One other comment, if you ever feel inclined and get the time, a matrix of what should be used with what would be amazing. That said, this is something that Dehncer should produce if there want muppets like me to get more immediate benefits and better reviews. All the videos except yours, pushed by Dehancer/sponsored, go through a meandering, not a complete example of how it is used by them instead of setting out the principles you start to explain.
Best video on Dehancer by a mile. Thank you for the detail and love you put into your RUclips videos and sharing your passion for creative decisions of your filmmaking, truly inspiring. I'm a relative newbie but without using ACES, what is the suggested workflow for Dehancer? I know you mention within Dehancer it is 'not the time or place to mess with exposure' but how do you prepare your footage for Dehancer (exposure, white balance)? Would you suggest using lumetri colour (I'm in Premiere) on the log footage (not converting to Rec 709) to get accurate white balance/exposure and then to bring into Dehancer and then follow the workflow you mention? Thanks a lot and look forward to new videos
Thanks! haha, I wish the RUclips algorithm would agree with you 😅 As for your question, if I was using Premiere, I'd rely on Dehancer for the whole color process. Let it do the LOG conversion and do basic adjustments right there in the input settings. I think you'd get best results that way, but the problem is that if you want to do a sweeping change across many clips, you'd have to manually adjust each and every one of them. If that is a concern, then it'd be better to do basic adjustments in Lumetri and put Dehancer on an adjustment layer over the whole sequence.
@@shagral Haha I''m certain you'll get the traction you deserve soon enough. That's brilliant help thanks a lot, phew that's cleared my thinking on and all clear now. Really appreciate it. Keep up the top notch work Edit: And sorry one more question.. when doing the basic corrections in Lumetri are you firstly converting those clips from LOG into Rec 709 so you can see waht adjustments are being made? And then in Dehancer's input section you set it to Rec 709? Thanks again
First, put the adj layer with Dehancer over your clips. Choose your camera and LOG profile there (assuming it's all from the same camera). Step 2: adjust Lumetri effects on the clip level, while looking at the final image. Step 3: realize what a PITA all this is and switch to Davinci 🤣
@@shagral Lol thanks a lot, perfect that's great help. Yes I've been battling with the idea of moving to Davinci but man I've got a good couple years of After Effects experience and I love the dynamic link between all the Adobe suite... Need to think about it more or procrastinate about switching : )
I rarelly comment on youtube videos, but i had to make an exeption. I have been following dehancer for a while, and already tried it, and honestly was not very happy with the results i got, where i found them to be inconsistent at best. Obviously i was just messing around with no idea of what i was doing. Thank you so much for explaining how to use such a great pluguin. I am looking forward to give at another chance now that i have a basic understanding of what to look for. One more question regarding the Halation. I usually try to use dehancer at a timeline node placement, but i feel the need to adjust the halation from shot to shot. Would you use 2 diferent halation nodes? Halation on a shot basis, and look development on a more general one? Hope i made sense. Sorry, english is not my native language. Once again, thank you so much for this video
Hey thanks for watching, glad the video helped! As for your question, yes you can use effects in separate nodes but you have to be really careful about the order and the colour space. Timeline nodes go after clip nodes (and after group nodes), so make sure things like grain, vignette and color head go last. Read this blog.dehancer.com/articles/tools-diagram-of-dehancer-pro-ofx-plugin/ The main issue is tracking what colour space Dehancer is working in. If the whole pipeline is Rec.709 in - Rec.709 out, then it's easy. If you have log conversion going on or colour management in place, then you must be really careful to not double up or feed the wrong color space. This is the reason I personally would not use such workflow, it's ok if you have 10 clips, but when you have 1000 clips, it gets too unwieldy and easy too mess up. More reading: blog.dehancer.com/articles/dehancer-in-davinci-resolve-node-sequence/ blog.dehancer.com/articles/separate-plugins/
I agree that it's overpriced for an individual, I said as much. Yet I understand where it comes from. For a postproduction studio it's chump change. And for Filmmaking it's orders of magnitude cheaper than actual film. And of course there's supply and demand. Right now there's no comparable alternative.
@@shagral They're trying to push this all the time as a way to easy get the result of film fast & easy, all of this its already in Resolve, for the average videos, if people look in the right places, don't want to post nothing here, anybody can find , free better choices, even the glow effect, grain, you name it, reactor, we suck less, get to know the people there and you'll get amazing plugs for resolve & I don't fall for that supply and demand games, there is better out there, if the price its right I always pay for my stuff, every single thing in that plug its out there and free.
Shagral, for the life of me, I have looked high and low on Dehancer's website for the film library document you showed, but it's nowhere I can find it. I checked to see if you had added a link, perhaps they have removed it.
Well done dude, excellent videoI absolutely aggree with most of your points! The default settings are extremely weird. The listing should indeed be grouped But what is the benefit of using ACES instead of DWG? I was using it with DWG so far and was happy with the workflow.
Hey, thanks for watching! Yeah that's an interesting point. I'm not sure if it's strictly ACES or does RCM bring similar benefits. If I had to guess, I would say that it's just about 32 bit floating point math or whatever, so any color management system will do. But that's just a guess.
Shagral, have a look at shotdeck or teasers of movies and put them in davinci, you will see that the chapter you talk about "black need to be black" is not a reality in lot of film and documentary filmed with analog camera. I was surprise how even in 709 dynamic the parade show a signal placed only betweeen 12% and 70% and it looks amazing ! I just prefer use a creative way and not technical one to feel the story before seeing where the parade stand : "Dune" Movie use always 0% black all time sure but they push the shadow a lot so the black is not everywhere. "Interstellar" use 0% often but in daylight the black are around 10%. Using 0 to 100% of a parade look really contrasty and digital to me, if you do it with print emulation you loose that analog dynamic so it look like fake tiktok analog filter. What about HDR analog movie now ? Be free to share your idea about that ! Am curious.
I frequently do that (look at stills through Davinci) and I know what you mean. Some of my favourite dark movies shot on film like Assassination of Jesse James have noticeably raised blacks. But I don't think that is a part of "film look", but just the consequence of how mastering used to be done, either because of display technology or different spec because it was targeting analogue projection. I don't know exactly why, but modern films shot on film don't look like that. I would speculate that if RD shot Jesse James today, or did a remaster, blacks would be at 0. Postproduction and distribution standards today are digital and are the same regardless of the acquisition medium. Anyway, we are discussing a totally subjective thing. For me, raised black just look washed out and wrong, especially on an OLED screen. A shot can look both modern and filmic, for me raised blacks are not part of the equation. The digital look you are referring to comes from a combo of noisy image hit by heavy NR, then sharpening and saturation. Garish, muddy colours, fake edge sharpness, lack of detail. That's on the low end. Or, on the high end, an image that is too clean (lacking any texture) and with colours that are too realistic (not harmonised in any way). As for HDR, I'm not sure how that's relevant. There's no reference for "HDR film look" and HDR movies can still look filmic, again, it's about colours and texture, not brightness levels. Besides, shadow levels are the same in HDR. Dolby Vision spec in a nutshell: 0-50 IRE no difference from SDR. 50-90 IRE slightly expanded into 50-200 nit range and 90-100 IRE greatly expanded into 200-1000 (or 4000, or whatever the target display is) nit range.
One other comment, if you ever feel inclined and get the time, a matrix of what should be used with what would be amazing. That said, this is something that Dehncer should produce if there want muppets like me to get more immediate benefits and better reviews. All the videos except yours, pushed by Dehancer/sponsored, go through a meandering, not a complete example of how it is used by them instead of setting out the principles you start to explain.
and here it is - shagral.com/blog/dehancer-film-emulation-review-amp-tutorial
those opening shots are absolutely incredible 🔥
You sir, are genius, you put words to all the issues I have and how it should be set up. Thank you.
Glad you liked it ✌🏻️
Thanks for such a fascinating tutorial! Love the results! We are happy to answer any questions 😃
this is so ensightful. I learned loads - both in a purely intellectual way and practical applicable one too 🔥
Thanks man, glad to hear that!
Best video on Dehancer by a mile. Thank you for the detail and love you put into your RUclips videos and sharing your passion for creative decisions of your filmmaking, truly inspiring. I'm a relative newbie but without using ACES, what is the suggested workflow for Dehancer? I know you mention within Dehancer it is 'not the time or place to mess with exposure' but how do you prepare your footage for Dehancer (exposure, white balance)? Would you suggest using lumetri colour (I'm in Premiere) on the log footage (not converting to Rec 709) to get accurate white balance/exposure and then to bring into Dehancer and then follow the workflow you mention? Thanks a lot and look forward to new videos
Thanks! haha, I wish the RUclips algorithm would agree with you 😅 As for your question, if I was using Premiere, I'd rely on Dehancer for the whole color process. Let it do the LOG conversion and do basic adjustments right there in the input settings. I think you'd get best results that way, but the problem is that if you want to do a sweeping change across many clips, you'd have to manually adjust each and every one of them. If that is a concern, then it'd be better to do basic adjustments in Lumetri and put Dehancer on an adjustment layer over the whole sequence.
@@shagral Haha I''m certain you'll get the traction you deserve soon enough. That's brilliant help thanks a lot, phew that's cleared my thinking on and all clear now. Really appreciate it. Keep up the top notch work
Edit: And sorry one more question.. when doing the basic corrections in Lumetri are you firstly converting those clips from LOG into Rec 709 so you can see waht adjustments are being made? And then in Dehancer's input section you set it to Rec 709?
Thanks again
First, put the adj layer with Dehancer over your clips. Choose your camera and LOG profile there (assuming it's all from the same camera). Step 2: adjust Lumetri effects on the clip level, while looking at the final image. Step 3: realize what a PITA all this is and switch to Davinci 🤣
@@shagral Lol thanks a lot, perfect that's great help. Yes I've been battling with the idea of moving to Davinci but man I've got a good couple years of After Effects experience and I love the dynamic link between all the Adobe suite... Need to think about it more or procrastinate about switching : )
I rarelly comment on youtube videos, but i had to make an exeption. I have been following dehancer for a while, and already tried it, and honestly was not very happy with the results i got, where i found them to be inconsistent at best. Obviously i was just messing around with no idea of what i was doing. Thank you so much for explaining how to use such a great pluguin. I am looking forward to give at another chance now that i have a basic understanding of what to look for. One more question regarding the Halation. I usually try to use dehancer at a timeline node placement, but i feel the need to adjust the halation from shot to shot. Would you use 2 diferent halation nodes? Halation on a shot basis, and look development on a more general one? Hope i made sense. Sorry, english is not my native language. Once again, thank you so much for this video
Hey thanks for watching, glad the video helped! As for your question, yes you can use effects in separate nodes but you have to be really careful about the order and the colour space. Timeline nodes go after clip nodes (and after group nodes), so make sure things like grain, vignette and color head go last. Read this blog.dehancer.com/articles/tools-diagram-of-dehancer-pro-ofx-plugin/
The main issue is tracking what colour space Dehancer is working in. If the whole pipeline is Rec.709 in - Rec.709 out, then it's easy. If you have log conversion going on or colour management in place, then you must be really careful to not double up or feed the wrong color space. This is the reason I personally would not use such workflow, it's ok if you have 10 clips, but when you have 1000 clips, it gets too unwieldy and easy too mess up.
More reading:
blog.dehancer.com/articles/dehancer-in-davinci-resolve-node-sequence/
blog.dehancer.com/articles/separate-plugins/
@@shagral thank you for the reply. Will check the links provided
Thanks for the informative video. You said you wouldn’t export in h265 because it messes up grain. What would you recommend exporting in?
Thanks for watching! H.264 is fine for web delivery, prores for festivals and local playback
You done a great job trying to sell this plugin, the best I seen, You done a great job, it's still over price.
I agree that it's overpriced for an individual, I said as much. Yet I understand where it comes from. For a postproduction studio it's chump change. And for Filmmaking it's orders of magnitude cheaper than actual film. And of course there's supply and demand. Right now there's no comparable alternative.
@@shagral They're trying to push this all the time as a way to easy get the result of film fast & easy, all of this its already in Resolve, for the average videos, if people look in the right places, don't want to post nothing here, anybody can find , free better choices, even the glow effect, grain, you name it, reactor, we suck less, get to know the people there and you'll get amazing plugs for resolve & I don't fall for that supply and demand games, there is better out there, if the price its right I always pay for my stuff, every single thing in that plug its out there and free.
Shagral, for the life of me, I have looked high and low on Dehancer's website for the film library document you showed, but it's nowhere I can find it. I checked to see if you had added a link, perhaps they have removed it.
www.dehancer.com/profiles is this what you're looking for?
Well done dude, excellent videoI
absolutely aggree with most of your points!
The default settings are extremely weird.
The listing should indeed be grouped
But what is the benefit of using ACES instead of DWG? I was using it with DWG so far and was happy with the workflow.
Hey, thanks for watching! Yeah that's an interesting point. I'm not sure if it's strictly ACES or does RCM bring similar benefits. If I had to guess, I would say that it's just about 32 bit floating point math or whatever, so any color management system will do. But that's just a guess.
Shagral, have a look at shotdeck or teasers of movies and put them in davinci, you will see that the chapter you talk about "black need to be black" is not a reality in lot of film and documentary filmed with analog camera. I was surprise how even in 709 dynamic the parade show a signal placed only betweeen 12% and 70% and it looks amazing ! I just prefer use a creative way and not technical one to feel the story before seeing where the parade stand :
"Dune" Movie use always 0% black all time sure but they push the shadow a lot so the black is not everywhere. "Interstellar" use 0% often but in daylight the black are around 10%.
Using 0 to 100% of a parade look really contrasty and digital to me, if you do it with print emulation you loose that analog dynamic so it look like fake tiktok analog filter. What about HDR analog movie now ?
Be free to share your idea about that ! Am curious.
I frequently do that (look at stills through Davinci) and I know what you mean. Some of my favourite dark movies shot on film like Assassination of Jesse James have noticeably raised blacks. But I don't think that is a part of "film look", but just the consequence of how mastering used to be done, either because of display technology or different spec because it was targeting analogue projection. I don't know exactly why, but modern films shot on film don't look like that. I would speculate that if RD shot Jesse James today, or did a remaster, blacks would be at 0. Postproduction and distribution standards today are digital and are the same regardless of the acquisition medium.
Anyway, we are discussing a totally subjective thing. For me, raised black just look washed out and wrong, especially on an OLED screen. A shot can look both modern and filmic, for me raised blacks are not part of the equation. The digital look you are referring to comes from a combo of noisy image hit by heavy NR, then sharpening and saturation. Garish, muddy colours, fake edge sharpness, lack of detail. That's on the low end. Or, on the high end, an image that is too clean (lacking any texture) and with colours that are too realistic (not harmonised in any way).
As for HDR, I'm not sure how that's relevant. There's no reference for "HDR film look" and HDR movies can still look filmic, again, it's about colours and texture, not brightness levels. Besides, shadow levels are the same in HDR. Dolby Vision spec in a nutshell: 0-50 IRE no difference from SDR. 50-90 IRE slightly expanded into 50-200 nit range and 90-100 IRE greatly expanded into 200-1000 (or 4000, or whatever the target display is) nit range.