|
Posted by nappy on 04/07/07 17:18
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:131fg6dimekpr90@corp.supernews.com...
> "nappy" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
>>> You need the DSP function where the noise waveform
>>> is sampled and then removed. This is a built-in function
>>> of Adobe Premiere (and Cool Edit before Adobe bought
>>> it). I would have thought it was a rather common feature?
>>
>> Yes.. but the algo that was used in Cool Edit many times would induce
>> more artifacts than it removed. I used to use this type of noise removal
>> often in the early 90s and was weaned away from it slowly because of the
>> phase effects it produced. I do recommed he try it but I no longer think
>> of it as the silver bullet. I did find though that it worked best with
>> small samples of the noise rather than large ones.
>
> Indeed, it depends on what tools he has available and
> what the expectations of the final product are.
>
>> Sometimes it strikes me that these tools we use.. well.. low budget
>> productions take SOOOO much more work that those that have the best
>> crews. Some features and shows take zero stroking. And others are so hard
>> that it is almost impossible to push them to an acceptable quality.
>
> A few seconds of prevention/monitoring during production
> will save hours and hours of attempting to fix it in post.
That's for sure.. In fact, I tell most productions that a good location
sound mixer is gonna be cheaper than hours in post tweaking. Or doing ADR.
Seems like most of them are genetically oriented to make the wrong decision
though.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|