Jump to content

myke2241

Members
  • Posts

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by myke2241

  1. 19 hours ago, Marc Wielage said:

    I use Resolve almost every day in my other life as a colorist and sometimes post supervisor. I think it's great for color (in many ways the standard of the industry), but it's not quite there as editing software just yet. Getting closer all the time.

    Resolve v14 is very, very "Beta-ish" and not stable enough to use for anything beyond testing at this point. I was surprised that they shoehorned Fairlight into it; even Avid isn't crazy enough to combine Media Composer and Pro Tools into one product, since they serve different markets. I think Blackmagic's philosophy is that if editing, color, and sound editing/mixing all uses the exact same timeline, there will never be a problem with the post handoff between departments. 

    Fairlight is so new for Resolve, most of the user manual pages are still blank. I'm gonna wait for the paint to dry before trying this thing out. Potentially, this could shake a lot of things up: you can literally have an editor working in one room, a colorist working in another room, and a sound editor/mixer in a third room, all accessing the same project and updating on the fly. I think it won't really be stable enough to use until July, but there are parts of it that are formidable. Hell, I'm thrilled that it runs faster and has more color features, which is all I want. 

    I don't think it's a super-serious competitor for Pro Tools just yet, but then, when Resolve was introduced at $995 about 7 years ago, it had a fairly catastrophic effect on the post business: everybody in the color business eventually had to cut their rates and all competing software/hardware prices went way down. Then again, a Deva 2 was $15,000 15 years ago, and a machine that does all of that is roughly 1/3 the price today, so the same thing happening in many parts of the business. 

    i think you need to understand who was using Fairlight to realize it will never be at the level of Pro Tools, Nuendo, logic etc.... my first gig was at a post house in LA that was a Fairlight house expect one room (pro tools). at the time there were around 5-6 places in LA using Fairlight. all the shops were TV / Radio. The Fairlight systems where tied to controllers which made for seamless editing. the method of editing was entirely different than every DAW on the market but it was insanely fast if you were good. if your wondering where clip based fx came from it was fairlight. you could set eq and compression per clip. but the company took too long to evolved beyond this and ad meaningful features. a example was it wasn't a simple task to create a mp3. you couldn't even do it within a fairlight! i believe the company was sold twice since 2002. it wasn't until the late 2000 that Fairlight went to a PC platform with a DSP card. there are some diehard Fairlight users out there and it is a great platform for some people out there. it is powerful and fast in the right hands. it just will never have the user base to compete with the big three.

    Now that this has all happened i am interested to see what happens to Fairlight as a dedicated DAW. does BMD have any interest in that? i would love to see the Fairlight controllers become cross platform and come down in price. maybe the $10k market.....

  2. On May 3, 2017 at 3:20 AM, VAS said:

    For color grading, Resolve it is very good. For editing, Resolve has been terrible, not in a good way. Lots of problems. Putting audio editing and mixing capabilities into Resolve; really I don't know.

    Pro Tools is the standard industry and will continue to be. Nuendo has better capabilities and it's more stable from Pro Tools (IMHO), but for some reason; can't be the number one in the industry. It's nice to see a third player, but when you try to make new friends; should offer and solve problems, which the rest of two players have.

    nuendo has more features because it is a native platform. they don't have to develop or maintain DSP cards which is a lot of work. so if you are looking for features ya sure nuendo and logic. for raw power DSP based system will better serve most people. best scrubbing on the planet is Fairlight!   

  3. I posted something when Fairlight was purchased by BMD. I found it interesting and wondered what the plans were. I honestly didn't see this coming. Fairlight has a long storied past which many don't know because it wasn't a major daw or just too young etc... whatever it was Fairlight was never a huge company and struggled to grow and almost went under a few times. Which was a scary thing because there were a pretty big handful of Fairlight based shops in LA. Spares and repairs would of next to impossible. Like Pro Tools tdm/hdx it was a dsp based system. Fairlight made some changes to their platform in order to compete with modern daws but remained a small company. Here we are today. It doesn't appear BMD has ported all features from Fairlight over to resolve but all in all this is now the most powerful free daw on the market as long as you can import and export AAF/OMF.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  4. The gap in marketing is jaw dropping.
    We do not see this type of demographic targeted marketing from the high end manufacturers.
    Regarding the inserted screengrab, Zoom has clearly linked indie with pro and trumpeted the price gap between their product and the high end pro gear, although I think the slant is misleading about putting 'high quality sound front and center.'
    In years previous, this has not been the case where sound was recorded using a handheld Zoom H4N and they got whatever they got out of it and some of it not very good.
    The aging hipster soundman model with receding hairline and too many artisan pulled pork sliders/craft beer chasers belly says a lot.
    Their market has grown up a bit and got wise that they now offer a better way to better sound. And they groomed their previous purchasers to 'buy twice.'
     
     
    Zoom_F4_MultiTrack_Field_Recorder_Zoom_-_2016-09-25_07.30.52.png


    Wow I didn't see that! Pretty bad marketing. Not buying that coolaid lol


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    not sure if that's a good comparison, most lenses for Canon L are not really that much cheaper then Zeiss SLR (factor 2-3), while here in europe the 744T still goes for over 5000EUR and the F4 will come in around 700EUR, so that's a factor of 6. so it's probably more like Samyang vs Zeiss.
    but yes, there are still people buying zeiss glass despite the cheaper options, most likely because of the different properties and intended use.
    like people who need autofocus will buy canon and those who need manual focus buy zeiss. kinda like if I need really nice preamps, limiters and reliability I would want a 744 while if I need 4 preamps and a mix track I would probably get an F4.
    And there's a big difference in what I would buy if i needed a work machine that I use 100days a year on paid jobs and can charge rental for, or if I just do an unpaid film with friends once every two years. 



    Huh? Canon 85mm L 1.2 is $1900 while a zeiss 85mm 1.4 Otus $4500! Although I agree Sanyang - Canon is probably more financially accurate comparison. Everything else you said was spot on



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  5. I agree with you, perhaps my statement is a bit extreme. I do not doubt that the 744 is the better machine here, and I would pick SD over zoom any day of the year. But the price gap between the two is just jaw dropping.. 


    Well the price gap between canon L glass and zeiss SLR is jaw dropping too. I never hear people complaining in that neck of Woods. It's the same thing here. The price is justified on budget and application. Use the job calls for.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  6. zoom is killing it. How can someone justify buying an SD 744T now.. 


    I wouldn't say killing it. There are many reasons to purchase a 744. No one is purchasing zoom decks for their pres or automixing, ease of use etc... Zoom is making entry products with good enough feature sets at cheap prices. It fits a lot of people's needs but not all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  7. Perhaps, were it not for the CCM8/CMC68. Just sayin' :-)

    Actually, I would love to try a MKH 30/40 combo one day, just 'cause I'm micurious.

     

    i have a CCM 8 and CCM 41 MS setup too. i actually like it a lot. If it wasn't for cost i think a lot of people would go for the Schoeps rig. the MKH 30/40 combo is the stuff of legends! modern classics in a way at a pretty reasonable cost. they both have their place but if you could pick one it would be 30/40 for me. 

  8. The AT stuff is nice for the money but i would still say 416 + MKH30 for a few reasons. the 416 is almost bullet proof in harsh conditions, works really well in a variety of applications, it will give you a decently narrow pickup pattern and it will do ok outdoors and indoors within reason. The MKH 30 is a fantastic mic and will work great with a number of options. also both the 416 & 30 have lower noise ratings then the AT stuff.

    I don't know what the Ambient QFL Floater is but wind protection is required and certainly a connbox would be ideal to have. If you can rent before you buy that is also a good option. 

     

  9. It really depends on what you are doing. if you wanted to capture atmos at a football game i certainly wouldn't pick up my 416 for my M channel. the image would be narrow and have lots of proximity effect (center exaggeration). on the other hand that would be great for recording something going by quickly like a car, bike, skateboard etc.

    also think about down the road. MKH 30 is the standard when it comes to a MS Side mic. i rather get a MKH 30 and buy a MKHX0 or MKH80XX down the line when i had the cash.

  10. Wide spaced cardiods seem to work best (obviously not workable for dialogue pickup). Also did some wide spaced 3 channel L/C/R which worked quite nicely.

    Although I'm still a bit fan of M/S, I just haven't found it to be very effective for theatrical exhibition.

    -S

    "I don't care what they're talking about, all I want is a nice fat recording".

    Harry Caul "The Conversation"

    That makes sense. Although in the real world it can be real tough to set that up in fast paced environments. i tend to go for space omni when space is permitted. 

     

    Sounds like a really interesting test. could you give more details about the test, mics used, program, and such? 

  11. i personally have never had someone tell " we had issues with your BG's" and i us MS a ton! additionally a lot of sound recordist built huge libraries based off of MS recordings (your probably cutting with those now) and so much as a second thought going to the stage with those.

     

    yes if MS is not setup correctly you can have major issues. but the same goes for AB, XY, Blum etc. 

  12. MS doesn't have any issues as long as it is matrixed before mixing. it is perfectly fine in all mix environments when care is taken. truth be told you can have phase issues with any recording even mono recordings.

     

    personally i think MS is more useful in most cases because it gives you better mono compatibility then anything else. AB & XY recording techniques don't do this very well. Although each has their place and one is not always better then the other.  

  13. I don't quite understand this part. Probably a mistype or autocorrect issue, but I'd like to grasp what you were trying to say here.

     

    opps. 

     

    even those who are using the BBG's with say MKH 50, CMC 641's etc. especially with the revelation that the new material use is so much better. 

  14. i like the concept but i will wait. there are some of us recordist here that have questions about MS, XY and more complex rigs like DMS and ORTF that are wondering about sizing. or even those who are using the BBG's with say MKH 50, CMC 641's etc. especially with the revelation that the new material use is so much better. 

  15. jw: " but I don't like the idea of "visual size is of less importance" --- "

    seems pretty straightforward to me: typically called a tradeoff.

    remember we are not their main market sector, and it would seem that many of their other customers we sharing your feeling: " My one complaint with DPA is the durability factor vs. other lavs I have used. " while for them " visual size is of less importance " and so they accepted this tradeoff to develop these more rugged models... ya' think?

    Sorry but your dead wrong. DPA's main market is sound for wireless applications. Both sound mixers and live sound techs share this market.

×
×
  • Create New...