Jump to content


Photo

How beneficial is high end effects processing?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Chris Graham

Chris Graham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 August 2007 - 03:00 PM

Hey guys, new to this section.

I'm really good at sound recording, eq'n and mastering. I realize that audio tweakery and effects enhancements, both in the film trade, add a SIGNIFICANT deal to the final result. For instance in the audio spectrum you don't want certain frequencies to clash. That's proper mixing and more breathing room. WAVES, who are now a big time digital audio effects company, offer almost identical reproductions to classic hardware racks, AND they're officially sponsored by those original companies. I'm sure with film effects processing this is the same case, however I'm fairly new to mastering effects via digital (PC). Now I can assume that in film, like audio, you can process and hear effects in realtime vs. rendering just for a sample playback. What I'm getting at is that rendering time doesn't effect many and are aware of its nature, BUT without a doubt almost everybody prefers realtime observance.

For me, there are certain things I have to wait due to rendering. Ok, no big deal. In the end I achieve successful results. So, I ask you guys, with film and digital tools such as Bullet Time or even better like some high end Color Corrector suite package vs. hardware, can you achieve magnificent results, and is this a common practice for many indie projects or even theatrical?

I'm sure many of you have heard the saying that "you can't polish a turd," surely, but a really good pro can find ways to improvise. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm soon to buy a $5K digital HD cam, probably Panasonic w/ G2, but I would like some assurance of on the market, great color correcting mastering and effects tools? Whether it's Adobe or something else. thanks fellas! hope to post here more often. -cheers
  • 0

#2 David Cox

David Cox
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • london, UK

Posted 28 August 2007 - 03:44 PM

Hey guys, new to this section.

I'm really good at sound recording, eq'n and mastering. I realize that audio tweakery and effects enhancements, both in the film trade, add a SIGNIFICANT deal to the final result. For instance in the audio spectrum you don't want certain frequencies to clash. That's proper mixing and more breathing room. WAVES, who are now a big time digital audio effects company, offer almost identical reproductions to classic hardware racks, AND they're officially sponsored by those original companies. I'm sure with film effects processing this is the same case, however I'm fairly new to mastering effects via digital (PC). Now I can assume that in film, like audio, you can process and hear effects in realtime vs. rendering just for a sample playback. What I'm getting at is that rendering time doesn't effect many and are aware of its nature, BUT without a doubt almost everybody prefers realtime observance.

For me, there are certain things I have to wait due to rendering. Ok, no big deal. In the end I achieve successful results. So, I ask you guys, with film and digital tools such as Bullet Time or even better like some high end Color Corrector suite package vs. hardware, can you achieve magnificent results, and is this a common practice for many indie projects or even theatrical?

I'm sure many of you have heard the saying that "you can't polish a turd," surely, but a really good pro can find ways to improvise. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm soon to buy a $5K digital HD cam, probably Panasonic w/ G2, but I would like some assurance of on the market, great color correcting mastering and effects tools? Whether it's Adobe or something else. thanks fellas! hope to post here more often. -cheers


Hello,

A cheaper camera will not capture as higher quality image as a more expensive camera. That?s the same as a cheap microphone versus an expensive one. Apart from highly compressed images to suite a more domestic work flow, the optics on lower end cameras let them down somewhat.

It?s a different story for post production hardware and software. Within reason, they all do the same thing ? its just the feature set and render times that mainly differ. Then it comes down more to personal ability. In the same way that buying a more expensive pen doesn?t make you a better writer, buying a Flame doesn?t make you a better compositor than if you bought After Effects.

That said, there are one or two functions that are done better by some software than others. For example, stabilising a shot will soften the shot more in badly written code.

Rendering time does have an impact on creativity and final quality though. If that last tiny tweak takes two hours to do, you are less likely to do it that if it takes 10 minutes to do. That?s how it affects final quality.

Hope that helps.

David Cox
Concrete.
www.concretepost.co.uk
  • 0

#3 Chris Graham

Chris Graham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Director

Posted 30 August 2007 - 11:05 AM

Hello,

A cheaper camera will not capture as higher quality image as a more expensive camera. That?s the same as a cheap microphone versus an expensive one. Apart from highly compressed images to suite a more domestic work flow, the optics on lower end cameras let them down somewhat.

It?s a different story for post production hardware and software. Within reason, they all do the same thing ? its just the feature set and render times that mainly differ. Then it comes down more to personal ability. In the same way that buying a more expensive pen doesn?t make you a better writer, buying a Flame doesn?t make you a better compositor than if you bought After Effects.

That said, there are one or two functions that are done better by some software than others. For example, stabilising a shot will soften the shot more in badly written code.

Rendering time does have an impact on creativity and final quality though. If that last tiny tweak takes two hours to do, you are less likely to do it that if it takes 10 minutes to do. That?s how it affects final quality.

Hope that helps.

David Cox
Concrete.
www.concretepost.co.uk


thanks for the feedback -cheers
  • 0

#4 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 04 September 2007 - 03:55 AM

There is no such thing as a $5K HD camera what you're getting is an HDV camera which has a 4 : 2 : 0 sampling format which is the same rate as PAL miniDV standard definition as opposed true HD which is 4 : 4 : 4 and obviously gathers a lot more data. With modern computers, rendering isn't really a problem anymore if you're talking editing and transitions, where rendering becomes a problem is in CGI and animation mainly with particle effects and Radiosity Lighting as well as large complicated scenes with lots of movement ans realistic textures done in high-resolution renders, then you need a render farm, 10 to whatever computers hubbed together with one controller and the rest slaves. Incidentally, true HD takes a LOT of computing power which is why everything is so expensive. B)
  • 0


Ritter Battery

The Slider

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Technodolly

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Opal

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

CineLab

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks