboxylated]

are you LA based?

[@mahartman]

DC!

[@guidedvisionsmedia]

Hey man I don’t feel this was a fair comparison of dehancer at all because it was not used correctly. You kinda pointed out your mistake in the comparison section by having both a print and an emulation on a the same time. I feel you would have got results you enjoyed if you white balanced your footage and didn’t use an “additional look” by having the film emulation on. That’s the whole point of the film head section. It’s a more technical white balance. I keep an empty node or two before my dehancer node so I feed the plugin with what im comfortable with as a base before using dehancer to create my “look”. filmbox is amazing just for not the $1000 price tag. I have used both and I think filmbox does 16mm better than dehancer as well as set up for a Davinci color managed workflow, a great plug-in but not necessarily for those that aren’t getting paid to color projects yet.

[@mahartman]

@@guidedvisionsmedia appreciate the second comment. White balancing can make or break a look. Though, per Dehancer’s note on their site and many articles, the color head is better used for creative interpretation in developing a look. But you can use it for white balancing. Just way harder in my opinion and theirs. In most film emulation pipelines, a film stock AND print film are used at the same time. Most every commercial or narrative grade has a 2383 look at the end of the pipeline. Filmbox and Dehancer are unique because they give you the option of starting with a negative film stock as if you were shooting on it. It’s not a mistake to have both on at the same time. Very intentional. Dehancer’s negative motion picture stocks just didn’t look great to me. I think filmbox is incredible and I also think Dehancer is pretty neat too. Both are worth what you pay for and give you some sick options!

[@Sodacake]

i can't quite pinpoint why but all halation emulation looks fake to me. like it can't quite emulate the intensity of the light that causes it on real film.

[@mahartman]

@@Sodacake I get that for sure. What film are you comparing it to? What do you feel represents “real” halation? I feel like filmbox is super subtle and extremely accurate to what I’ve see in my own 35mm film images!

[@Sodacake]

@@mahartman from personal experience i'm comparing it to cinestill 800t which i shoot with from time to time. i just haven't seen any emulation that comes close to that usually because of the lack of intensity in the white points. maybe it's something to do with how people often expose to protect highlights too, though. the accepted wisdom is to not let your highlights blow out, yet halation is literally caused by strong or blown out highlights.

[@mahartman]

Cinestill makes some great stuff. Their 400D is probably one of my favorite film stocks to shoot. Emulation of a film without an anti-halation layer might prove difficult, but I have seen a lot of really similar and great results aiming for that look. Though I much prefer a subtler halation anyway!

[@quamb]

The grain looks pretty fake to me

[@mahartman]

Where?