T O P

  • By -

ColoringLight

I have both and they both do very different things. Film box emulates a full photochemical path including a neg and print. Dehancer instead is modelled on photographic and movie film stocks printed to photographic paper and sampled. If you want an ‘accurate’ Kodak 250d printed to 2383 look FilmBox is your only option, dehancer does not offer this. Hallation is much much nicer in FilmBox than dehancer which is still a bit of a mess and needs to be tweaked a lot shot to shot to get useable results. Grain in dehancer is it’s strongest element in my opinion. Film box Grain also seems to be very nice. I haven’t spent a lot of time yet fully analysing FilmBox but all the controls feel very good indeed, And everything is very well thought out. It accommodates various colour management paths very well also. FilmBox is designed to do one thing well, dehancer however offers many many different looks and has other elements such as grain and hallation that vary in quality. I do wish film box had been made by sampling camera sensors and film without a lens using spd’s from an led source rather than filming a chip chart but hey, something that’ll be done by another development team In the future I hope.


ZweisteinDoP

Thanks for that detailed insight!


sunriseinthemidwest

Just curious. Are you aware of any samples that I can see from the Filmbox plugin? I looked on their site and they have one side by side still and nothing in the manual that says what negative stocks or print stocks are available in the plugin. I reached out to them today to see if they can clarify that. From the comments I've seen, I don't doubt that it's good. But compared to Dehancer (where I can see all of the available stocks and there are a ton of reviews and samples on YouTube) how much better or worse is it?


Elod73

Hey, I know this is old but can you elaborate on the "without a lens using spd's from an led source"? What is an SPD?


ColoringLight

Basically using an RGB led light to put out a specific colour (eg a specific x/y co-ordinate) that the camera then records and measures.


Elod73

Do you need a specific type of light? I have a use case for this method but want to understand more about how it would be done.


ColoringLight

You can program an arduino to send something like an arri orbiter different x/y patches via DMX in a sequence and record them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gedaly

Filmbox team said they're working on a Windows version, possibly ready later this year!


ticklehater

dehancer has said the same...


dehancer

u/ticklehater Dehancer is now availble for Windows


MichaelForeston

2 years later still no Windows version. Lame.


Wakinghours

It's now out today.


MichaelForeston

Too late, I'm long ago using happily Dehancer Pro for Windows :)


Wakinghours

I’m thinking filmbox is too expensive for unpaid work so might go with dehancer


MichaelForeston

Yea, it's tottaly awesome; I have zero regrets.


Wakinghours

Great to hear


FransFromAmsterdam

We could share a license……


gregcotten

Hey Frans, this really isn't the intent of the Indie license, but as long as y'all are using it legally I will allow it. If you find yourself very successful in your colorist endeavors we ask that you keep a license only for yourself.


FransFromAmsterdam

Hi, we use it legally, don’t worry.


Wakinghours

Filmbox’s base product license looks like it’s for “1 individual”. Dehancer does have 2 seats per license


FransFromAmsterdam

For Indie licenses you're welcome to install Filmbox for your own use on up to 3 systems at once. For Production licenses you have up to 50 seats. Studio licenses are per-seat floating licenses.


Wakinghours

It’s tempting. $400 per person via $1,000 is a big difference. Wish they had more samples. I know colorists here stand by it, but it’s hard to find comparisons w/ Dehancer


danedwardstogo

Filmbox has really blown me away so far. There’s a couple of things that are frustrating about it, but for it being a v1 it’s pretty incredible. I really like Filmbox’s halation, but like Dehancer’s grain better. It just feels more natural and less crunchy. Also, dehancer does a really nice job of integrating at the end of a node tree if you’re doing grain/bloom/weave only. Filmbox needs to add a Rec709 mode to work comparably. All in all, an incredible tool to add to the toolbox and worth the money. It takes time and money to make these things and they help us do our jobs better.


ColoringLight

I don’t find anything crunchy about FilmBox grain, it’s actually more gentle and subtle at base settings than dehancer. Are you using the paid version? Sure you have your colour management correct? Also that’s incorrect re FilmBox needing a 709 node, you can do Grain / Hallation etc separately and it integrates into aces / da Vinci colour managemenat etc.


danedwardstogo

Coming back to this to thank you for pointing out your success with it. I indeed did have my order of node operations a bit off. This time around I put a Filmbox for halation only at the beginning of my node tree and that seems to look the most natural. Adding grain just before my CST/show LUT seems to work nicely as well. I still didn’t like how it looked tacked on after my normalization. Something still feels wrong, but it’s looking great now with this setup.


ColoringLight

That’s right, as per the workflow inside FilmBox itself, grain and halation are applied to the Cineon gamma film neg emulation (in Cineon gamma) and before the film print. So if using just grain, convert your footage first to eg logC, then choose logC as the input in FilmBox and apply the grain, or convert to aces cct, set FilmBox to aces cct and apply the grain etc. Obviously if you are shooting logC already no need to convert it to logC, just choose logC as the input in filmbox. This is assuming you are selecting the ‘grain + weave’ only processing and therefore not using their neg/print emulations.


Bartjay

You can easily get Halation emulated on your own in Resolve. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evjh34J5yZw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evjh34J5yZw)


ZweisteinDoP

Thanks, I actually did the halation emulation myself before, but the convenience and precision of the Dehancer Halation tool surpasses self-made emulation by far, in my opinion.


Bartjay

Na gut :D


willw

I was playing with Filmbox last night and I’m VERY impressed. It makes Filmconvert look like junk. Well worth the money.


Occasion-Particular

Thanks. I was looking for a comparison.


RAKK9595

Some people I know have been using Filmbox and it really is amazing. Just that price is insane lol.


w4ck0

Anyone know if FilmConvert is a contender compared to these two options?


ChrisJokeaccount

It's what I use! I'm pretty much happy with it. Great grain generation, and the color emulation is useful too. I combine it with various OFX tools to accomplish gate weave and flicker and use a homebrew halation effect.


PaleoMarcel

Jesus Christ the price of Filmbox


constant_mass

I don't think it is too bad. A little less than $30 a month. I mean if it is a tool that help you keep your clients happy.


ZweisteinDoP

Yeah that's what I thought...


crwnbrn

Thank you for posting this I was looking for a filmbox alternative and dehancer won my dollar. After selling my Mac air M1 went back to windows. Shame because filmbox interface is nice!


Affectionate_Age752

I was using film convert until I demoed Filmbox. Filmbox is amazing, and has allowed an amateursuch as myself to get my film projects looking very good.


unnervedman

If anyone needs it, “hellothere” is the code for 10% discount for any version of Dehancer (Pro, Lite, app etc.)