Comments on: SmoothCam vs. some others http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/ A few words about non-linear editing, filmmaking and more ... Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:48:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Alejandro http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-7013 Alejandro Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:58:01 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-7013 Hi, I think that Jeremy's said is right: why are you comparing a "stabilize effect" with a "camera smooth improvement effect". You must to compare with the "motion stabilize" effect in final cut. Best Hi, I think that Jeremy’s said is right: why are you comparing a “stabilize effect” with a “camera smooth improvement effect”. You must to compare with the “motion stabilize” effect in final cut.
Best

]]> By: Justin http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-4432 Justin Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:27:12 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-4432 Oh.. you use Avid Media Composer... I'm using Avid Xpress Pro Oh.. you use Avid Media Composer… I’m using Avid Xpress Pro

]]> By: Justin http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-4430 Justin Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:08:22 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-4430 Wow, can you further elaborate on how you did it with Avid? I used the unsmooth clip and basically copied your instructions, but mine is definetly not that smooth. It only took a few seconds too, not 20 minutes. Wow, can you further elaborate on how you did it with Avid? I used the unsmooth clip and basically copied your instructions, but mine is definetly not that smooth. It only took a few seconds too, not 20 minutes.

]]> By: gian http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-3571 gian Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:52:28 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-3571 avid mc has two stabilize effects, Region Stabilize (used here) which is good for stabilizing non moving shots and results, when used correctly, in absolutely smooth shots, and Stabilize which is a tracker based effect similar i would imagine to the apple effect. Stabilize has vastly more parameters than Region Stabilize and allows for multiple trackers running concurrently or at different times in the clip. The degree/type of smoothing is fully adjustable and the effect works with moving shots. the render time is of course longer than that of Region Stabilize. The comparison really should be between the apple effect and Stabilize on the avid. Region Stabilize is a crude, but effective tool. avid mc has two stabilize effects, Region Stabilize (used here) which is good for stabilizing non moving shots and results, when used correctly, in absolutely smooth shots, and Stabilize which is a tracker based effect similar i would imagine to the apple effect. Stabilize has vastly more parameters than Region Stabilize and allows for multiple trackers running concurrently or at different times in the clip. The degree/type of smoothing is fully adjustable and the effect works with moving shots. the render time is of course longer than that of Region Stabilize.

The comparison really should be between the apple effect and Stabilize on the avid. Region Stabilize is a crude, but effective tool.

]]> By: Jeremy http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-3474 Jeremy Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:35:26 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-3474 smooth cam on shake is faster - if you run it w/ your proxy switch set to something other than base. Running it at P2 (quarter rez) actually runs incredibly fast w/ extremely good results - often better than base. A clip run thru at base that takes a few hours to run, may run thru in just a few minutes at P2. It's very good and I'm surprised that capability has not been placed into the motion version. smooth cam on shake is faster – if you run it w/ your proxy switch set to something other than base. Running it at P2 (quarter rez) actually runs incredibly fast w/ extremely good results – often better than base. A clip run thru at base that takes a few hours to run, may run thru in just a few minutes at P2. It’s very good and I’m surprised that capability has not been placed into the motion version.

]]> By: Marco Bonini http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-3386 Marco Bonini Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:38:57 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-3386 Have you try to use the Smoothcam on Shake? It's faster than FCP I think... Have you try to use the Smoothcam on Shake? It’s faster than FCP I think…

]]> By: editblog http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-3303 editblog Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:58:20 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-3303 All above comments are very good. As I mentioned in the post, I applied default parameters with no tweaking at all (with the exception of the iStabilize). Avid has quite a few settings and different type of tracking engines, one of which I believe is designed to keep some camera motion, especially in the case of pans and tracking shots, while eliminating bumps. some of those might give it more of the "smoothcam" kind of motion. There are of course many ways to tweak them all and this comparison was meant to spur some discussion. All above comments are very good. As I mentioned in the post, I applied default parameters with no tweaking at all (with the exception of the iStabilize). Avid has quite a few settings and different type of tracking engines, one of which I believe is designed to keep some camera motion, especially in the case of pans and tracking shots, while eliminating bumps. some of those might give it more of the “smoothcam” kind of motion. There are of course many ways to tweak them all and this comparison was meant to spur some discussion.

]]> By: los http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-3296 los Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:34:21 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-3296 Edd's right- The Avid stabilization is just taking the region you selected, affixing it to a location on the frame, and moving the rest of the picture to compensate. This kills any sort of camera moves you may have wanted in there, and makes the fixed object look superimposed. I don't know what parameters are available in MC, but I suspect something like eliminating jiggle from a dolly or crane shot that don't follow a fixed-in-frame object would be much harder to accomplish. The Smoothcam is more sophisticated, tracking many, many points from frame to frame. if one tracker leaves the shot, it doesn't affect it, because it makes new trackers with every frame. It's kind of overkill for a shot like this one, but to me, its results are the nicest of the bunch anyhow. Thanks for the tests! This blog is a wealth of information! Edd’s right-
The Avid stabilization is just taking the region you selected, affixing it to a location on the frame, and moving the rest of the picture to compensate. This kills any sort of camera moves you may have wanted in there, and makes the fixed object look superimposed. I don’t know what parameters are available in MC, but I suspect something like eliminating jiggle from a dolly or crane shot that don’t follow a fixed-in-frame object would be much harder to accomplish.
The Smoothcam is more sophisticated, tracking many, many points from frame to frame. if one tracker leaves the shot, it doesn’t affect it, because it makes new trackers with every frame. It’s kind of overkill for a shot like this one, but to me, its results are the nicest of the bunch anyhow.
Thanks for the tests! This blog is a wealth of information!

]]> By: Jeremy http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-3294 Jeremy Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:25:21 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-3294 also, I'd like to point out that Smoothcam's function isn't typically to fully stabilize a shot. For that you'd probably want to track a point and lock it down. Smoothcam is there to do the more difficult task of removing high frequency noise while retaining the original notion of the camera motion... also, I’d like to point out that Smoothcam’s function isn’t typically to fully stabilize a shot. For that you’d probably want to track a point and lock it down. Smoothcam is there to do the more difficult task of removing high frequency noise while retaining the original notion of the camera motion…

]]> By: Edd http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/comment-page-1/#comment-3285 Edd Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:22:56 +0000 http://www.scottsimmons.tv/blog/2007/06/02/smoothcam-vs-some-others/#comment-3285 hmmm. I'm not familiar with the parameters you have available on your avid version, but as far as my eyes can see, what it seems you are doing is tracking a few points on avid vs a much more complex track on optical flow technology of FCP. If you want to replicate avid's version in AE, all you had to do would be to track a few, even one point. The same as FCP would be way more difficult. We are talking about tracking a few points against thousands. If you have a helicopter shot for example, and you want it stabilised, not freeze, you would much prefer smoothcam (FCP). Take a look at these examples over Dvxuser. After smoothcam (http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/20471/1171853554.mov) Before smoothcam (http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/20471/1171864536.mov) Cheers. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate those things, the community seems a bit lazy lately and you are the only guy I'm reading those evaluations from. hmmm. I’m not familiar with the parameters you have available on your avid version, but as far as my eyes can see, what it seems you are doing is tracking a few points on avid vs a much more complex track on optical flow technology of FCP. If you want to replicate avid’s version in AE, all you had to do would be to track a few, even one point. The same as FCP would be way more difficult. We are talking about tracking a few points against thousands. If you have a helicopter shot for example, and you want it stabilised, not freeze, you would much prefer smoothcam (FCP). Take a look at these examples over Dvxuser. After smoothcam (http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/20471/1171853554.mov) Before smoothcam (http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/20471/1171864536.mov) Cheers. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate those things, the community seems a bit lazy lately and you are the only guy I’m reading those evaluations from.

]]>