About grading from Job's town, i have gotten graded copies of shows done on
those high end systems,
and re-done lots of parts on my MC, as i can't stand blown out candles /
windows, out of spec video, non-keyframed correction on pans.
(and, if there is a dissolve and i have the shots at full length put at the
end of the show, clearly marked at the tape box and in a slate, why not
apply the same correction there instead of an ugly transition?)
What i'm trying to say, high end is not in the machines, it is in the
operator.
I am not a grader, but i've been told to do whatever is needed to 'get it
right'.
So if that means a soft wipe to mask diffeent corrections in one shot, luma
key to get other clouds in, animatte with tracking to save my precious
candles, i don't care, just do it.
Perhaps not as fast, but it can be done.
And yes, if this was my daily job, i would buy the right tool for the job.
But i can't justify that. (I've got an overpowered suite as it is already).
But again, it's not the tool, it's the operator.
(we have had that one lots of time already...)
Bouke
VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN
The Netherlands
+31 24 3553311
www.videotoolshed.com
For large files:
http://dropbox.yousendit.com/BoukeVahl998172
----- Original Message -----
From: "Job ter Burg (L2B)" <Job_L2@terburg.com>
To: <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Symphony owners?
Funny, in my town, Flame is for VFX guys. Scratch and Baselight seem to rule
DI/finishing.
TV is usually MC or FCP start to finish. If there's grading, I think that's
usually DaVinci or Scratch or Baselight.
Maybe some iQ / Pogle, an occasional Lustre.
Sent from my iPhone
On 21 feb. 2011, at 17:52, "switthaus" <switthaus@mac.com> wrote:
> But, in my experience, high end finishing does not necessarily mean smoke
> or flame. I have had all three at a shop I ran in the early 2000's and
> the delineation of finishing was clear: Effect heavy went to flame (EDL
> only), built in the box turnkey with effects meant smoke, offline conform
> and anything to do with adjusting the offline went to DS. All can be
> considered "finishing". Now, XML to smoke has made a difference (and DS
> has come a long way since then), but I still see DS as a high-end
> finishing box. Maybe not true 3D space, but that is not needed for all
> "Finish". I think I would be more comfortable in my investment in DS
> right now than Symphony. At least I am getting SOMETHING unique and extra
> for the investment...
>
> sw
>
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "oliverpetersvidy" <oliverpeters@...>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Shirley Gutierrez wrote:
>>> My reaction exactly! I've never even seen DS in action...
>>
>> A better DVE yes, but not in true 3D space as in Flame or Smoke. But
>> that's neither here nor there. DS is the closest Avid has to a
>> "finishing" system in the proper sense of the term and it still has many
>> missing features compared with its competition.
>>
>> My point is that Avid simply doesn't do "finishing" well and doesn't
>> really know how to promote it to the market segment that appreciates the
>> benefits. Therefore, any R&D in that direction is a waste and would be
>> better spent on improving the core product line.
>>
>> That's certainly not what DS owners would want to hear, but I'm sure they
>> would like to have some idea of a roadmap as well.
>>
>> - Oliver
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Search the offical complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment