Adobe or Avid (Or Sony)?

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:52 pm

You had asked about CD architect, I had an early version of that program. I liked it very much but at one stage, Sonic Foundry decided to do away with the program and no longer support it. That really got me mad. Now, Sony has resurrected that program but I invested in Sony Vegas 6, which started out originally as an audio only program. I use Vegas for all of my CD mastering as I find it to be really great! I find it every bit as good to use as CD architect was/is. No need for the audio only CD architect anymore, other than the fact that they are now bundling it with Sound Forge as a freebie, where it used to cost quite a bit more! I won't bother with it since I'm quite happy working in Vegas.

Now I don't have any cameras as elegant as Joe has. I have a Cannon XL 1, GL 2, 2 Sharp D5000U's and a couple of "crappy" consumer DV camcorder's for "B roll" and other situations that might require smaller or high-risk oriented shots. If I were to purchase a new camcorder today, I would definitely go for one of the many HDV type camcorders, even if I was still producing SD productions since the resolution is 4 times greater. That would give you the ability to zoom, tilt and pan, in software without the image deteriorating as badly as a standard definition DV camcorder does. A cute trick I utilize even with standard definition productions when I have a dearth of camera people available, or some high-resolution still images. I find that with a standard definition camcorder image, I can get away with approximately a 25 - 30% zoom before the image really starts to look bad. Sometimes I'll add a little sharpening filter to improve the image somewhat. I'm not that wild about DV tape, since it is constantly plagued by dropouts and other inconsistencies DVcam is superior in that respect because it pulls the tape faster and has a wider track pitch. In that respect, I would much prefer one of the new external hard disk recorders that can be snapped onto the back of the camcorder. That way, not only should you roll tape as a backup, you will be ready for almost instant editing from the hard drive. Although Sony is making some professional optical disk camcorders that utilize their new "blue ray" technologies, such as the Sony XDcam. The other available consumer oriented DVD camcorders are not a terrible idea. I think the only problem with those is that DVD's utilize a compressed and "lossey" MPEG 2 file format which is generally around a compression ratio of approximately 10:1 whereas the DV tape, considered to be uncompressed, is actually around a 5:1 compressed medium. This is why you should never copy any DV signal, from its analog outputs to another recorder's analog inputs, it's not uncompressed, it's compressed. It starts to look real bad, real fast. We learned that early on at NBC when much of our news footage was starting to look really horrible with our new, $20,000 DVC Pro camcorders. The pictures started looking quite "cartoonish" since they were still using tape based editing suites utilizing all analog inputs and outputs!

I have been somewhat intrigued by a couple of the new consumer hard disk based camcorders? I think they may be worth a look into since with their USB 2.0 interface, you can start editing almost immediately? But there again, you would have no safety backup. Recently, I purchased 3 standalone full-sized, DVD recorders. I got those since I don't rely on batteries or handheld camcorders much for my entertainment/educational/corporate productions. That way, not only do I roll tape, I get a DVD safety backup, with its extended time capabilities and although those are lossey, I've had excellent results while importing those through Sony's Vegas 6.0.

Here looking at you! Smile!
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:05 pm

I have sony vegas installed and im playing with some old footage i happen to have around but can not seem to get a nice film or lens look about it. It still looks like home movie footage. Now if this was audio i would say retake because garbage in = well garbage out but i have seen editing where people just add a certain lens type onto the camera and it gives it a more professional look is this effect possible in the vegas software. Im reading but i dont know what the exact term or word woulr be for this. Thanks.

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:08 pm

Wow, this is turning into a great thread alright.

Everything Tom & Remy said is dead-on, and then some.

We too have won several Shoot-outs based on what we can do cheaper, faster and BETTER on Vegas and DVDArch. Just recently, we nailed a big account with a major arboretum to do their anniversary video DVD, requiring a lot of location shoots and high end production work over 18 months. It all came from one session where we dazzled the client (who was previously just an audio client) with what Vegas could do: Assemble a 9 minute informational video & audio DVD, pulled from a variety of clips, stills, sound files and titles. The client was stunned at what he could do for a fraction of the big guys, with completely pro results, delivered in a variety of formats, including some exotic versions for their HD kiosk player.

AFter that, they keep coming to us for everything else, including on-the-fly DVDs from production footage that another local company claims is "Too expensive" to do it that way. Their loss, our gain, thanks to Vegas.

As for the end of consumer miniDV camcorders, yes, they're probably right, but keep this mind: recording straight to DVDs (inside the camera) is a trap waiting for you. This is simply "on the fly" MPEG encoding, (which you would normally do AFTER editing those AVI files in Vegas and elsewhere) and guess what: It's LOSSY!!!! As good as DVD's are, they are encoded, LOSSY copies of the original. Not good for Professional video work.

Remember that AVI files are bigger (with more detail and data) than MPEGs. (This is why you can fit a 2 hr movie on a double-sided DVD! It's encoded. You see the loss happen with lost of action - motion scenes, actually.) WHen you make some MPEG files, you use an algorithm for bit-reduction, (variable bit-rate) and the less motion, the more data is saved and not needed. (But like Mp3 audio, once it's gone, it's gone!)

So, while making DVD's on the fly inside your camcorder is fun and easy, you'll be in the hole, quality wise, should you want to import these and edit them again and again. (This is why we NEVER reuse or toss out the original miniDV tapes and footage. Those ALWAYS get put away after a project is done. We will always make a standard DV digital tape copy (or HD rendered AVI copy if there's space) in addition to the DVD copy.

You never want to edit from an existing DVD; copies only, please.

Soniclabs, here is the challenge/opportunity waiting for you: You say you don't know all the jargon or terms we're throwing around here. That's fine, fair enough, but now it's time for YOU to jump in and start doing your homework after all this blathering from myself and others. (How do you think WE found out, eh? Hehehe.... I assue you, it didn't just fall out of the sky, and I'm CERTAINLY no genious who figured it out all by myself; I had a LOT of help, even before this whole "Net" thing came about.)

Before NLE and digital video, it was all way too expensive to get into Video; it took hundreds of thousands of dollars for indies to work in video, and millions for even small professional TV studios. Not so anymore, same as the revolution in audio. We added video (in addition to my audio part of the biz) since 1998, when Sony brought out the DVR900 (a ground-breaking three-chip digital miniDV camcorder with firewire and many other goodies.) It all came about in 98 when a client mentioned offhandedly that if we did a good job on an opera he was producing, he'd throw more work our way. I knew my archival-use Hi8 camcorder wasn't going to cut it, and ran out with my credit card to get the Sony.

Never looked back since, and haven't stopped learning. I read every book and mag I can get my hands on, but admittedly, it's very daunting. (I can hardly keep up with my own assistant, who's REALLY got this sh*t nailed; and HE went to school for it!)

Bottom line: if you really want to get in on it, you'll do fine if you have the fire in your belly. There's enough "prosumer" functions to get you started and looking pretty good with most gear and software on the market today. But don't fall into the prosumer trap that's out there for everyone who THINKS they can be the next Steven Speilberg without doing their homework. It ain't necessarily so!

The new technology has NOT produced more geniuses, it has just levelled the playing field for all of us regular folks to come to the table. This is the misconception that makes the weak ones quit, and the smart ones tough it out by finding other services to offer, and better ways to get it done. The goal line has been moved a bit closer, but the rules have changed in the process....more folks can play, but it's tougher than ever to get to the super bowl.

Or to put it another way: It's a party and everyone's invited, but not everyone gets invited back! Wink

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:18 pm

Unfortunately to get that better film look, most video lenses provide too much depth of field. In addition to that both the gamma and the color space still looks like video unless you use programs like " Magic Bullet", which provides a color space with a more "filmic" look. That along with some of the other camcorders that are capable of 24 Progressive frames per second capturing also help.

You might want to try shooting with your camcorder at a slightly telephoto setting so as to be able to throw the background out of focus, which will more approximate the look of prime film lenses? Then tweaking the gamma in your software to produce an overall different exposure effect, which the other manufacturers do internally with their camcorders and refer to it as a "cine' gamma" setting. You may also want to try to add a little video "noise" to simulate films graininess? That, along with adding some more color saturation may provide you with more of the look you seek?

CUT!
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:20 pm

SonicLabsAudio wrote:

I have sony vegas installed and im playing with some old footage i happen to have around but can not seem to get a nice film or lens look about it. It still looks like home movie footage. Now if this was audio i would say retake because garbage in = well garbage out but i have seen editing where people just add a certain lens type onto the camera and it gives it a more professional look is this effect possible in the vegas software. Im reading but i dont know what the exact term or word woulr be for this. Thanks.

Sounds like you have a variety of problems with this footage. Remember that like audio, you can clean up some stuff, while other things are either impossible, or take a huge amount of time/processing. Some of the things you may be trying to do may not work. (These "effects" often look their best on great footage to start with....)

You can color-correct and do a host of other things as well, there's even a split screen view mode to let you see the results as you're working. You also have a number of filter and processes available; all available as "Plug ins" for the video timeline. (Very similar to audio, eh? Wink

)

But don't kid yourself: GIGO stilll applies to video as well as audio. Raising the bar on your video input devices (still cameras to HD Video) and seeing it all on big-screen monitors will often only show you how BAD the original footage was in the first place.

In many cases, you still cannot polish a turd. You can smudge it around, but it will probably still stink in the end. WHich is why I'm keeping less and less VHS copies of anything around anymore. If I can find a re-release on DVD, the VHS tape is gone. (Ditto for my cassette collection, and most of my vinyl.... but thats' another can'o'worms altogether!)

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:32 pm

Ok i figured as much but it seems that color corection may be the next thing i am looking for. I am googling alot of this as i see it and trying my best to follow along but let me just mention 1 thing , some of you are just writing about your personal services , goals and acheivments and not even offering anything other than words to this conversation and as much as i do appreciate everything this is going into the to many cooks in the kitchen approach. Ok i have a handle on types of cameras to stay away from , types of media to use , formats of video ( thats alot in 2 days and im not saying i know it all but am doing heavy research on that ) but am still unclear on a few things. 1) what is the best way to get video into the editor? and 2) i dont think my video card or monitor are HD as i have just started buying stuff for the extra editing suite so what needs to be updated there. Thanks.

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:28 pm

Well, sorry if the 60-70 odd years of collective experience offered here is too boring for ya. Twisted Evil

Item 1. To edit, you get video into your computer via a capture card (old school now) or simply a Firewire interface (the defacto way for quite a while now that CPU's can handle the data flow), and you get it into the software by either importing it in the "File" menu, or you simply drop and drag it over from the media bin viewer (in Vegas, anyway) onto the timeline.

Item 2. IMHO, no rush yet on the HD stuff (at least for monitoring, you will be viewing the stuff on an LCD screen most of the time anyway, with an SD monitor output for most things.) You can import HD via firewire with some software mods, but you'd probably be better off getting your feet wet and chops up with SD for now. (SD in 16x9 will work quite well for you for now, as most folks are STILL getting used to/into the idea of 16x9 for everything. HD comes slower, but it's coming. Take your time, learn all you can about SD first.)

Item 3. Telling you more than you need to know (including sharing success stories) is a by-product of how this forum works, good or bad.

Someday, after spending years (not months or even days) plying your craft and busting your hump, you may get the chance to help a newbie out - like you are now. You'd be well advised to pay attention now and bookmark what you're reading for reference later, when you have MORE questions.

K.I.S.S., indeed.

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:32 pm

Soniclabs,

Hers another alternative:

Have you considered Final Cut Pro on a Mac???
Oh, I aplologize, Apple no longer sells FCP by itself, its now Final Cut Studio
it includes DVD Studio Pro, and Soundtrack Pro.
Although here in Los Angeles, Avid is the DeFacto standard, there are many outlaws using FCP with amazing results.
Ive recieved many OMFs from FCP, if the video editor is worth anything the audio is just fine.

Moderator Joined: Apr 13, 2006 Posts: 106

Remy - I've used Premiere in the past and had an editor using Premiere Pro 1 on a few projects I produced, but no, not enough time with PPro to have discovered that bizarre anomaly. I also tried to demo PPro 2, but it was too buggy.

If that's what Adobe is doing with PPro, it is a poor way to handle audio files. There is no reason to store 16 bit source files at 32-bit. Waste of disk space, and the only app on the market doing so, afaik.

It is a video editor after all - not a pro audio app.

This topic sponsored by: