Difference Btwn Magic Bullet Editors and Suite?

[Alex Thames]

Sorry for the rookie question, but I haven't been exposed to many softwares yet, only the basics: FCP 5, Adobe 1.5 and 2.0, Adobe AE 6.5, Vegas 5 and 6, Pro Tools LE 6.5 and 7.

My question concerns the Magic Bullet 2.0 software. What is the difference between the Magic Bullet Editors 2.0, which I'm under the impression is a bundle of separate parts that is used in conjunction with the major editors: FCP, Vegas, Premiere, etc., and the Magic Bullet Suite 2.0. What does the Suite entail? Does it include Editors? Correct me if anything I said is wrong.

Also, what does the 2.0.1 update include?

[Paul Kepen]

Wish I could answer yor queastion, but you sure don't sound like a rookie to me if you have experience with all those different NLE's. So which one do you use/like the most, or what are the pro/cons of each?
I've used Pinnacle Studio and Premiere Elements. Pinnacle seemed very buggy while Elements was much more stable. I did the demo of PPro 1.5 and thought I would move up to that. All in all, I felt the Adobe line was relatively intuative. Researching around the DVI forums, it seemed like there were a lot of Vegas fans and reviews-touting how easy it wass to learn, superior performance, quicker to shortcuts, and how great it was for HDV editing. I decided to check the demo version. They sent me 3 versions (movie-studio-platinum +Vegas 6). I started with movie studio. I had no manuals, but I was impressed with the very nice little Pop up that would walk you through doing a sample of any and everything the program could do. (WHY DON'T THE PRO VERSIONS GIVE YOU AS MUCH HELP?) So even though it was not as intuative for me (probably from years with photoshop and then Premier Elements), I figured with such rave reviews (didn't seem to be as many fans of PPro), and with such helpful pop ups in Movie Studio, that I'd be able to master Vegas 6 relatively quickly. The manual and the online help are of very very limited help. It works well, and is extremely stable, but I have to keep asking dumb questions here on DVi to figure things out.
Thanks for reading this. Sorry, I couldn't be of any help to you, but if you'd let me know your opinion of all those NLE's you've used, I'd appreciate it. I might still switch :) Thank's - PK

[Graham Hickling]

I assume you've seen this?

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/magicbulletfamily.html

[Alex Thames]

Thanks for the link, Graham. I haven't seen it, although I did poke around the Red Giant site for a while (obviously not thoroughly enough). However, here's the thing: I plan to use the Sony HVR-A1U, which I believe is interlaced (correct me if I'm wrong), and edit it using Vegas 6.0d. I may possibly use Gearshift (for my less powerful laptop) and CineForm Connect HD (for a stronger desktop).

According to your link, Magic Bullet Suite would be for interlaced cameras like the Sony HVR-A1U. But the Magic Bullet Suite doesn't have support for Sony Vegas editing software, while the Magic Bullet Editors does (along with support for various other editing software). The Suite, it seems, is designed for Adobe After Effects, which I have, but would rather forego.

I prefer to use Vegas for as much things as possible, so I'd really like to be able to use Magic Bullet features with Vegas. There's my confusion: interlaced camera, but using Vegas, so...what's the workaround? Does this require the use of deinterlacers? What are some suggestions for deinterlacers (or is the Magic Bullet one good enough), and how exactly do they work - I assume a deinterlaced image is still inferior, or at least different, than a progressive image. I might have read somewhere that deinterlaced images still tend to be not as sharp or more aliased? Is this true?

Also, say I record in 60i, how would that become deinterlaced into true 24p? What if I used the Cineframe (or something like that?) effect on the A1 that tries to mimic 24p, and then tried to convert to true 24p using the Magic Bullet Suite? Would Magic Bullet Suite still deinterlace then? (With regards to issues like these, I consider myself very unknowledgeable, and thus a rookie).

Paul, when I say that I am a rookie, I mean that while I have had exposure to several editing software, my experience with most of them is limited. So, for example, I have no clue about Pinnacle, and am hardly in a position to say much for most of the other editors as well.

I have the most experience in Vegas, which I find pretty intuitive as well, despite being quite accustomed to some of Adobe's product line like Photoshop, PageMaker, etc. FCP also seems easy to use for the most part and I like it a lot. For PCs, I personally try to go with Vegas, for Macs, I try to use FCP.

[Graham Hickling]

Alex, it really depends what you want to do.

I am primarily interested in applying the the MB Editor's coloration and tonal "looks" to footage - and that works fine with either progressive or interlaced footage! (I have both a Sony HC1 and a JVC HD1).

The MB Suite is more oriented to achieving a complete 'film look' through production of progressive and even 24p from initially-interlaced footage using deinterlacers, etc. There are, as you say, numerous deinterlacing solutions around and I can't really comment on their pros and cons - however I recall there is some discussion of that at this site: http://www.dvfilm.com/products.htm

[Alex Thames]

I guess I would like to achieve the most filmic experience possible using footage from the Sony HVR-A1U (NTSC), which is interlaced. So that means true 24p as well as other things, which I am not too entirely sure about. I believe Cinegamma is one of them? What are some other distinct features of film that MB tries to "correct" in video?

But, the main question remains: if I wanted to have the complete film look, is there a way for MB Editors (for Vegas) to do that? Or do I have to go with the MB Suite and use it in conjunction with Adobe After Effects?

Also, still wondering about deinterlaced footage - whether or not it is inferior/still not exactly the same as true progressive?

And also the whole converted 60i thing. Put one way, what setting should I use on the Sony HVR-A1U to achieve true 24p? Should I film in 60i using CineFrame 24? Would that be a close-to-true 24p than CF24 provides or would that be actual true 24p? Or should I opt for the PAL version of the HVR-A1 and try 50i and Cineframe 25? I figure both the NTSC and PAL version will be converted to 24p and then some sort of pulldown method can be used for viewing on NTSC or PAL players?

[Graham Hickling]

> if I wanted to have the complete film look, is there a way for MB Editors (for Vegas) to do that?

No, unless you find yourself satisfied with Vegas' deinterlacing capabilities. You'll need 3rd-party software or plugins for that part of the process - as I said before there are a few options, not just AE.

MD Editors will adjust the cinegamma nicely.

Deinterlaced footage will never match original progressive, but it can look OKish.

I'll let others step in on 24p processes.

[Alex Thames]

Thanks for all your help, Graham.

To those who know about 24p: According to BH Photo and Video, the NTSC Sony HVR-A1U can record in "60i, 30p or 24 frames per second" in HDV. I know the A1 doesn't have true 24p in itself, but uses its CineFrame 24 to mimic true 24p. What I'd like to know is whether this CF24 is progressive or interlaced? I know that Cineform has software that can try to convert CF24 to true 24p, but even then, it's not perfect. I believe Cineform can turn CF25, on the other hand, into true 24p - is that true?

Also, if I record in 30p, then use Magic Bullet Suite 2.0.1 in conjunction with Adobe After Effects 7.0, can I convert to 24p that is actually true 24p (as opposed to looking very, very similar to 24p).

[Graham Hickling]

Alex - CF24 is true progressive in how it is recorded onto the HDV tape.

What Cineform does with its 24P option is a pulldown that affects the framerate.... however it is working on full frames (i.e. progressive) not fields.

CF24 loses some resolution relative to the 60i footage because it is essentially doing some kind of field-blending electronically in-camera.

[Bob Benkosky]

You don't want to shoot in 30p then go to 24p. This is what I've read along time ago. You need to shoot in 60i to 24p or stick with the 30p.

It's easier to stick with 30p but I still think 24p looks better.

Oh....and MB suite 2.0.1 doesn't work right with AE 7.0. They are working on a patch and let me say, I hope it comes out soon because I need to use it and it takes awhile.

[Joshua Provost]

Alex,

You need to do some more research on the CF24 feature of your camera. You will find that it is unacceptable. You will lose half the resolution of your images and still not get true 24 fps motion rendering.

The solution for you is to shoot 60i and convert to 24p in post. MBE does not perform this conversion. MBS does. MBS also provides film-like fades, burns, and dissolves. MBE does not.

There are other options besides MBS for 24p conversion, though. Vegas 6 seems to do a nice job of it. DVFilm Maker is cheap. If you are on Mac, there is Nattress, also cheap and more feature-rich.

Also a note on the gamma controls in MB. That has nothing to do with "cinegamma" features on Sony or Panasonic cameras. Those modes squeeze more dynamic range out of the camera by altering the way the camera handles highlights (the whole gamma curve, actually). The MB gamma slider is a simple means to brighten or darken images. Punching in a 5 on the gamma slider won't give you magical cinegamma... it will just make your footage darker. :)

Josh