Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey all.
I just learned about fxfactory/ Crumplepop audio tools. You can check them out here: crumplepop.com. But they all require a Mac. I'm impressed with how they work—But I run a PC rig and edit in Premiere. Is there a windows equivalent?

So, I'm wondering what available tools are there for the best post-production audio cleanup without too much fuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accusonus makes a similar product. I bought the ERA 4 bundle (standard) when it was on a big discount, but whether it's any better than the tools in DaVinci Resolve is questionable. I haven't really been able to give it a full run so far, though it is easier to use than what's in Resolve.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, those seem pretty good. The basic bundle looks like all I'd need.
I'm definitely going to keep it in mind if I've got a tough project. At the moment – q2 2020 – I've got not fun money. But now I know for when the time is right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nezih said:

Another option: https://www.izotope.com/en/products/downloads/rx_elements.html
 

The basic package of one of the most popular professional tools. Kinda pricey, but sometimes it appears on really cheap special offers!

Looks like Elements is on sale. Don't know if it's one of those perma-sale sort of things, but for $27, I'm not going to think twice if it helps with my current documentary series. Thanks for the suggestion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Isaac7SUN said:

Looks like Elements is on sale. Don't know if it's one of those perma-sale sort of things, but for $27, I'm not going to think twice if it helps with my current documentary series. Thanks for the suggestion!

Oh! Great!

The tools are quite specialist... so take some time to explore the options and understand what they do. Though it might be simpler in v7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Nezih said:

Oh! Great!

The tools are quite specialist... so take some time to explore the options and understand what they do. Though it might be simpler in v7?

I'm not totally unfamiliar with the landscape. Here's my resistance. Before buying, I'm seeing that there is no direct plugin to premiere. Which seems short-sighted? But, looks like Izotope is at the top of a lot of people's lists. And it apparently gets its secret sauce from machine learning—which I think gets really great and impressive results that an human just usually can't. But I hate that I'll have to add it as one more step before I can export. But, again $27 to take otherwise unusable audio to perfectly acceptable. That's priceless.

Well, I take it back. It's worth $27.

Edited by Isaac7SUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Premiere accept VST plugins? Then it should show, I think.

5 minutes ago, Isaac7SUN said:

Well, I take it back. It's worth $27.

Good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Isaac7SUN said:

Izotope is vst? Nevermind to my above. Weird that I couldn't see that clearly said on the website. Thanks!

My one is both standalone and a VST / Audio Component.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Popular Topics

  • New Posts

    • It's a bit like the difference between say RGB and Adobe RGB (kind of) or JPG vs RAW, as there's more information available. It really depends on whether it's necessary for your work. My preference, whether it comes to video or photography, is to record at the highest possible/practical rates to allow for the best post-processing (you never really know when you're going to need it). It requires more storage space, but that to me is a worthwhile tradeoff. Once information is lost, you never get it back. A graphic example: https://i.rtings.com/images/chroma-subsampling/subsampling.png  
    • Thanks. That's very helpful because a C300 II and a 4:4:4-capable recorder is high on my list of candidates. 
    • Thanks so much and yeah will do, and I try to search first also. 😉
    • What are people's general views on gimbals? I have a love/hate relationship with gimbals (I own two relatively lightweight ones) and, in the few years that I've owned them, I simply cannot get to like them. I've tried a cheap Glidecam clone and just hated it, as balancing it was always like trying to get a drunken wife into a car (been there, done that). The gimbals work fine, but they simply can't hold my run & gun rig that weighs 4.3 kg. There are of course gimbals that can hold that weight and newer ones that can do that without having to break down the rig for full movement, but you then end up with a huge weight to carry around (and I'm able to carry some fairly hefty weight). For the sort of work that I was doing before COVID, I was using an Easyrig clone to support a very heavy rig, but I subsequently reduced the weight to a nice 4.3kg and did away with the support (wandering around some places looking like a Ghost Buster started to wear thin). But there are times when I want to move about with the rig and get reasonably stable footage, which kind of points to a gimbal of some sort. Recently I did some testing with a counterweight system, by attaching my monopod to my rig, with the monopod extending horizontally from the rear of the camera (aligned with the lens). The results from the monopod experiment were actually quite surprising, giving an almost gimbal like movement with a bit of stabiliser added in post. Noting that I can't Ninja walk (more like Bobba Fett sitting on my shoulders) the results looked little different to shots using another camera on one of the gimbals. This could be an option with some practice. Gimbals are all the rage at the moment, but are they really an ideal option for documentary style work, which is my main aim? Has anyone come up with a portable solution that doesn't involve a gimbal?  
    • Do check requirements of any festivals you plan to submit to, as well as DCP specs. Many may be fine with whatever format, but some may be fussy. You may find capturing in 16:9 (but framing for 2.35:1) and then editing for 2.35:1 a safer option, so, if necessary, you can re-edit for 16:9 later down the line if required (may involve re-doing some “pan and scan”, but with the vertical alignment). Unless of course you’re shooting anamorphic, then you can’t do this and will need to crop your master heavily to create a 16:9 version. Also consider that, if theatrical release is intended, it’s unlikely to be 16:9, but rather DCI 4K or DCI 2K (1.89). So, if you can shoot in one of those formats instead of UHD/HD, then do! The few pixels of extra width will help you anyway if you’re going for a wider look, and will mean slightly less cropping of the height is needed (you’ll need to work out the correct crop to cut a 2.35:1 portion out of 4096x2160 or 2048x1080). Agree that creative intent is a part of choosing what to do here.  
×
×
  • Create New...