|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 14th, 2007, 02:33 AM
|
#16 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mbforeditors.html
For the sake of completeness, there is another film damage plugin for Vegas - Misfire, part of Magic Bullet Editors v2. From their website: "Misfire offers controls for Fading, Funk, Splotches, Dust, Flicker, Vignette, Displacement, Grain, and 3 different types of scratches, Microscratches, Basic Scratches and Deep Scratches. Each category of effect can be turned off individually using the category switch. All of these effects are also offered as individual plug-ins." There's even more detail as well as before/after images at http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mabued.html Keep in mind it's part of a suite and not available separately (same as the film damage effects in Red) - but that does mean you get a whole bunch of other goodies, including the Look Suite, Look Library (65 presets) and compression correction/deartifacting. Oh yeah, that lot makes the list price $399 but for the extensive control over way more than just film damage I believe it's worth it. Boris Red is a much more comprehensive solution, closer to After Effects in terms of what it does - and what it costs ($995). From their website (http://www.borisfx.com/product/red/): "It integrates 2D and 3D compositing, titling, paint, rotoscoping, a full suite of tools to create and extrude vector objects, 3D creation and animation. . . " I use After Effects as well as Vegas so I can't really comment from experience on how usable Red is within a Vegas host, nor how good the film damage effects are. One advantage of Red that I can see is that it opens up a whole load of third party After Effects filters to Vegas users (by no means all of them - many don't work with Red) but, as with AE, you'll have to learn a whole new interface and I'm not convinced the integration with Vegas is anything but clunky. Both have trial versions. You might also consider Artbeats stock footage collection Film Clutter, which comes with pre-built mattes. Also not cheap! http://www.artbeats.com/prod/search....lutter&ct=&fm= http://www.artbeats.com/community/article.php?id=35 describes how they were made which is quite interesting. Ian . . . Last edited by Ian Stark; August 14th, 2007 at 08:50 AM. Reason: typo |
|
|
|
August 14th, 2007, 02:55 AM
|
#17 |
|
Old Boot
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,633
|
Good information Ian.
However, I'm still having success with the Vegas one. On both external and my 2nd Monitor. My point is, would our friend STILL have the issue even with the other plugins? Grazie |
|
|
|
|
August 14th, 2007, 03:13 AM
|
#18 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Likewise, Grazie, I still am happy with the results from Vegas - especially if they are used sparingly! I too suspect Jonny's issue lies outside the filter itself.
It just occurred to me, Grazie, is your second Windows monitor set up as a Vegas secondary display? If so, do you have the 'apply deinterlace filter' box checked? That could be why they look the same? Best, Ian . . . |
|
|
|
|
August 14th, 2007, 03:24 AM
|
#19 | ||
|
Old Boot
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,633
|
Quote:
Quote:
Grazie |
||
|
|
|
|
August 14th, 2007, 03:35 AM
|
#20 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Just a thought!
|
|
|
|
|
August 14th, 2007, 03:49 AM
|
#21 | |
|
Old Boot
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,633
|
Quote:
Here are some other options: * Previewing FULL on the Vegas Timeline Preview when it isn't fully expanded - this will show up hair bigger than IS! And ahving the LCD running, as it should, with the complete frame showing and thence the hairs appearing small - yeah? * Does our friend here have other CPU intensive stuff running - Scopes? Antivirus? It;s when it "hits" the LCD monitor he's having grief. * What parameters are there on the final "render" template? * Can the LCD "read" or "see" all that noise. Noise = Maths = CPU power? Could this be the issue? Most likely not, 'cos after it it IS rendered then the noise thing aint the issue . . er . . what else? Grazie |
|
|
|
|
|
August 14th, 2007, 03:14 PM
|
#22 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Hmm right - on 'preview' mode, in the preview window, the hair looks of a realistic size. how it would actually look if it were on 35mm film. If I set the preview window to 'Full' mode, the hair goes tiny, as if it can't increase its resolution so has to go smaller.
That's really bad :S AND the dust just 'flashes' - one sheet of rather dense dust will cover TWO frames (hmm, unrealistic) then... there'll be hardly anything on the next few... then another sequence of 2 frame flashes... it looks really crap... I'm watching the render now and it is literally like, one frame will be coated in dust, the next few will have NOTHING on it, then there'll be another sudden layer of dust... AND why when I output a 16:9 project to DV tape in 4:3 does it apply the filter to the LETTERBOX as well? Argh To demonstrate the problem I'm having with the dust just 'flashing', I've taken some screenshots of 18 sequential frames of the filter: http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/01.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/02.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/03.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/04.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/05.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/06.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/07.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/08.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/09.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/10.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/11.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/12.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/13.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/14.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/15.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/16.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/17.JPG http://bodvideos.co.uk/filter/18.JPG I mean look at 3, 4, and 5. It's unbelievable how bad that is, the dust practically stays in the same place over 3 consecutive frames. Then there's no dust on frames 7-12 and then there's suddenly a big sheet of it on frames 13 to 16. Last edited by Guest; August 14th, 2007 at 05:19 PM. |
|
|
|
August 14th, 2007, 11:55 PM
|
#23 |
|
Old Boot
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,633
|
Well done Johnny!
It is good to have a colleague posting actual issues. However, I've not looked at all he JPGs, but the ones I have viewed are devoid of anything? What does this mean? Grazie |
|
|
|
|
August 15th, 2007, 01:00 AM
|
#24 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Morning Grazie - check out frames 3-5 and 13-16.
Jonny, can you pst the .veg file? |
|
|
|
|
August 15th, 2007, 01:20 AM
|
#25 | |
|
Old Boot
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,633
|
Quote:
Morning Ian! Tell me? What IS in the background? Anything? Grazie |
|
|
|
|
|
August 15th, 2007, 01:21 AM
|
#26 |
|
Old Boot
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,633
|
. . and yes!! Gimme that VEG! Now! . . please . ..
|
|
|
|
|
August 15th, 2007, 01:23 AM
|
#27 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Hmm, looks like just a solid colour. Nothing obvious!
|
|
|
|
|
August 15th, 2007, 01:42 AM
|
#28 | |
|
Old Boot
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,633
|
Quote:
Just done a test. 1] T1 Sony Solid 50 sec event 2] Start K/F: WHITE = 255, 255, 255 3] End K/F: BLACK = 0, 0, 0 4] Roll/Scrub and notice the "Hair" size change and then disappear over the solid BLACK area. As I said, I'd like to "see" our friend's BG working with this? Yes? Grazie |
|
|
|
|
|
August 15th, 2007, 05:36 AM
|
#29 | ||
|
Posts: n/a
|
I have posted a link to the veg file at the bottom of this post, however, it still does exactly what I show in those black screenshots there. Well, similar anyway. That was just a demonstration of what I mean, and the black background I used so that it was easier to see.
Quote:
Veg file: www.bodvideos.co.uk/filter/1.veg Quote:
Bear in mind also the other problem with this film effect is, the fact that the hairs look decent size on the preview window but tiny on the output... |
||
|
|
|
August 15th, 2007, 12:52 PM
|
#30 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2,237
|
Jonny, just got back from my primary clients offices - they have an extensive collection of Artbeats stock footage, including the Film Clutter footage I mentioned earlier. This contains real footage of ACTUAL dust, scratches etc on real bits of film. I thought I'd take a quick peek at what real film damage footage looks like and see if I could replicate it using the Vegas filter.
I'm afraid I didn't have time to make stills (I was, after all, working for them) but I went through every frame of a 6 second stock clip (180 frames) and counted no fewer than 56 frames with no dust particles at all and four instances of 3 frame or more sequences with no particles. If you include frames where the particles were barely visible you can more than double that. (How anal am I ????). There were around 20 frames with loads of particles and the rest contained anything between one and four or five. I looked at the veg file you supplied and replaced six seconds of your footage with a black still taken from an 'empty' frame of the Artbeats footage, but retaining the same settings you used. Your dust particle setting seemed quite low and I would suggest increasing it. Also, try putting the B&W filter before the film effects. I got a remarkably similar look to the Artbeats 'real' footage. Now, I can't comment on the hair size issue other than to say that for me the hairs when rendered were the same size as when previewed full size. What I find unacceptable about the Vegas hairs is that they all look the same! Finally with regard to the hairs 'spilling' onto the letterboxed section - yeah, that's naff. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
