Is Magic Bullet worth getting?

Jeff Harper · September 29th, 2008, 08:17 AM

Few of my projects require MB Looks, but when used I agree you can't beat it for speed and convenience, and some of the presets are extremely nice in select situations.

Many of us do not have time to tweak to our hearts content due to deadlines and customers waiting for product. I currently have 7 or 8 customers waiting for their videos, and I simply do not have time to play with Gamma settings all day long.

MB looks enables me to come up with someting fast when I need it.

Plamen Petrov · September 29th, 2008, 10:33 AM

Here you can watch a video shot with consumer-class camcorder Sanyo Xacti Hd-1000. The fx chain consists of just 6 filters only (!!!) and I think they do their job much better, much faster and much easier than MB Looks. Also, I doubt too much that MB Looks can reach such a look:
Hollywood Film Look 14 - Sanyo Xacti HD 1000 - 24P on Vimeo
P.S.: I am not the one who shot that video, I just edited and remastered it in few minutes.

Jeff Harper · September 29th, 2008, 11:17 AM

Very nice work. However this look is not far at all from what can be achieved with MB Looks, unless I'm missing something.

Plamen Petrov · September 30th, 2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Very nice work. However this look is not far at all from what can be achieved with MB Looks, unless I'm missing something.

Thanks! I think MB Looks can't achieve this. Also I can say in addition that filters like "Brightness & Contrast", "Color Curves", "Levels" are not in use in my video example!!!

Jeff Harper · September 30th, 2008, 12:51 AM

You might be right. Your video did look very good...

Ian Stark · September 30th, 2008, 01:11 AM

It would be easy to criticise for the sake of it, which is not really what this board is about, but I'm afraid I couldn't detect anything significantly different from what could be achieved using Looks.

You mention in the notes at Vimeo that you used a 'custom 24p conversion' to achieve the 'Hollywood' look. Can you give more details? Also, I (and I'm sure others) would be interested to see the .veg or at least a list of the fx and settings.

I'm really not trying to pick a fight here but you haven't convinced me that a Vegas chain of 6 filters has any advantage over using Looks, for the reasons I mentioned before. What you have achieved is absolutely fine (maybe a little underexposed for my taste, but that's a subjective opinion only), I just don't subscribe to your suggestion that it's any better, faster or easier than using Looks. I'm totally prepared to re-evaluate my views though!

Out of interest, have you used the latest version of Looks?

Brian Boyko · September 30th, 2008, 01:21 AM

I have MB looks; and - I'm of two minds about it.

Now, I typically improve contrast and saturation to a basic "Hey, this looks good and clean" in FCP, using the single-wheel simple color corrector. That gives me a good place to start and it's usually pretty quick. But as for color-grading... well, as far as colorizing is concerned, MB Looks greatest value for me is doing automatically (and simply) what you would have to do manually in a complex application like Apple Color. It really is, it seems to me, that the best analogy is that MB Looks is to Apple Color what iMovie is to Final Cut Pro.

The only problem, of course, is that MB Looks takes FOREVER to render, so it's probably best to leave it as the exact LAST step of the process.

Plamen Petrov · September 30th, 2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Stark

Out of interest, have you used the latest version of Looks?

No, because after my last computer crashed, this one is much stronger but still with build-in video card. So, I still can't use MB Looks. But I watched a lot of examples on MB website, on VIMEO, etc. and I really don't feel satisfied. It is not a matter of critisism, I just see that Looks can't reach what I want.
Ok, just go to the link of the original source (raw) video of my work and try to process it with MB Looks (I attached the original link below my video in VIMEO), then upload the results. Waiting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Boyko

The only problem, of course, is that MB Looks takes FOREVER to render, so it's probably best to leave it as the exact LAST step of the process.

Yes, this is the general "minus" of MB at all, what to do. With my custom fx chain I shorten the time more than 6 times than MB!!!

Jeff Harper · September 30th, 2008, 01:34 AM

You should try the demo. It's free and you can get a good idea...it really has some interesting tools.

Ian Stark · September 30th, 2008, 02:36 AM

Sorry, Plamen, i wasn't suggesting you were criticising unnecessarily - what I meant was that it would be wrong for me to pick holes in that piece of video for the sake of it, just because we have a differing opinion.

Having said that . . .

I think it's perhaps a bit dangerous to state that your method is better, faster and easier than using the latest version of Looks if you haven't actually used it (and cannot, because of your video card). How would you be able to judge that it is easier to use? I'm also unclear how you can claim a six times better performance without actually being able to test it.

On that subject, personally I only experience noticeable drops in rendering speed when I am using some of the more intensive tools like Swing-Tilt Focus (although I only actually used that once!). Otherwise - with a decent graphics card and processor - I am unable to detect any significant hit over and above similar correcting filters in Vegas. I do stress this is with a fast gpu and cpu which I realise not everyone will have.

Despite the fact that I couldn't see a way to download the raw footage, to be honest I'm not sure any 'showdown' would be a fair test - as far as I can see from your Vimeo postings, you started working on your Hollywood look 12 days ago so you have had a bit of a head start! Also, you talked about a 'custom 24p conversion' - would that affect the appearance? Are you able/willing to share your fx chain settings with us? I am genuinely interested to see how you are achieving your looks.

I'll close by saying that both sides of this argument are perhaps a little pointless anyway. This is a subjective choice - you either like Looks or you don't. I happen to like it because it saves me time, it's easier (for me) to use than the Vegas filters and the results make me and my clients happy. If you don't happen to like it then that's entirely your choice!

Still, I like a good debate!!

Plamen Petrov · September 30th, 2008, 03:14 AM

Just make a registration in WWW.VIMEO.COM, it is fast, then you will be able to download the original footage I mentioned above. After registration go to: Bremen-Vegesack - Soccer Party EM 2008 on Vimeo , then go to the lower right end of the same page > Downloads and you will see the direct link (i.e. not smashed by vimeo). Or, after registration just go directly to: http://www.vimeo.com/download/video:...5b8e7192e49fc9

Please, do it, because I am really interested in the results of what MB Looks would do to the same video. Also, anybody else can do the same so that to share the way of his own processing.

Ian Stark · September 30th, 2008, 03:18 AM

OK, when I get a chance I will take a look. But you haven't answered the other points so I'm still not sure if it's worth the effort!

Plamen Petrov · September 30th, 2008, 03:23 AM

Ok, using Radiance for Vegas is a very huge hint...

Ian Stark · September 30th, 2008, 03:35 AM

Ah, OK, so you aren't doing this all within Vegas native filters.

Sorry, I thought this discussion was "I can achieve a better result, more easily and render it more quickly than MB Looks with native Vegas filters". I must have misunderstood ;-)

So what other filters are you using? And what about the 'custom 24p' conversion? I think I need a little more to go on before I take up your challenge!

Ian Stark · September 30th, 2008, 05:20 AM

OK, very quick and dirty comparison. I've just taken stills from the Vegas timeline rather than rendering footage (I've spent too long on this discussion already!). Note that I added a letterbox to match Plamen's version. The stills are approximately from the same location in the film, but as the raw footage was unedited I may not be exactly on the same frame.

Depending on how this screen is presented to you it should be:

1 2
3 4

1. This is the raw footage.
2. This is Plamen's version, using an fx chain comprising VM's excellent Radiance and five other unspecified filters, which we know does not include Color Curves, Levels or Brightness/Contrast.
3. My attempt to use MB Looks to very roughly recreate Plamen's version (note, just trying to approximate it - not improve on it. Looking at the stills I can see several areas where I could have done a better job of matching the two). This took about ten minutes of tweaking.
4. The same clip using the Basic preset from MB Looks, just for reference.

Personally, I prefer the Looks Basic preset and with a few more tweaks that would deliver a much nicer image (in my opinion)!

September 30th, 2008, 01:11 AM	#21
Ian Stark Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,237	It would be easy to criticise for the sake of it, which is not really what this board is about, but I'm afraid I couldn't detect anything significantly different from what could be achieved using Looks. You mention in the notes at Vimeo that you used a 'custom 24p conversion' to achieve the 'Hollywood' look. Can you give more details? Also, I (and I'm sure others) would be interested to see the .veg or at least a list of the fx and settings. I'm really not trying to pick a fight here but you haven't convinced me that a Vegas chain of 6 filters has any advantage over using Looks, for the reasons I mentioned before. What you have achieved is absolutely fine (maybe a little underexposed for my taste, but that's a subjective opinion only), I just don't subscribe to your suggestion that it's any better, faster or easier than using Looks. I'm totally prepared to re-evaluate my views though! Out of interest, have you used the latest version of Looks? __________________ www.vit-media.com www.classicmachinefilms.co.uk

September 30th, 2008, 01:21 AM	#22
Brian Boyko Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 773	I have MB looks; and - I'm of two minds about it. Now, I typically improve contrast and saturation to a basic "Hey, this looks good and clean" in FCP, using the single-wheel simple color corrector. That gives me a good place to start and it's usually pretty quick. But as for color-grading... well, as far as colorizing is concerned, MB Looks greatest value for me is doing automatically (and simply) what you would have to do manually in a complex application like Apple Color. It really is, it seems to me, that the best analogy is that MB Looks is to Apple Color what iMovie is to Final Cut Pro. The only problem, of course, is that MB Looks takes FOREVER to render, so it's probably best to leave it as the exact LAST step of the process. __________________ Equip: Panny GH1, Canon HG20, Juicedlink, AT897, Sennh. EW/GW100, Zoom H2, Vegas 8.1

September 30th, 2008, 02:36 AM	#25
Ian Stark Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,237	Sorry, Plamen, i wasn't suggesting you were criticising unnecessarily - what I meant was that it would be wrong for me to pick holes in that piece of video for the sake of it, just because we have a differing opinion. Having said that . . . I think it's perhaps a bit dangerous to state that your method is better, faster and easier than using the latest version of Looks if you haven't actually used it (and cannot, because of your video card). How would you be able to judge that it is easier to use? I'm also unclear how you can claim a six times better performance without actually being able to test it. On that subject, personally I only experience noticeable drops in rendering speed when I am using some of the more intensive tools like Swing-Tilt Focus (although I only actually used that once!). Otherwise - with a decent graphics card and processor - I am unable to detect any significant hit over and above similar correcting filters in Vegas. I do stress this is with a fast gpu and cpu which I realise not everyone will have. Despite the fact that I couldn't see a way to download the raw footage, to be honest I'm not sure any 'showdown' would be a fair test - as far as I can see from your Vimeo postings, you started working on your Hollywood look 12 days ago so you have had a bit of a head start! Also, you talked about a 'custom 24p conversion' - would that affect the appearance? Are you able/willing to share your fx chain settings with us? I am genuinely interested to see how you are achieving your looks. I'll close by saying that both sides of this argument are perhaps a little pointless anyway. This is a subjective choice - you either like Looks or you don't. I happen to like it because it saves me time, it's easier (for me) to use than the Vegas filters and the results make me and my clients happy. If you don't happen to like it then that's entirely your choice! Still, I like a good debate!! __________________ www.vit-media.com www.classicmachinefilms.co.uk

September 30th, 2008, 03:18 AM	#27
Ian Stark Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,237	OK, when I get a chance I will take a look. But you haven't answered the other points so I'm still not sure if it's worth the effort! __________________ www.vit-media.com www.classicmachinefilms.co.uk

September 30th, 2008, 03:35 AM	#29
Ian Stark Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,237	Ah, OK, so you aren't doing this all within Vegas native filters. Sorry, I thought this discussion was "I can achieve a better result, more easily and render it more quickly than MB Looks with native Vegas filters". I must have misunderstood ;-) So what other filters are you using? And what about the 'custom 24p' conversion? I think I need a little more to go on before I take up your challenge! __________________ www.vit-media.com www.classicmachinefilms.co.uk

September 29th, 2008, 08:17 AM	#16
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Few of my projects require MB Looks, but when used I agree you can't beat it for speed and convenience, and some of the presets are extremely nice in select situations. Many of us do not have time to tweak to our hearts content due to deadlines and customers waiting for product. I currently have 7 or 8 customers waiting for their videos, and I simply do not have time to play with Gamma settings all day long. MB looks enables me to come up with someting fast when I need it.

September 29th, 2008, 10:33 AM	#17
Plamen Petrov Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sofia Bulgaria Posts: 147	Here you can watch a video shot with consumer-class camcorder Sanyo Xacti Hd-1000. The fx chain consists of just 6 filters only (!!!) and I think they do their job much better, much faster and much easier than MB Looks. Also, I doubt too much that MB Looks can reach such a look: Hollywood Film Look 14 - Sanyo Xacti HD 1000 - 24P on Vimeo P.S.: I am not the one who shot that video, I just edited and remastered it in few minutes.

September 29th, 2008, 11:17 AM	#18
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Very nice work. However this look is not far at all from what can be achieved with MB Looks, unless I'm missing something.

September 30th, 2008, 12:51 AM	#20
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	You might be right. Your video did look very good...

September 30th, 2008, 01:34 AM	#24
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	You should try the demo. It's free and you can get a good idea...it really has some interesting tools.

September 30th, 2008, 03:14 AM	#26
Plamen Petrov Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sofia Bulgaria Posts: 147	Just make a registration in WWW.VIMEO.COM, it is fast, then you will be able to download the original footage I mentioned above. After registration go to: Bremen-Vegesack - Soccer Party EM 2008 on Vimeo , then go to the lower right end of the same page > Downloads and you will see the direct link (i.e. not smashed by vimeo). Or, after registration just go directly to: http://www.vimeo.com/download/video:...5b8e7192e49fc9 Please, do it, because I am really interested in the results of what MB Looks would do to the same video. Also, anybody else can do the same so that to share the way of his own processing.

September 30th, 2008, 03:23 AM	#28
Plamen Petrov Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sofia Bulgaria Posts: 147	Ok, using Radiance for Vegas is a very huge hint...

September 30th, 2008, 05:20 AM	#30
Ian Stark Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,237	OK, very quick and dirty comparison. I've just taken stills from the Vegas timeline rather than rendering footage (I've spent too long on this discussion already!). Note that I added a letterbox to match Plamen's version. The stills are approximately from the same location in the film, but as the raw footage was unedited I may not be exactly on the same frame. Depending on how this screen is presented to you it should be: 1 2 3 4 1. This is the raw footage. 2. This is Plamen's version, using an fx chain comprising VM's excellent Radiance and five other unspecified filters, which we know does not include Color Curves, Levels or Brightness/Contrast. 3. My attempt to use MB Looks to very roughly recreate Plamen's version (note, just trying to approximate it - not improve on it. Looking at the stills I can see several areas where I could have done a better job of matching the two). This took about ten minutes of tweaking. 4. The same clip using the Basic preset from MB Looks, just for reference. Personally, I prefer the Looks Basic preset and with a few more tweaks that would deliver a much nicer image (in my opinion)! Attached Thumbnails __________________ www.vit-media.com www.classicmachinefilms.co.uk