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.

[Back to original message]