magic bullet vs. filmfx at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Techniques for Independent Production
The challenges of creating Digital Cinema and other narrative forms.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 14th, 2003, 07:14 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 29
magic bullet vs. filmfx

Hey guys, I'm looking at purchasing magic bullet, but I found filmfx by bigfx, which is cheaper. Anyone want to comment? Please help here. Josh
Josh Martin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2003, 08:59 PM   #2
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 117
magic bullet by far.......
Federico Prieto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2003, 11:36 PM   #3
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 29
why by far

Why by far? Please advise,
Josh
Josh Martin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2003, 07:55 AM   #4
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 331
FilmFX is your typical fieldblender and softness deartifacting tool. MB doesn't blend. It interpolatates with a much beter result. Also it does not use blurring as a way of reducing artifacts but uses a very sophisticated algoritm to clean up the material that produces no softness in the material at all. The downside is rendering times. I don't rellay see the point of things like FilmFX and FieldsKit. Much of what they do can be done using built in features in AE. I would either learn how to do it in AE Production Bundle or save the $. Or get MB if I really need a true progressive, filmlike look.
__________________
Martin Munthe
VFX Supervisor/DP/Director
Martin Munthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2003, 08:07 AM   #5
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: santa fe, nm
Posts: 3,264
Images: 10
could someone explain to me why there is this impulsive rush to the JVC HD cameras, and all the while there is this insane attempt to blur out the images for the almighty film look? In my feeble mind, it seems somewhat of a non-sequitor...that is, counter intuitive.
Bill Ravens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2003, 01:42 PM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 331
You are absolutely right, Bill. Feeble is better.
__________________
Martin Munthe
VFX Supervisor/DP/Director
Martin Munthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2003, 07:06 AM   #7
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 126
Magic Bullet seems to have the best de-interlacer. Reelsmart Fieldskit sometimes misses some pixels in fast moving images and the built in de-interlacer in Premiere is the worst.

When I use the curves option in FilmFX to decrease excessive contrast, the image get's overall greyer than using the curves option in After Effects. Perhaps FilmFX is nice to add grain and scratches... Other options can easaly be done in After Effects. I haven't tried FilFX's de-interlacer, but I really don't expect it to be better than Reelsmart or Magic Bullet.

I haven't found a de-interlacer that gives me the same quality as the progressive mode on my TRV-60 by the way. Whatever I try, de-interlaced video always shows some (what it looks like to be) compression artifacts... It's difficult to describe, but when I walk outside with my cam, edges of cars get aliased edges and small glitches can be seen around objects.

We're not talking about massive errors here. It's a matter of good and even a little better.

After extensive testing I found that I'm better off shooting in progressive 4x3 mode and cutting out a 16:9 widescreen than shooting in widescreen and de-interlacing afterwards. I'm aware of the lost resolution by cutting off the top and bottom, but TMPGenc seems to do a really good job in resizing the image back to 720x576.

The true anamorphic widescreen image the TRV-60 generates in widescreen mode indeed has a *little* bit more detail, but this gets useless because it has to be de-interlaced which in turn adds a lote more glitsches and anomalies.

Interlaced widescreen image (unaltered out-of-cam)
http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/int-wide.jpg

A cut out of the 4:3 image, enlarged back to 720x576
http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/prog-norm.jpg

As you can see, almost no difference, or at least there's so little lost in detail in progressive-cut-out mode that using the interlaced mode and de-interlacing afterwards makes image quality even worse.
Bram Corstjens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2003, 07:49 AM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: sweden
Posts: 795
Hej Josh, what about DVfilm maker? It seems to be very popular for getting the film look effect.
__________________
Charles
'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'
Charles King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2003, 08:48 AM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 331
Bram: It sounds very strange that deinterlacing in MB (if that is what you are using) would produce artifacts (?). If you are using FieldsKit I would understand it since FK ist not interpolating the same way MB does.

I think the second still ha a lot of horizontal line artifacts. There is stair stepping that is not there in the first image. What are you using to crop and scale? Different apps do this with varying results.

Charles: Isn't DVFilm just another one of those "combine fields and blur" deinterlacers?
__________________
Martin Munthe
VFX Supervisor/DP/Director
Martin Munthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2003, 10:05 AM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 126
Martin,

Indeed the enlarged image has less detail which results in some stairstepping on certain occasions. Do take in mind however, that this example consist of a very detailed scene (books, letters, sharp edges etc). Any decrease of detail will show up in this particular scene (which it indeed does)

The problem (or better better said: dilemma) rises when the content is moving. Of course there's still this lower detail when cutting out 16:9 out of 4:3 progressive mode, but it's generally not as noticable as in the example above.

Of course we can use the interlaced true 16:9 mode and de-interlace with magic bullet (so we won't lose detail), but by de-interlacing we introduce small anomalies - I'll make some examples to illustrate this soon!

The question for me is what I rather have (or don't have):
-16:9 cut out of 4:3 progressive mode - losing a little detail but no need to de-interlace
or
-Interlaced 16:9, de-interlaced by MB - adding small anomalies, but keeping full resolution
Bram Corstjens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2003, 11:09 AM   #11
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 126
I made the same movie twice.

The first one was in progressive 4:3 mode with steadyshot set to off. Also the exposure was locked. After capturing with Premiere 6.5 (no fields) I cut off 65 pix from top and 65 pix from bottom with TmpgEnc, enlarged the remaining image back to 720x576 and saved it as Mpeg2 at 8000 kbit/sec (=max quality) The bitrate was constant.

The second one was in interlaced 16:9 mode with steadyshot set to off too. Again, the exposure was locked. After capturing with Premiere 6.5 (lower field first) I loaded this clip into After Effects and de-interlaced with Magic Bullet (lower field first, detail pattern size = 4 and motion detection adjustment = 20) This movie was outputted as Microsoft DV Avi at maximum quality and saved also as Mpeg2 at 8000 kbit/sec.

Then I played those two movies in media player and took a screenshot of each movie (see images below)

The progressive cut-out
http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/progressive-test.jpg

The de-interlaced
http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/de-interlaced-test.jpg

p.s
I know taking screenshots from mpeg2 movies (at highest quality) does not give 100% accurate results, but the things I wanted to show (the jaggies caused by de-interlacing) are not affected. They show up also in the de-interlaced avi file

p.s2
After cutting 65pix from top and 65 pix from bottom with TmpgEnc I can only save to Mpeg2. This is why I saved the other de-interlaced image too in Mpeg2 to make a fair comparision....

I hope this makes clear what I meant :)
Bram Corstjens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2003, 12:53 PM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 331
Very strange indeed. I have never had this problem going from a Sony PD150P (interlaced) to a Mac via FireWire into FCP and out to AE using MB for deinterlacing.

Are you sure you are not rendering fields out of AE? Are you bringing the fields into your PC in the right order? There must be something wrong because I've never seen this using MB. Have you tried rendering out to another DV codec? MicroSofts DV codec has a very bad rep.
__________________
Martin Munthe
VFX Supervisor/DP/Director
Martin Munthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2003, 04:45 PM   #13
Tourist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Buena Park, Ca
Posts: 1
magic bullet by far.......ditto

Magic Bullet is awsome, best money I ever spent
I could do without the USB dongle , whats next dongles that plug into dongles?
Rodger Johnston is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:48 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network