Higher quality version of the labeled shots: vimeo.com/simonfellermedia/emulation-one The short answer to this rather provocative question is pretty simple: no. Shooting film isn't just about the look. It's an adventure you have to take. It's pure filmmaking without a safety net. No shortcuts, no easy way outs. But it's also just too expensive to just fool around. The question is: can you bring the discipline of an analog set into your routine?
Shooting on film isn't just about the look. It's the discipline. The feeling on set. The magic. Anyone can film on their iphone and add a grade to it. Everyone should shoot film. Bring the cost down.
Anyone with enough money can shoot on film. Not everyone can shoot a high quality image on either medium and I accept think that digital forces you to learn more about the image pipeline and how to really forge your look out of it rather than settling with the look kodak feels is right for your project
@e.adeloye yeh. It's super expensive these days. Relative at the top because you don't need a DIT or playback op. But at a low level or indie level it's tough. Digital is incredible. It's allowed everyone to have a premium look at an affordable cost. Control of the image and so on. I just personally prefer the film aesthetic, especially super 16mm.
“Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided.“ - Brian Eno
I think with prosumer film emulation we just have to accept that we can’t edit it with the full look yet. I edit with the color conversion LUT and only apply the rest of the film response for color timing and then make renders to check. I’m still a little sour that Dehancer became the default film emulation tool since it’s so imprecise and doesn’t give stock matched values. I spent over two years building my own emulation, only on the grading level I’m not a coder and I think it’s still closer than Dehancer. I’m still holding out hope for Spectra but it seems to become increasingly unlikely it’s ever gonna get released.
You’re one of the few who has done a side by side comparison with actual film. Thank you! I’ve been using Dehancer for a year now and it’s good but there’s still something missing texturally that keeps it from getting close to film. I’m finding myself really liking the filmvision II powergrade from Serr, but using Dehancer only for the grain and halation settings
@@TreW9808 Thank you, I'm glad I could help :) After finishing this dehancer comparison I found a course from joo works about emulating halation really physically accurate with nodes inside resolve. He did a very good video about that showing how in most emulating plug-ins halation just gets applied to every bright place in the image rather than just appearing on high contrast edges. Furthermore real halation expands these edges, which he mamanged to do with his approach. In a few days I will be shooting my next project on 500T 16mm and get some chart test shots for making further comparisons with his more accurate way of emulating :D
based on the examples: - the skin tones are indeed (still) much better on film. in dehancer the shadows have a green tint, are darker. - film is blurrier (not necessarily a good thing). resolve is more faithful to the blurriness of film. - the halation is a bit too strong (or works in a way that results in an inadequate emulation) on dehancer. the darks and lights have a tendency to be too washed out on both dehancer and resolve (too much contrast loss), but resolve is a bit better. I think people using digital should embrace its possibilities and positive qualities, not emulate a different medium. or else, use film. color is the only aspect where digital (i.e., someone using digital) could 'learn' from film in its aesthetic qualities. everything else - fake grain, noticeable halation - is cheesy and retro. if you want film, use the real thing.
I think what doesn't get enough attention in the film vs digital debate is the nature of movement in the frame. Digital has a motion cadence that I think is just horrific when compared directly to film which is both somehow, to my eye, more naturally fluid, yet more granular in the way it captures the detail of movement. Actors' subtle gesticulations and expressions are so much more nuanced and clear in film vs digital. The environment feels more lively and real. Camera movements feel like jelly-soft and more firm and informed, somehow. For example from your examples in the first minute or so, the minute expressions of one of the actors, or the subtle way the two girls dresses pick up in the breeze, I think these details get lost on digital for some reason -- they are there, of course, but they don't have the same feel.
Did you notice the blur effect you get from real film this is the MTF curve that I think dehancer do not emulate, there's no mention of it in your documents, correct me if im wrong.
Yeah the MTF is very very particular from stock to stock, they introduce a bit of loss in resolving power with their grain emulation but parameters are quite primitive.
@@chrisjenkins9978 the color ones are from an arriscan 2k at cinegrell. But the softer image has more to do with our choice of lenses I think. We shot this on an old arriflex 16 st, which is from 1952. The lenses were as old as the camera and were in the set with the camera at our local photography store Photo Hund, who lended us the camera. The lenses were old schneider Kreuznach that fit into the body. The black and white stuff is filmed on arri ultra primes with an arriflex 416 and scanned at silbersalz with a blackmagic cintel.
Just got prints back from The Darkroom and was surprised when I broke down the cost per photo from film to in hand. Was it fun , yes. Do I love my old Nikon, yes. Does it make any sense whatsoever, no. Kudos to anyone choosing this hobby but it may be my shortest lived fad based on cost vs reward.
could be closer with more or better value tweaking or grading. But dehancer doesn't give the best results in general, it is just more easy to use in comparison to applying all the needed effects manually.
Higher quality version of the labeled shots: vimeo.com/simonfellermedia/emulation-one
The short answer to this rather provocative question is pretty simple: no.
Shooting film isn't just about the look. It's an adventure you have to take. It's pure filmmaking without a safety net. No shortcuts, no easy way outs. But it's also just too expensive to just fool around. The question is: can you bring the discipline of an analog set into your routine?
Shooting on film isn't just about the look. It's the discipline. The feeling on set. The magic. Anyone can film on their iphone and add a grade to it. Everyone should shoot film. Bring the cost down.
Anyone with enough money can shoot on film. Not everyone can shoot a high quality image on either medium and I accept think that digital forces you to learn more about the image pipeline and how to really forge your look out of it rather than settling with the look kodak feels is right for your project
@e.adeloye yeh. It's super expensive these days. Relative at the top because you don't need a DIT or playback op. But at a low level or indie level it's tough. Digital is incredible. It's allowed everyone to have a premium look at an affordable cost. Control of the image and so on. I just personally prefer the film aesthetic, especially super 16mm.
@@howiespancakeshack no it is not. Film only was cheaper a couple of years ago but it has tsame updated cost now as in the 70s or 80s.
“Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided.“ - Brian Eno
I think with prosumer film emulation we just have to accept that we can’t edit it with the full look yet. I edit with the color conversion LUT and only apply the rest of the film response for color timing and then make renders to check.
I’m still a little sour that Dehancer became the default film emulation tool since it’s so imprecise and doesn’t give stock matched values. I spent over two years building my own emulation, only on the grading level I’m not a coder and I think it’s still closer than Dehancer. I’m still holding out hope for Spectra but it seems to become increasingly unlikely it’s ever gonna get released.
You’re one of the few who has done a side by side comparison with actual film. Thank you! I’ve been using Dehancer for a year now and it’s good but there’s still something missing texturally that keeps it from getting close to film. I’m finding myself really liking the filmvision II powergrade from Serr, but using Dehancer only for the grain and halation settings
@@TreW9808 Thank you, I'm glad I could help :) After finishing this dehancer comparison I found a course from joo works about emulating halation really physically accurate with nodes inside resolve. He did a very good video about that showing how in most emulating plug-ins halation just gets applied to every bright place in the image rather than just appearing on high contrast edges. Furthermore real halation expands these edges, which he mamanged to do with his approach.
In a few days I will be shooting my next project on 500T 16mm and get some chart test shots for making further comparisons with his more accurate way of emulating :D
based on the examples:
- the skin tones are indeed (still) much better on film. in dehancer the shadows have a green tint, are darker.
- film is blurrier (not necessarily a good thing). resolve is more faithful to the blurriness of film.
- the halation is a bit too strong (or works in a way that results in an inadequate emulation) on dehancer. the darks and lights have a tendency to be too washed out on both dehancer and resolve (too much contrast loss), but resolve is a bit better.
I think people using digital should embrace its possibilities and positive qualities, not emulate a different medium. or else, use film.
color is the only aspect where digital (i.e., someone using digital) could 'learn' from film in its aesthetic qualities. everything else - fake grain, noticeable halation - is cheesy and retro. if you want film, use the real thing.
Man, a quality video like this deserves so many more views and subscribers. I'm a subscriber now and I wish you success!
Thank you for an incredible review! We'd be happy to answer questions related to Dehancer in the comment section.
I think what doesn't get enough attention in the film vs digital debate is the nature of movement in the frame. Digital has a motion cadence that I think is just horrific when compared directly to film which is both somehow, to my eye, more naturally fluid, yet more granular in the way it captures the detail of movement. Actors' subtle gesticulations and expressions are so much more nuanced and clear in film vs digital. The environment feels more lively and real. Camera movements feel like jelly-soft and more firm and informed, somehow. For example from your examples in the first minute or so, the minute expressions of one of the actors, or the subtle way the two girls dresses pick up in the breeze, I think these details get lost on digital for some reason -- they are there, of course, but they don't have the same feel.
Those film highlights! Ooooooooohhhh...... So niiiiice!
I mean all you needed to do was as some density to the skin/subtractive saturation and it would nearly be there
Film is so much better. Bright looks bright, dark looks dark, and skin looks smooth and even.
Great Comparison!🎞️
Did you notice the blur effect you get from real film this is the MTF curve that I think dehancer do not emulate, there's no mention of it in your documents, correct me if im wrong.
Yeah the MTF is very very particular from stock to stock, they introduce a bit of loss in resolving power with their grain emulation but parameters are quite primitive.
@@SHDEdits Reducing the grain resolution to 0 did the trick for me though.
@@qawazauri3422 did what
@@SHDEdits the gain resolution control in dehancer soften the image for me.
why do you have so few subs? quality content!
How was the film scanned? The color looks fine but, the resolution looks a little low and soft on the fine details.
@@chrisjenkins9978 the color ones are from an arriscan 2k at cinegrell. But the softer image has more to do with our choice of lenses I think. We shot this on an old arriflex 16 st, which is from 1952. The lenses were as old as the camera and were in the set with the camera at our local photography store Photo Hund, who lended us the camera. The lenses were old schneider Kreuznach that fit into the body. The black and white stuff is filmed on arri ultra primes with an arriflex 416 and scanned at silbersalz with a blackmagic cintel.
Just got prints back from The Darkroom and was surprised when I broke down the cost per photo from film to in hand. Was it fun , yes. Do I love my old Nikon, yes. Does it make any sense whatsoever, no. Kudos to anyone choosing this hobby but it may be my shortest lived fad based on cost vs reward.
Dehancer is such a scam. I get why you'd pay 100 to get it forever, but a subscription? At this price? Why?
Look in the camera and buy prompter ;)
Yes, the dehancer here is a complete loser, it's a failure.
Close but not quite like film.
could be closer with more or better value tweaking or grading. But dehancer doesn't give the best results in general, it is just more easy to use in comparison to applying all the needed effects manually.
Film is not analoque. There is nothing analogic in film nor in photography. Only digital photography is analogic at the same time.