NLE Mac / Final Cut questions from 2002

John Locke · November 16th, 2002, 06:25 AM

I just finished my first short film which I intended mainly for web viewing. But I also printed to tape and played it on a TV monitor...and I noticed there were definitely some audio problems. I obviously made the dynamic range to wide.

I tried to keep things between -18 and -12 but some things, like an explosion sound for instance, needed to be noticeably louder, so I set those at about -2 or -3 (but always below 0). On a TV monitor, the explosion sounds pop and crackle a bit...so they're too high, I guess. Also, some low, bass sounds disappear altogether.

Any suggestions on this? To make playback better on a TV, what would be the preferred output for short, loud segments like gunshots and explosions? And how about dialogue? And background music?

Adrian Douglas · November 16th, 2002, 09:15 AM

John remember that the average TV is only capable of a frequency responce range of between about 100hz to about 10khz. Pretty limited in all but Rob's home theatre. You might try compressing the explosions and reducing the high end eq. This should stop the high end distortion but still allow you to keep the higher level.

Adrian Douglas · November 16th, 2002, 09:19 AM

Unfortunately, this is an inherant problem with DV. The rough edges you are seeing is alaizing(can't remember how to spell that one, it's too late at night). Did you do the titling in FCP, or Photoshop?

John Locke · November 16th, 2002, 09:23 AM

er...what?

Sorry, Adrian...I'm an absolute beginner when it comes to manipulating audio. Really, I was just wondering what settings others use (especially FCP people who set the volume levels for each clip based on a 0 to -60 range) for peaks and lows (peaks meaning explosions and gunshots). If you take them down too far, they sound like cap guns and bursting balloons.

John Locke · November 16th, 2002, 09:30 AM

I did it in FCP. I've done it in Photoshop before and it does look better. But there has to be a way to make FCP text look better.

Vic Owen · November 16th, 2002, 10:43 AM

Did you use the Calligraphy 3-D plug-in? It is vector-based and gives better results than the normal FCP text. Also, make sure you provide a slight edge blur. Smaller fonts are more prone to this. Maybe a different font?

Ken Tanaka · November 16th, 2002, 10:44 AM

John,
You won't like this answer but AfterEffects "rules" when it comes to all text treatments. FCP's free BorisFX plug-in ("3D Text") works well for static text. But for any movement or other effects AE is the way to go. It just does a much nicer, smoother job.

John Locke · November 16th, 2002, 11:07 AM

Vic and Ken,

I knew I must have been overlooking something...I just used the standard text generator. Didn't know about Calligraphy 3-D or BorisFX to be honest.

Ken...you're right. "After Effects" looks like it's a must-have. I was hoping that I could get by with FCP awhile longer. Man! There goes another big wad of cash and a few weeks of intensive study. Never ends, does it?

Vic Owen · November 16th, 2002, 12:49 PM

John--

Another (considerably less) alternative is to try out the CHV text plug-in. It is also vector-based, and allows you to mix fonts, margins, gutters, etc. all within the same fx. There's a good review over at :

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/review_chv_text.html

I got the text plug-in and like it a lot.

Yeah, after I hit the lottery, I gonna have to get AE, as well....

Jeff Donald · November 16th, 2002, 02:35 PM

John,

Since AE was brought up you might want to take a look here http://www.creativecow.net/articles/...let/index.html This also works into your 16:9 or 4:3 post. I don't usually like to link to COW and 2-pop, but this article is so well done.

Jeff

Ken Barnes · November 16th, 2002, 06:34 PM

If you go to this website and read all the way down, it claims that FCP will read the files:

http://www.abcdv.com/article/articleview/5/1/48/

How does the unit work with Canon's Lanc? Any ideas for mounting it on an XL1, taking extra battery into consideration?

Jeff Donald · November 16th, 2002, 06:56 PM

I would want to see it work on a Mac before I purchased one. If you read further down the article they couldn't get it to work by drop and drag. They had to capture off of it. I would also want to see a comparison of the codec used by Sony. It may not be as good as the Quicktime codec.

Jeff

Jeff Donald · November 16th, 2002, 09:14 PM

I've been a big fan of Cleaner 5 for a while, using it to multiplex all my DVD's. Thank the stars I don't do too many long programs. Cleaner 5 was just so sloooooow. Well, good news, Cleaner 6 is out and very stable on OS10.2.2 I'm very pleased with it's performance on the 6 DVD's I've done for clients in the past month (except for an occasional crash on 10.2.1). My times have been averaging 2 to 3 times faster than Cleaner 5. A complete review is at Creative Mac http://www.creativemac.com/2002/11_n...ner6021112.htm Their testing is similar to my results. Discreet has a great offer available until the end of the year. Cleaner 6 and Combustion 2 can be purchased for $1,497. A year ago that combination would have been $6,000 and not been near as fast.

Jeff

Paul Sedillo · November 17th, 2002, 05:54 AM

Jeff,

On Friday my upgrade came. I have not had a chance to work with it, but glad to hear that the speed has been improved.

Jeff Donald · November 17th, 2002, 07:15 AM

I would have given up on it if the speed improvement was not on the magnitude it is. I don't really do enough to justify a hardware accelerator. But Cleaner 5 was a torture to use. If you haven't upgraded to 10.2.2 you may have a program crash now and then.

Jeff

November 16th, 2002, 06:25 AM	#1096
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	FCP preferred audio dynamic range I just finished my first short film which I intended mainly for web viewing. But I also printed to tape and played it on a TV monitor...and I noticed there were definitely some audio problems. I obviously made the dynamic range to wide. I tried to keep things between -18 and -12 but some things, like an explosion sound for instance, needed to be noticeably louder, so I set those at about -2 or -3 (but always below 0). On a TV monitor, the explosion sounds pop and crackle a bit...so they're too high, I guess. Also, some low, bass sounds disappear altogether. Any suggestions on this? To make playback better on a TV, what would be the preferred output for short, loud segments like gunshots and explosions? And how about dialogue? And background music? __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

November 16th, 2002, 09:15 AM	#1097
Adrian Douglas Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chigasaki, Japan. Posts: 1,660	John remember that the average TV is only capable of a frequency responce range of between about 100hz to about 10khz. Pretty limited in all but Rob's home theatre. You might try compressing the explosions and reducing the high end eq. This should stop the high end distortion but still allow you to keep the higher level. __________________ Adrian DVInfo.net Search for quick answers Where to buy? From the best in the business...DVInfo.net sponsors

November 16th, 2002, 09:19 AM	#1098
Adrian Douglas Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chigasaki, Japan. Posts: 1,660	Unfortunately, this is an inherant problem with DV. The rough edges you are seeing is alaizing(can't remember how to spell that one, it's too late at night). Did you do the titling in FCP, or Photoshop? __________________ Adrian DVInfo.net Search for quick answers Where to buy? From the best in the business...DVInfo.net sponsors

November 16th, 2002, 09:23 AM	#1099
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	er...what? Sorry, Adrian...I'm an absolute beginner when it comes to manipulating audio. Really, I was just wondering what settings others use (especially FCP people who set the volume levels for each clip based on a 0 to -60 range) for peaks and lows (peaks meaning explosions and gunshots). If you take them down too far, they sound like cap guns and bursting balloons. __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

November 16th, 2002, 09:30 AM	#1100
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	I did it in FCP. I've done it in Photoshop before and it does look better. But there has to be a way to make FCP text look better. __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

November 16th, 2002, 10:43 AM	#1101
Vic Owen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 540	Did you use the Calligraphy 3-D plug-in? It is vector-based and gives better results than the normal FCP text. Also, make sure you provide a slight edge blur. Smaller fonts are more prone to this. Maybe a different font? __________________ -- Vic Owen --

November 16th, 2002, 10:44 AM	#1102
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	John, You won't like this answer but AfterEffects "rules" when it comes to all text treatments. FCP's free BorisFX plug-in ("3D Text") works well for static text. But for any movement or other effects AE is the way to go. It just does a much nicer, smoother job. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

November 16th, 2002, 11:07 AM	#1103
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	Vic and Ken, I knew I must have been overlooking something...I just used the standard text generator. Didn't know about Calligraphy 3-D or BorisFX to be honest. Ken...you're right. "After Effects" looks like it's a must-have. I was hoping that I could get by with FCP awhile longer. Man! There goes another big wad of cash and a few weeks of intensive study. Never ends, does it? __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

November 16th, 2002, 12:49 PM	#1104
Vic Owen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 540	John-- Another (considerably less) alternative is to try out the CHV text plug-in. It is also vector-based, and allows you to mix fonts, margins, gutters, etc. all within the same fx. There's a good review over at : http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/review_chv_text.html I got the text plug-in and like it a lot. Yeah, after I hit the lottery, I gonna have to get AE, as well.... __________________ -- Vic Owen --

November 16th, 2002, 02:35 PM	#1105
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	John, Since AE was brought up you might want to take a look here http://www.creativecow.net/articles/...let/index.html This also works into your 16:9 or 4:3 post. I don't usually like to link to COW and 2-pop, but this article is so well done. Jeff

November 16th, 2002, 06:34 PM	#1106
Ken Barnes New Boot Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 24	If you go to this website and read all the way down, it claims that FCP will read the files: http://www.abcdv.com/article/articleview/5/1/48/ How does the unit work with Canon's Lanc? Any ideas for mounting it on an XL1, taking extra battery into consideration?

November 16th, 2002, 06:56 PM	#1107
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I would want to see it work on a Mac before I purchased one. If you read further down the article they couldn't get it to work by drop and drag. They had to capture off of it. I would also want to see a comparison of the codec used by Sony. It may not be as good as the Quicktime codec. Jeff

November 16th, 2002, 09:14 PM	#1108
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Discreet Cleaner 6 review I've been a big fan of Cleaner 5 for a while, using it to multiplex all my DVD's. Thank the stars I don't do too many long programs. Cleaner 5 was just so sloooooow. Well, good news, Cleaner 6 is out and very stable on OS10.2.2 I'm very pleased with it's performance on the 6 DVD's I've done for clients in the past month (except for an occasional crash on 10.2.1). My times have been averaging 2 to 3 times faster than Cleaner 5. A complete review is at Creative Mac http://www.creativemac.com/2002/11_n...ner6021112.htm Their testing is similar to my results. Discreet has a great offer available until the end of the year. Cleaner 6 and Combustion 2 can be purchased for $1,497. A year ago that combination would have been $6,000 and not been near as fast. Jeff

November 17th, 2002, 05:54 AM	#1109
Paul Sedillo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 607	Jeff, On Friday my upgrade came. I have not had a chance to work with it, but glad to hear that the speed has been improved. __________________ Paul Sedillo Image::Studio http://www.image-studio.com Houston, Texas

November 17th, 2002, 07:15 AM	#1110
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I would have given up on it if the speed improvement was not on the magnitude it is. I don't really do enough to justify a hardware accelerator. But Cleaner 5 was a torture to use. If you haven't upgraded to 10.2.2 you may have a program crash now and then. Jeff