SpeedEdit vs. other NLEs

[Steamthrower]

I had originally posted this in the DJ Poll thread, but was asked to make a seperate thread for the benefit of the forum search engine.

I am interested in SpeedEdit for the following reasons:

1. Competitive price
2. Features look appealing
3. Newtek makes it, not some bloated megacompany

So comparing SpeedEdit to Premiere, Vegas, and other NLEs, what's your experiences?

[Exception]

I have worked with Premiere / Premiere Pro a lot, and some with FCP.

My work consists of heavy-load editing, which means, It's usually somewhere in between editing and post-fx, so lots of overlays, effects, color correction, clean up, heavy stuff.

I found SE to be incredibly fast and really easy to work with. The story board, although I thought I'd not really use it, is fantastic. It handles most of my requests well but:

- Not all the features Premiere pro has SE has (yet). I missed some.
- I had some trouble with certain formats
- Mass editing clip properties is somewhat convoluted
- Working with image sequences is a drag

Extreme plusses:

- The autosave feature is fantastic
- Its fast! Both in working with it and final rendering
- Output quality is high, and well setup with profiles and all
- Color correction is extremely well done
- It's amazingly cheap for what it does. I got the LW - deal which makes it even more rediculously well priced.
- Support is awesome, email, phone and forum really nice people and fast feedback.

[Steamthrower]

Working with image sequences is a drag

That's odd, I'd have thought that to be complimentary to LW it would have a tendency for image sequences.

I tend to use Premiere like After Effects (very heavily). So my main question I guess would be: does SE do chromakeying well? Does it have any rotoscoping/motion tracking features worth using in a production environment?

[Exception]

I'm foreseeing that they'll fix that image sequence behaviour. There's been so many complaints about it that I'm sure they got the message.

I know there's chromakeying in there, but I havn't used it for real rotoscoping. I've only used it for some effects, which seemed to work well. Bette rthan in premiere anyway, but that's not hard.

[ScorpioProd]

As with any product, NLE love and use is VERY subjective. I highly encourage you to try before you buy, from a number of NLEs, so you can find what you really want and need. No one here can tell you what's best for you, YOU need to try them yourself.

Again, like any NLE, you will find some advantages and some disadvantages to using SpeedEDIT.

Featurewise, the most similar NLE to compare it to is not the NLEs you named, but rather GV's EDIUS 4.

[JackJ]

As far as rotoscoping, I've mostly used the keying from earlier versions of Toaster, which was fair but lacked some of the fine tuning controls we use out of AfterEffects. With SpeedEDIT, they've introduced some of those, so with a clean green-screen setup, you should be able to get some pretty decent keys out of it. We're looking at doing most of our virtual set work on the timeline this season. Can't wait til VT5 comes out with the virtual set integration with LW I saw at NAB!

JackJ

[medeamajic]

As far as rotoscoping, I've mostly used the keying from earlier versions of Toaster, which was fair but lacked some of the fine tuning controls we use out of AfterEffects. With SpeedEDIT, they've introduced some of those, so with a clean green-screen setup, you should be able to get some pretty decent keys out of it. We're looking at doing most of our virtual set work on the timeline this season. Can't wait til VT5 comes out with the virtual set integration with LW I saw at NAB!

JackJ


I think your confused about rotoscoping. I admit you may at times want to use chroma-keyed elements to the final composite but in general rotoscoping is not a keyed effect.True rotoscoping would require a video paint program. In this new millenium true rotoscoping (tracing video by hand) would not be wise since there are plugin filters than can do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping


SE might have a rotoscoping filter.

[billmi]

Hi, Jack! (Sorry.) I had been pressing for an explanation as to whether or not the Virtual Set technology that is forthcoming from NewTek, is something which can be used in post-production, integrated with LightWave.

I've been repeatedly reminded that the techology really is not a post-production product at all, insofar as it is a live virtual set technology.


I believe there has been a hope by many that the improved chromakey technology that has been discussed for the Tricaster Studio and VT[5]'s virtual set features will also be integrated into Speed Edit.

I'm under the impression that the folks excited about virtual sets in post are actually thinking about improved keying in SpeedEdit, since you can already change backgrounds easily in VTEdit (ie. that's the main point of virtual sets - that in live switching the background switches simultaneously with the camera switch, something that VT[4] can not do cleanly.)

[SBowie]

I think your confused about rotoscoping. Rotoscoping is one of those words that seems to be defined differently by just about every one. Good luck trying to keep it on track. ;)

True rotoscoping would require a video paint program. In this new millenium true rotoscoping (tracing video by hand) would not be wise since there are plugin filters than can do it for you. See what I mean? Within a single paragraph you indicate that it requires a video paint program, then go on to point out that it can be done by filters. Technically, I think you'd have to agree that the latter could be described as 'image processing to achieve a rotoscoped style'.

'Filters' that can do this are actually pretty rare in captivity, btw. I can think of precisely one commercially available application, but people tell em it is a real bear to work with. Well known examples people might point to such as Waking Life and Scanner Darkly actually involved a great deal of manual painting, in addition to proprietary software. Personally, I think about the best you can do with image processing is to provide a good starting point for the manual process; but it depends on your expectations. *Fairly* simple filtering can produce something that some might deem fit for a short ad, etc., but in my experience even this requires some thoughtful tweaking. (btw, if you're aware of something I'm not, I'd honestly be delighted to hear about it.)

There are those lurking here for whom the very word is cursed. Motion capture has been described by its detractors as "Satan's Rotoscope." There are many animators who feel the reverse is also true. My personal feeling, not that it counts for anything, is that it's a tool, like any other - can be used and abused.

[ScorpioProd]

Appreciate your comments, regarding the subjectivity of NLE appreciation there, Eugene. Would you kindly elaborate on that last statement for us? How is it that [according to your subjective analysis] SpeedEDIT more closely mirrors Grass Valley's Edius 4 [whereas others might believe SpeedEDIT more closely mirrors some other NLE (it's a subjective matter, after all, right?) :) TIA!

-PeterG

Well, sure. As I said, if you look at feature sets, you'll see the most similarity between SpeedEDIT and EDIUS 4, versus SpeedEDIT and any other NLEs. Both in terms of features they have, AND features they don't have.

The two of them are the only software-only NLEs I know of that give you real-time full-quality output ALL the time. The rest give you only preview quality real-time while editing.

[rycar_m]

Well, sure. As I said, if you look at feature sets, you'll see the most similarity between SpeedEDIT and EDIUS 4, versus SpeedEDIT and any other NLEs. Both in terms of features they have, AND features they don't have.

The two of them are the only software-only NLEs I know of that give you real-time full-quality output ALL the time. The rest give you only preview quality real-time while editing.



"Its not my intention to sell this app here but to show an app that intergrated editing,animation and efx all in one, with elegance and power."

There is another less known software that gives realtime output (using open gl) and a storyboard interface. Its a german app called cinegy extreme and moviepack.

Though the storyboard interface is not quite up to speed edit nor vt it is good enough to be called a story board interface

the great thing about this app is that its also a compositing, animation, great titler (better than most)

unfortunatly it does not work with hdv, it is not updated regularly and making it stable takes a great amount of tweaking. and i think that the company making it is not to solvent

however if speed edit where to take a look at how to make a good cutter,animation and comp app (all in one) they should take a look cinegy extreme

i have been using this app for the last 4 years for tv programs and comercials and it is very fast. But since i discovered speed edit i moving more toward speed edit mostly because of the hdv and the storyboard edit. I also have liquid and while its good its still an old fasion linear editor as compared to speed edit.

With this app i could sit with a customer and edit just like i use to did with my discreet edit* but much faster and with efx.

Hope screen edit can develope this way

www.cinegy.com


ric marty

[medeamajic]

Rotoscoping is one of those words that seems to be defined differently by just about every one. Good luck trying to keep it on track. ;)

See what I mean? Within a single paragraph you indicate that it requires a video paint program, then go on to point out that it can be done by filters. Technically, I think you'd have to agree that the latter could be described as 'image processing to achieve a rotoscoped style'.

'Filters' that can do this are actually pretty rare in captivity, btw. I can think of precisely one commercially available application, but people tell em it is a real bear to work with. Well known examples people might point to such as Waking Life and Scanner Darkly actually involved a great deal of manual painting, in addition to proprietary software. Personally, I think about the best you can do with image processing is to provide a good starting point for the manual process; but it depends on your expectations. *Fairly* simple filtering can produce something that some might deem fit for a short ad, etc., but in my experience even this requires some thoughtful tweaking. (btw, if you're aware of something I'm not, I'd honestly be delighted to hear about it.)

There are those lurking here for whom the very word is cursed. Motion capture has been described by its detractors as "Satan's Rotoscope." There are many animators who feel the reverse is also true. My personal feeling, not that it counts for anything, is that it's a tool, like any other - can be used and abused.

I think you need help with reading comprehension. Rotoscoping is a technique that was popular to achieve a certain style. Rotoscoping is not a filter. Today the effect of rotoscoping can be done with filters. Edius has a rotoscoping filter. I have used it but I am not a rotoscoping artist nor am I actually rotoscoping. I am a videographer who uses a filter to achieve the effect of rotoscoping rather than having to master the technique which would require a 2-D paint program or some fancy film equipment.

Did you comprehend it this time?:D

All the hip cats know what rotoscoping is but I don't think your a hip cat. Rotoscoping filters are easy to use. Down load the trial copy of Edius and you will get to use a rotoscoping filter. It is so easy even a Newtek user could use it. :D Just kidding.

[medeamajic]

The last time I used Movie Pack from AIST it was not true broadcast quality out put to OHCI in RT like Edius and SE. I admit it was over 4 years ago that I tried it. Premiere is RT to OHCI with FX but not broadcast quality. It will look better when render becuase it uses a preview mode like Final Cut Pro. Also Edition is RT with VGA previews only. I admit Movie Pack by AIST was like using Premiere and AE in one program but the RT was not up to par with Edius back then. I will have to give Movie Pack another try.

[rycar_m]

The last time I used Movie Pack from AIST it was not true broadcast quality out put to OHCI in RT like Edius and SE. I admit it was over 4 years ago that I tried it. Premiere is RT to OHCI with FX but not broadcast quality. It will look better when render becuase it uses a preview mode like Final Cut Pro. Also Edition is RT with VGA previews only. I admit Movie Pack by AIST was like using Premiere and AE in one program but the RT was not up to par with Edius back then. I will have to give Movie Pack another try.

Moviepack came in 4 flavors begginner, consumer,prosumer version and then their was moviepack pro tha later became cinegy extreme the pro versions output are broadcast quality. the rt in the prosumer and pro version depends on the videocard you have. But anyway the point was how they intergrated an all in one editing tool which in my opinion offered the most complete package ever offered.


ric marty

[SBowie]

I think you need help with reading comprehension. Scoring in the 99th percentile in the Critical Reading and Writing section of SATs must be overrated. Let's just leave it at that.

All the hip cats know what rotoscoping is but I don't think your a hip cat. Rotoscoping filters are easy to use.I am definitely not a hip cat; but in recent years it has been my great pleasure to work with the 'hippest'. As I said, I am only aware of one program which produces a decent rotoscope style with any level of automation. I have only glanced at it (because it's pretty expensive), but it looks cumbersome. To date all of the artists I have spoken to who tried it agree. The fact that this rather expensive program continues to sell argues against the notion a simple filter can do the same thing.

My profound disbelief is why own experiments have really only been intended to provide a starting point, shaving hundreds of thousands of dollars off production cost in the process. That's probably the real reason that I have been asked for advice by animation houses and production companies from around the world on this matter. It certainly wasn't because I was a hip cat, as we've established previously. If only they had known they could simply have run their source footage through a filter in Edius.

I would love to see a full motion example of the output from a filter so simple that 'even a Newtek user could use it.' It would be interesting to compare the result to "A Scanner Darkly", for example.

[SBowie]

btw, my apologies for my part in going ot in this thread (and for horn-tooting ... don't like that.)

[medeamajic]

SBOWIE,

SAT's are overrated when comapred to a Steenbeck or Oxenbury. I think we can both agree on that. You could project a film onto a white glass and then paint onto animation cells and then with the right cell registration put it on an Oxenbury animation stand. Once filmed with the Oxenbury you could then edit the animation that was rotoscoped with a Steenbeck. You could do that or you could just use the filter in Edius to get a sketched rotoscope look.

I have tried rotoscoping with a light box and drawing directly onto clear 35 mm acetate film stock. It was hard to do and did not look good. I admit I suck at rotoscoping. Edius only does black and white sketch style rotoscoping as opossed to full color that woud give a toon style look. I am willing to bet that my Edius software would look much bettert than what you or I could actually produce rotoscoping the film images with old school style film equipment. Infact I am so confident I am willing to place money on it. All you have to do is ask your hip cat friends if you can use there Steenbeck and Oxenbury. We could use a Bruce Lee clip or anything you want as the test footage. I hope you can rotoscope very well other wise you are going to loose. The main point is that rotoscoping is very hard and Edius/Filters can make the task very easy. That is not to say a true rotoscoping artist could not do better work but I am willing to bet my Edius filter will be much better than the average Joe (you and me included) could produce using real film equipment.

[SBowie]

... and then with the right cell registration put it on an Oxenbury animation stand. It's Oxberry ....

Edius only does black and white sketch style rotoscoping as opossed to full color that woud give a toon style look.I thought you said "In this new millenium true rotoscoping (tracing video by hand) would not be wise since there are plugin filters than can do it for you." Let's have this discussion again when it can something like this:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/warner_independent_pictures/ascannerdarkly/large.html

I am willing to bet that my Edius software would look much bettert than what you or I could actually produce rotoscoping the film images with old school style film equipment.No one brought traditional 'paint on glass/cellulose' techniques into this until you did just now. You started out by mentioning "True rotoscoping would require a video paint program." My point was - and continues to be - that a simple image processing filter operation, or even a complex one, is going to be visually inferior to one produced using digital paint techniques.

Yes, the result of a filter would likely be inferior to the 'old way' too, with the exception of the cost - but we weren't discussing cost. That's just a cute way of presenting a challenge that no-one will bother to meet, because the simple fact is that good-looking rotoscoping, even with digital aid, is time consuming and expensive. Any idiot can run a filter overnight, but the results cannot stand up to comparison - period. It's like comparing paint-by-number to a Titian.

The main point is that rotoscoping is very hard and Edius/Filters can make the task very easy.Provided, as I have been saying all along, you don't really expect a remotely comparable result (or apparently colour, if you are correct about Edius. You should look into a Mac with StudioArtist - at least it can turn out a decent result in colour.)

Here's another sample - no comment on the content, but pretty good digital roto work:

http://www.geocities.jp/hosozao/nakedyouth_teaser.wmv

I'm not going to waste my time on this any more - your arguments just don't hold up, sorry. Until I see a sample of full-motion, colour output created with a 'filter' - not digital paint - that looks as good as the samples above, I'm not about to change my mind.

[avkills]

No offense, but I seriously doubt that a single filter could do the same level of work than what was done for "A Scanner Darkly".

Also, I'm not sure that you can call that Edius filter Rotoscoping; Photoshop has the same type of plugin that just finds edges (if I am imagining what you are talking about).

And correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't modern Rotoscoping also require the use of splines (rotosplining) to make masks and painting easier?

I'm going to agree with Steve and say applying filters and true rotoscoping are entirely different.

-mark

[imagic]

A Scanner Darkly was produced with the assistance of a rotoscoping tool called RotoShop --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoshop or http://www.flatblackfilms.com/Rotoshop.html --- that can only be licensed on a per-project basis, as in you need to contract with Flat Black Films, and they'll put a team of artists to work and rotoscope you film for you... for a fee.

Anybody who thinks they can imitate a team of artists working with propritary software by dialing in a combo of filters is sorely mistaken.

:agree: Very well said already, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. No offense, but I seriously doubt that a single filter could do the same level of work than what was done for "A Scanner Darkly".

Also, I'm not sure that you can call that Edius filter Rotoscoping; Photoshop has the same type of plugin that just finds edges (if I am imagining what you are talking about).

And correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't modern Rotoscoping also require the use of splines (rotosplining) to make masks and painting easier?

I'm going to agree with Steve and say applying filters and true rotoscoping are entirely different.

-mark

[medeamajic]

I think you all need to brush up on your reading comprehension. You folks are agreeing with me not Sbowie. Either you can not read or you can not comprehend what I wrote. Which is it? Go back and read my posts. I stated true rotoscoping is a technique not a filter. You could paint on glass, use a 2-D video paint program or draw direct on clear film. There may be other ways to do true rotoscoping. I also stated the filter would produce better results than the average Joe could produce but it would not produce as good of results as a true Rotoscoping artist.

Please quote where I state the filter of Edius would produce as good of results as a true rotoscoping professional. I stated just the opposite. If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of reading what you want to read you would know that.

All I can say is my Edius filter does produce a better rotoscoping style than I could manage to create when actually applying a rotoscoping technique. It is hard to trace film footage. Even with a video paint program it is not easy. I imagine you may get unwanted squiggly lines. Once again is anyone willing to make a bet with me? I never stated the filter would top a true rotoscoping professional infact I stated it woud not. Any one who believes I stated this in my thread is illiterate. I do belive my filter would produce better results than you folks on this thread could produce. You can paint on glass, use cells, draw on clear film stock or even use a 2-D paint program. Those are all true rotoscoping techniques but in the end I don't think you will like what you produce better than what some of the filters can produce.

I hope you all agree with me now.

I think if you folks reread my post you will find you agree with what I wrote. I am not sure how you folks read that I stated using a filter is true rotoscoping when I stated the opposite or how you folks read that I stated my Edius filter would produce better results than a professional. Once again I stated the opposite.

Modern rotoscoping would not require splines nor would you need to use masks. You could use splines and make use of masks but they woud not be required unless you need them. Rotoscoping is and was an animation technique in which animators trace over live film or video footage. That is all it is. Nothing more nothing less except in the world of 3-D animation when rotoscoping uses video footage as a shader. Rotoscoping in 3-D software is different.

[Steve Thompson]

Actually Steve you're wrong. It is Oxenbury. It's an historical farm in Australia and I should know because I finished in the first percentile in my class.

Oh the games we used to play. We'd play hide and seek and when we couldn't find someone we'd yell Olie Olie Oxenbury... or was it Oxenfree... something like that.

AUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I always cringe when someone goes toe to toe with Steve but I learn a lot in the process.

Too funny!

[medeamajic]

SBowie,

Don't make another post about how a filter will not produce the same results as a profesional rotoscoping artist. We have been there done that and to your surprize we agree. If you had better reading comprehension you would know we agree and stop rehashing the fact that a filter will not produce results on par with a true rotoscoping artist. However, you have avoided the obvious far to long. I want you to rotoscope a Bruce Lee movie or even a episode of MASH with 2-D paint, cells or even glass.It is your choice. If your results are better than mine I must give you a big apology and call you the king but If the results are worse than my filter can produce you owe me and everyone else a big apalogy. Time is of the essence so you have one week to complete a five minute clip. I hope you are good. Other wise you might have to say something like this below.

"Medeamajic, a filter might be an option for the average Joe like myself. True Rotoscoping with projected film and glass or even a 2-D paint program is very hard. I can get better results with a cheap filter".

Like I said you have one week to complete your 5 minute video. Put your money where your mouth is. The question is not if a filter can produce better results than a professional but if a filter can produce better results than you or the avergae Joe could produce using film or even video and a video paint prgoram. Do you comprehend the subject of the debate or argument now? I honeslty don't think you did until now. You do not have to make the rotoscoping video. You can just admit there may be some truth in what I suggested. The bootom line is you have SE and you still have not aswered the question about rotoscoping with SE. I at least tried but I do not have SE to give a concrete answer either way. What are your recomendations for the average Joe for rotoscoping?

[medeamajic]

Actually Steve you're wrong. It is Oxenbury. It's an historical farm in Australia and I should know because I finished in the first percentile in my class.

Oh the games we used to play. We'd play hide and seek and when we couldn't find someone we'd yell Olie Olie Oxenbury... or was it Oxenfree... something like that.

AUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I always cringe when someone goes toe to toe with Steve but I learn a lot in the process.

Too funny!



I have been out of school for 10 years so it was hard to even rember how Steenbeck is spelled. We had some decent equipment but I was not that great at drawing. Cell animation and rotoscoping are not my stengths. Cut out animation was fun and much easier for me to do but very tedius.

[SBowie]

Don't make another post about how a filter will not produce the same results as a profesional rotoscoping artist. We have been there done that and to your surprize we agree.I'm not surprised at all that you have reworded your original point. I have not deviated from mine. You complain about everyone's reading comprehension. May I humbly suggest your writing skills may not be quite as sharp as you imagine?

In my very first post, I quoted your statement: "True rotoscoping would require a video paint program. In this new millenium true rotoscoping (tracing video by hand) would not be wise since there are plugin filters than can do it for you."

Obviously - since you mention a "digital paint program" - the definition of "True rotoscoping" you were using in that first post had nothing to do with glass, acetate, cels, the analog tools of the earlier period. Your straightforward claim is that "plugin filters ... can do it for you." Only later (as your argument was falling apart), do you launch into a discussion of the archaic techniques, and costs.

I, on the other hand, have consistently made the point that "a simple image processing filter operation, or even a complex one, is going to be visually inferior to one produced using digital paint techniques." As to cost and time involved, I wrote that real rotoscoping "is time consuming and expensive."

(Funny, isn't it, how I am able to simply quote what I wrote before, while you must constantly re-word your point? Perhaps your writing skills could use a little polish, or perhaps you are trying to salvage some dignity in an argument that was lost from the beginning.) "Filters" do not come even close to the quality of result of manual roto work - deal with it.

SBowie,
I want you to rotoscope a Bruce Lee movie or even a episode of MASH with 2-D paint, cells or even glass.And I want a Harley ... bet I get my Harley before you get me to do a weeks work for free to try prove an point that I never made. (Where did I claim that manual roto work could be performed as quickly as applying a filter? Bah, humbug.)

As I said earlier, any idiot can run a filter. Until someone kicks the level of artificial intelligence involved up several notches, it will always look poor compared to actual roto work. Even when the latter imaginary software arrives, it will require substantial human input because the diverse stylistic results possible required it.

So, let's summarize. My original points were that:

- filters cannot produce a result nearly as good as real rotoscoping
- filtering might be good enough for certain short applications if you're not too fussy
- filters can serve to prepare a better starting point for manual roto work.

I stand by all of these points. In the absence of examples produced by a filter comparable in quality to the samples I linked above, they stand proven. I pointedly never indicated that a filter wouldn't be a lot faster, thus have no need to waste a week of my time demonstrating the fact.

This is asinine - here, let me finish up: "You are the king. Your logic is shifting and unsteady, your manner frankly rude - but I apologize."

[SBowie]

Actually Steve you're wrong. It is Oxenbury ...when we couldn't find someone we'd yell Olie Olie Oxenbury... or was it Oxenfree... something like that.Hah! :)

You actually had me checking the spelling there - good one, Steve! Are you serious about the farm, or pulling my leg?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olly_olly_oxen_free

[SBowie]

A Scanner Darkly was produced with the assistance of a rotoscoping tool called RotoShopThe story of these productions is an interesting one. The results were very clean, but the team is open about the process being painfully arduous and expensive. I'm pretty confident that some worthwhile savings in time and effort could have been achieved (of course it's easy to say that in hindsight.)

I wasn't actually in the room when some of my own concepts and samples on the subject of shortcuts were later presented to the people involved, but I was told afterward that they were "very impressed." (I don't just make this stuff up ...)

[JackJ]

Whoa, obviously I haven't checked back on this thread for a while. Looks like it turned into a big pissing contest over reading comprehension and which definition of rotoscoping is the One True Faith. But I didn't see too much about how any of that relates to the capabilities SpeedEDIT.

As far as rotoscoping, I know it also encompasses (and originates from) the full-on, cell painting style from the film days, which gives you results as seen in A Scanner Darkly. But since relatively few people have the time, patience or desire to make their projects look like that film, the definition I've run into far more often is the simpler 'cutting something out of a shot so it can be effected/replaced/composited', as is mentioned at the bottom of the Wiki article medeamajic quoted ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping ), and where they say conventional rotoscoping has largely been superceded by blue-screen techniques. As the post I was replying to mentioned the chromakeying in the same sentence, naturally I assumed that was the definition they were intending. Admittedly I haven't worked with all the edit suites out there, but for "Scanner Darkly" style rotoscoping, a NLE would be the last place I'd look.

Which, hopefully, brings us back to what SE CAN do, which is some fairly decent (if no-frills) chromakeying. And at the NewTek party at NAB, they demoed some feature that will be included in VT5 that will allow you to produce shadows and reflections from the keyed layer that will bend and flow over virtual set geometry created in Lightwave. I may be guilty of lumping SE and VT5 together in my thinking, since SpeedEDIT will take the function of VT-Edit in VT5, and we got SpeedEDIT as the free add-on for our VT5 pre-order. And also because things said to me in the evenings in Las Vegas can sometimes get a bit hazy.

So basically, I like the options SE gives me for keying and selective color correction, and with the virtual set features, I think it will save me production time. But at this point I'm not planning on doing major effects shots in HD with it, and if you want to paint on the video, you'd better keep some glass cleaner handy.

And to go all the way back to the title of this thread, compared to Premiere and Vegas and the other editors in this price range I've had experience with, I like SE for the range of capabilities it offers, and the overall feel and logic of the workflow. With SE, it feels like it is just more easy to grab whatever you want and move it around...clips, modules, zoom level, edit property values, whatever. Something about the others just makes me kinda claustrophobic. (Although I do like Premiere's integration with other Adobe products. But thats a different kind of freedom.)

[ScorpioProd]

Which, hopefully, brings us back to what SE CAN do, which is some fairly decent (if no-frills) chromakeying. And at the NewTek party at NAB, they demoed some feature that will be included in VT5 that will allow you to produce shadows and reflections from the keyed layer that will bend and flow over virtual set geometry created in Lightwave. I may be guilty of lumping SE and VT5 together in my thinking, since SpeedEDIT will take the function of VT-Edit in VT5, and we got SpeedEDIT as the free add-on for our VT5 pre-order. And also because things said to me in the evenings in Las Vegas can sometimes get a bit hazy.

I would caution that there is no reason to expect Virtual Sets in SpeedEDIT stand-alone for a long, long time, if ever. That hasn't been promised. It has been promised as part of VT[5], as a live kind of effect, like in TriCaster Studio. So what that means about the "improved" chroma keying in TCS/VT[5] versus SpeedEDIT stand-alone hasn't been defined. None of the improvements in chromakeying shown at NAB involved "post", they were all "live."

So basically, I like the options SE gives me for keying and selective color correction, and with the virtual set features, I think it will save me production time. But at this point I'm not planning on doing major effects shots in HD with it, and if you want to paint on the video, you'd better keep some glass cleaner handy.

And to go all the way back to the title of this thread, compared to Premiere and Vegas and the other editors in this price range I've had experience with, I like SE for the range of capabilities it offers, and the overall feel and logic of the workflow. With SE, it feels like it is just more easy to grab whatever you want and move it around...clips, modules, zoom level, edit property values, whatever. Something about the others just makes me kinda claustrophobic. (Although I do like Premiere's integration with other Adobe products. But thats a different kind of freedom.)

I love the workflow of SpeedEDIT, without question... It's just there are a few features that are really needed that it is still missing... And a few bugs that are in there that need to be missing. :hey:

[JackJ]

Right. As far as choosing an NLE, it always comes down to how you like to work and what you need it to be able to do, filtered through how much cash you can afford to drop on it. For the type of work we do, I've very rarely run across any limitation it has where there isn't an acceptable workaround, or where I wouldn't rather do it in AfterEffects or something anyway.

But as far as the set features, while I do tend to conflate SE and VT5 in my thinking at times, I can't imagine why you wouldn't be able to work something into post that you can do live, even if you had to go so far as to launch 2 instances of SE and run the set video from one and the talent video (keyed) from another, while simultaneously capturing your output. But as much fun as idle speculation is, I suppose I need to search around this site a bit more and see if they've laid out the straight, technical lowdown yet, now that the glitz of Vegas has worn off (the town, not the program).

[SBowie]

... the definition I've run into far more often is the simpler 'cutting something out of a shot so it can be effected/replaced/composited', as is mentioned at the bottom of the Wiki article medeamajicI agree this slid way OT - silly really. And I also agree that the definition is is quite loose - that is why the first line I wrote was "Rotoscoping is one of those words that seems to be defined differently by just about every one." I've spent years dealing with animation houses from the smallest to the very largest, and almost everyone infers something different by the word. Keying is a part of that for many, but the basic concept of roto includes more than simple keying/compositing.

The heck with it, who really cares anyway? ;)

[JackJ]

Well said. Break out the chips and dip.:thumbsup:

[Verlon]

What about Speed Edit vs. Notepad. NLE of text files is very important in my workflow. :D

Just waiting on the patch...

[medeamajic]

Moviepack came in 4 flavors begginner, consumer,prosumer version and then their was moviepack pro tha later became cinegy extreme the pro versions output are broadcast quality. the rt in the prosumer and pro version depends on the videocard you have. But anyway the point was how they intergrated an all in one editing tool which in my opinion offered the most complete package ever offered.


ric marty

Thanks or the info. The GUI is much better than The Movie Pack version I had. What I used was a lot like Premire and AE in one program. I hope the RT is as good as you say.

[medeamajic]

Sbowie,

Toot your horn some place else. I agree you are at fault for this thread getting way of course but I acccept your apology. Unlike JackJ, myself and others who opted to offer suggestions and info you decide to only attack my posts.

If they are using SE then they are dealing with digital footage and in that case a 2-D video paint program would be needed to implement the technique of true rotoscoping to the footage not a Steenbeck and an Oxberry. I admit other software can be used in the process. I could have posted about a Steenbeck and Oxberry from the start but why bother if they use SE and digital footage? I posted about the true film way for your benefit to let you know you can use 2-D paint or film to take me up on my bet. Either way you will loose. I just gave you options. With a little better reading comprehension you would know that.

I will be the first to admit my writing skills may not be the best. That is OK. It is a lot better than you thinking you have good reading comprehension when you do not. You keep posting that filters will not compete with manual rotscoping professionals. No one disagrees with that. I posted that myself. You keep arguing about something we both agree on and making yourself look foolish.

You say you work with animation houses for a living but you can not produce a piece of work that is rotoscoped or at least looks like rotoscoped footage?

Why would I or anyone come to you for help if they need rotoscoping implemented in a project? Now is your chance to show us just how knowledgable and skillful you are.

There you have it folks. The emperor has holes in his underwear.

You should change your underwear but I am willing to bet you will post another thread claiming filters will not produce as good of results as a rotoscoping artist.

[Lightwolf]

After going through this thread again: :foreheads - I wouldn't even know where to start....

The funniest thing is, as SBowie mentioned, Rotoscoping is used as a term with many meanings - a compositor wouldn't know why the heck you go on about filters in the first place since it is always a manual process in compositing (I'm talking about the manual masking of moving footage that has not been shot to be keyed). After all, (in compositing again) - if you can key it, why roto?

Going back to inigo07s initial question: No, SE does not have any rotoscoping functionality in the sense that you expect it (for creating masks) - nor in the traditional "let's paint over moving footage to create a different look" sense.

Cheers,
Mike

[Jim_C]

There you have it folks. The emperor has holes in his underwear.

You should change your underwear but I am willing to bet you will post another thread claiming filters will not produce as good of results as a rotoscoping artist.


Grow up.


:thumbsdow

[SBowie]

I agree you are at fault for this thread getting way of course but I acccept your apology.I'll sleep much better knowing that. :sleeping:

[Bobt]

Steve
blowing brain cells on this is just not worth it.
Have fun :)

Bob

[SBowie]

Have fun :)Have you ever known me not to have fun, Bob? ;) In fact, here's a picture from a trip where I really had a lot of fun a short while back.

This was taken at Stanley, on Hong Kong island (I know, I could stand to lose a little weight!) It's always more fun when the trip is not just free, but you get paid for it. In this case, one of the largest media companies on the planet (which has their Asian HQ and broadcast center in HK) flew me over to provide a week of training on roto techniques to the artists in their motion graphics department.

BTW, Hong Kong is also a great place to shop; I managed to get a great deal on new underwear at the same time. :D

[ted]

Steve, good thing this company didn't know you don't have a clue about roto techniques! :D :hey: :D
It is always better to get paid for a fun trip!

[medeamajic]

After going through this thread again: :foreheads - I wouldn't even know where to start....

The funniest thing is, as SBowie mentioned, Rotoscoping is used as a term with many meanings - a compositor wouldn't know why the heck you go on about filters in the first place since it is always a manual process in compositing (I'm talking about the manual masking of moving footage that has not been shot to be keyed). After all, (in compositing again) - if you can key it, why roto?

Going back to inigo07s initial question: No, SE does not have any rotoscoping functionality in the sense that you expect it (for creating masks) - nor in the traditional "let's paint over moving footage to create a different look" sense.

Cheers,
Mike


I can not believe you folks can not reed. I stated the true rotoscoping is an animation technique that involves the artist tracing over live video or film footage. Various metohds can be used. You can get the rotoscoped look with the use of filters. Filters may be the better option for the average Joe. There is nothing false about the above statement unless you read it wrong. Rotoscoping is not the art of using mattes or keyers although both can be implemented.

[SBowie]

Steve, good thing this company didn't know you don't have a clue about roto techniques! :DYeah, I really pulled the wool over their eyes Ted. I love free trips. I had a really nice time in LA helping the crew who did the (rotoscoped) Microsoft 2006 ad campaign, as well. The best part was that I was able to bring my wife along!

http://images.digitalmedianet.com/2006/Week_18/k5sn84nf/story/ripple72_480.jpg

[medeamajic]

Steve, good thing this company didn't know you don't have a clue about roto techniques! :D :hey: :D
It is always better to get paid for a fun trip!

I did visit this website.

http://www.vtworx.com/

I think Sbowie is a seller of Newtek equipment. Is he an expert in animation and compositing? Has he ever even done rotoscoping? I doubt it. We had folks from Roscor and CSG sell us Camplex systems and Grass Valley switchers. Were they experts with the equipment they sold us? I doubt anyone of them ever directed one live video production.

[Lightwolf]

I can not believe you folks can not reed. I stated the true rotoscoping is an animation technique that involves the artist tracing over live video or film footage.
So? That wasn't the initial question, was it?
Rotoscoping is not the art of using mattes or keyers although both can be implemented.
Well, there goes your reading comprehension down the drain, since that is exactly what I wrote. In the compositing worl it is a manual technique used when automatic techniques (such as keyers) fail. You manually roto (usually using spline based tools) to create mattes: http://www.silhouettefx.com/roto/ (as an example of a tool specialized for that kind of task).

Cheers,
Mike

[Lightwolf]

I did visit this website.

http://www.vtworx.com/

I think Sbowie is a seller of Newtek equipment. Is he an expert in animation and compositing? Has he ever even done rotoscoping? I doubt it.
Reading comprehension Pt II - How to read a website:
(We actually use these products, and are delighted to be able to provide knowledgeable help to our clients.)

Sorry, I just can't resist, you've been asking for it ;)

Cheers,
Mike

[SBowie]

I think Sbowie is a seller of Newtek equipment.Oh, no - my secret is out ... what will the neighbours think? What gave it way? Was it the fact that is says so in the signature of all of my posts? Drat, I was sure no-one would notice.

Is he an expert in animation and compositing?More than some, and less than others. :) Thanks for visiting my poor, sad little website. It's embarrassing how out of date it is; I haven't had time to maintain it in recent years ... too much work, too little time. The truth is that the consulting side of my work kept growing, to the extent that for the last 4-5 years I've really had little time for anything else (See, I have to apologize again!)

You seem awfully high strung, sir. I have read and re-read my original post to see if there was anything unintentionally provocative about it, or if in some way I inadvertently insulted you. I just can't see it (if I did, I did not mean to.)

Whatever you may think, I'm quite content to be judged on my words. Every single thing in that first reply and all of my subsequent remarks is factually and technically accurate. For some reason this seems to upset you. That's a shame. Perhaps a nap or cup of tea will help.

[medeamajic]

Lightwolve,

I don't doubt you or others use the products and find him knowledgeable. All I wanted from Sbowie was a simple sample of rotoscoping. Is that to much to ask from the expert?

How to read a website? Yea? He sells Newtek products. Or are you saying he is a great CG artist and a great director? What did I miss? I don't doubt he has used the equipment but has he done more live porductions that you? Has he done more than myself?

Don't resist at all my friend but I fail to see a point being made. You are saying because he claims to use the products he is indeed knowledgeable about all aspects involved with video production?

Rotoscoping is always a manual technique although filters can many times be used to ahcieve the end result. In other words a filter like a chrome-key filter can often times isolate the blue scren subject much better and faster than actually rotoscoping the character shot on a blue screen. See my point about filters? Yes you could rotoscope out a matte or mask for a blue screen subject but why bother? Then there are times when three is not a blue screen subject and rotoscoping might be the only option to isolate the subject. I have no argument with you about keying and mattes being a big part of rotoscoping but they need not be.

[Lightwolf]

I don't doubt you or others use the products and find him knowledgeable. All I wanted from Sbowie was a simple sample of rotoscoping. Is that to much to ask from the expert?
What is this? Kindergarten, pull down your pants and let me see what you have?
He's voiced his opinion, so have you and you both disagree. So where is the problem? (Except that both of you seem to have completely missed the initial question).

Or are you saying he is a great CG artist and a great director? What did I miss?
Are you a great artist or great director? Who cares?

Don't resist at all my friend but I fail to see a point being made.

Maybe, but I've used up less points to not make a point ;)

You are saying because he claims to use the products he is indeed knowledgeable about all aspects involved with video production?

He claims to sell only sell products he's worked with. The level I can't judge... but I don't know many resellers that actually work in the biz either.

Then there are times when three is not a blue screen subject and rotoscoping might be the only option to isolate the subject. I have no argument with you about keying and mattes being a big part of rotoscoping but they need not be.
My argument actually goes the other way around. Rotoscoping is a description for a technique that can be used to create mattes (in cases you can't key). It is also a (usually manual technique) to create a certain animated "look".
So we're basically talking about two different kinds of rotoscoping, right from the start of the thread.

Cheers,
Mike

[medeamajic]

Ligthwave,

I honestly do not know how things got so far off track. I agree with some of what you and Sbowire wrote but the sad news is I wrote it first. Please accept it as fact.

[medeamajic]

I think your confused about rotoscoping. I admit you may at times want to use chroma-keyed elements to the final composite but in general rotoscoping is not a keyed effect.True rotoscoping would require a video paint program. In this new millenium true rotoscoping (tracing video by hand) would not be wise since there are plugin filters than can do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping


SE might have a rotoscoping filter.

Sbowire,

Here is my first post.

[medeamajic]

Rotoscoping is one of those words that seems to be defined differently by just about every one. Good luck trying to keep it on track. ;)

See what I mean? Within a single paragraph you indicate that it requires a video paint program, then go on to point out that it can be done by filters. Technically, I think you'd have to agree that the latter could be described as 'image processing to achieve a rotoscoped style'.

'Filters' that can do this are actually pretty rare in captivity, btw. I can think of precisely one commercially available application, but people tell em it is a real bear to work with. Well known examples people might point to such as Waking Life and Scanner Darkly actually involved a great deal of manual painting, in addition to proprietary software. Personally, I think about the best you can do with image processing is to provide a good starting point for the manual process; but it depends on your expectations. *Fairly* simple filtering can produce something that some might deem fit for a short ad, etc., but in my experience even this requires some thoughtful tweaking. (btw, if you're aware of something I'm not, I'd honestly be delighted to hear about it.)

There are those lurking here for whom the very word is cursed. Motion capture has been described by its detractors as "Satan's Rotoscope." There are many animators who feel the reverse is also true. My personal feeling, not that it counts for anything, is that it's a tool, like any other - can be used and abused.

Here is your first post.

Sbowie,

Why did you not make a post about Scanner Darkly and Walking Life before my post? Why did you not make mention of Steenbecks, cells or Oxberry before me? You said nothing until my post because you are a connoissseur of my information. Do us all a favor and admit it. Now everyone knows it. Unlike you I have used a Steenbeck and Oxberry. I have done rotoscoping and for the average Joe I know filters would be the best bet. Your SATs mean nothing. Show us a demo reel. You gave no advise because you lack knoweledge.

I doubt Speed Edit can do as good of blue screen as ILM (Indutsrial Light and Magic) but should we not use it because it is not the best and the result are not as good as ILM? Your logic stinks to say the least.

Sbowire,

I think you are a joke. Why did you not post your wealth of infomation before I made my post? Why did you hold out? Please explain. We all want to know. I admit this thread got way of the track and it is your fault Sbowie. As a Newtek seller I imagine Newtek would expect you to post a wealth of information with out being a connoiseur of my information. You are great at regurgitating infomation from the link that I posted. Nothing more nothing less.

Once agian why not post your wealth of informtion from the start. Oh, thats right you did not have any. :D

Sbowie

I see you for what you are. I do not doubt you have sold many Newtek system but that does not make you an expert on all aspects of video production. I would never ask you for advice and now many others feel the same way. :D

But please explain why you held back your wealth of knoweldge?::D

For all you Newtek user do not use the choma-key filter of SE since it is not as good as what ILM could replicate. That is Sbowies logic. If it is not the best don't use it. :D

I do think the moderators of this forum are great for letting all sides be voiced.

[Steve Thompson]

Medeamajic... or should I call you Arc?

The moderators here do let voices be heard but this has turned from a matter of opinions to a personal attack on family. That's right! Family!

You can dog me all you want... I can take it. But knock off the personal attacks on other members here that have not only paid there dues but have become good friends over the years and share information that should be charged for.

You've been a member for almost three weeks and have already wore out your welcome. I'm sure you know a lot about what you claim but do me a favor.

Let this go!

Steve Bowie doesn't need to prove anything to you or anyone else. He's shared his "wealth" of knowledge not only in these forums but through private e-mail and phone and get this.... all for free.

Lastly, Steve doesn't need me or anyone to fight his battles. I think a lot of people might even be amused at your ramblings but it's getting old.

If you want to share your knowledge... great. I along with many people who frequent these forums daily would love to hear what you have to say but not personal attacks.

Calling someone a joke or a fool doesn't benefit anyone on this site.

I'll state this again and I can assure you that I'm saying this in the most polite way I can.

Let this go!

Take Care,
Steve

[SBowie]

Why did you not make a post about Scanner Darkly and Walking Life before my post?Because it was unnecessary. Until you wrote "I think your confused about rotoscoping" to someone else, there was no reason to state that 'rotoscoping' means different things to different people.' (BTW, I tend to agree that the way some use the word is incorrect, but as I said in my first post, "Good luck trying to keep it on track.")

And until you wrote "... true rotoscoping (tracing video by hand) would not be wise since there are plugin filters than can do it for you", there was no reason for me to discuss filters - the thread wasn't about that. But your statement required a clarification. Had you written "there are plugin filters that can produce a somewhat similar result a lot faster", I wouldn't have written anything.

Rather than defeat the factual statements I made, you resorted to a ridiculous challenge -- which would only prove a filter is faster. We all know that already. Failing to get me to play this silly game, you resorted to another - 'Sbowie cannot speak about rotoscoping unless he posts a sample showing his artistic skills.' The problem with that challenge is that there is no reason for it either - I never claimed to have any artistic skills.

My work does not require me to be an artist, a director, a spaceman or cowboy either. My consulting work is technical. I do have samples, but you will never see them, first because the 'challenge' is asinine, and second because much of what I do is under NDA - when I occasionally do prepare samples (fairly rare) I use client supplied footage.

Rather than a calm discussion of a technical point, this seems to be about the fact that you must be 'first' to have said something. Perhaps this was it all along - someone disagreeing with you hurt your feelings, and that's why you have been overreacting all along. Unfortunately, what you said was not entirely accurate. You blame all of us for 'poor comprehension', then finally, resort to name calling - I'm a liar, a fraud, a joke, a fool. I will not join you on that level either.

[avkills]

In the compositing worl it is a manual technique used when automatic techniques (such as keyers) fail. You manually roto (usually using spline based tools) to create mattes: http://www.silhouettefx.com/roto/ (as an example of a tool specialized for that kind of task).


This what I think when someone says Rotoscoping.

Wow this thread has really gone downhill fast. Anything that uses a filter is image processing in my world.

-mark

[SBowie]

This what I think when someone says Rotoscoping.
The term is used broadly, and there is even cross-over between the two primary notions. It's not unusual for chromakeying or spline matting techniques to be used to separate foregound material (some people call this 'roto'), which is then 1) composited over painted backgrounds, or 2) painted over using 'traditional roto' techniques and then composited.

As I have said, different people use the term differently. I gave up worrying about what their personal definitions were years ago.

[Lightwolf]

I gave up worrying about what their personal definitions were years ago.
I wouldn't even say "personal". Except for old age geezers like you and me and a few others, the original usage of the term is almost lost nowadays.
In 99% of the cases when I hear people use the term they refer to manual spline matting (as you call it).

I.e. "I just need to roto out this pesky actor...".

Cheers,
Mike

[SBowie]

... manual spline matting (as you call it).

I.e. "I just need to roto out this pesky actor...".Yep, and please don't think I'm putting 'spline matting' fwd. as a valid term - I was just trying to find words to differentiate the techniques. I can think of some things I'd like to 'roto out'. ;)

[Lightwolf]

Yep, and please don't think I'm putting 'spline matting' fwd. as a valid term.
Actually, it does define the process quite clearly, so why not?
If we'd use "Rotoscope animation" for the animation technique as well there would be a lot less confusion as well ;)

Cheers,
Mike

[avkills]

I've heard the term Rotosplining used before. But I've always heard the term rotoscoping inside articles talking about compositing. ?? Oh well. Maybe I should get out more. ;)

-mark

[Lightwolf]

I've heard the term Rotosplining used before.
...and if you get hired for that kind of work in London you just "ro'o" ;)

Cheers,
Mike

[bluerider]

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope)

Heres how wikipedia uses the term rotoscope.

Please don't shoot the messanger :devil:

[medeamajic]

Sbowie,

I was upset with people posting threads with missinformaiton about my posts. As this thread is calming down I think you will admit my post contained valid information. What was upsetting is the fact the your were implying that I thought filters would produce as good of quality as a true rotoscoping artist. That is something I never posted. Also many folks got confussed some how into thinking that I said rotoscoping can not be used to create mattes. I infact stated the opposite. It was upsetting that people were posting info that I allready posted. We infact agreed on most issuse yet there was the notion that I did not agree. That was the real sad part about this whole thread.

If I was trying to imply that you thought filters could produce better results than a true rotoscoping artist I imagine you would want to set the record straight.

While the thread did get of track perhaps some good info about SE was leaked out.

[SBowie]

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope)
Please don't shoot the messanger.Nah, we're stockpiling our ammunition. I see Wiki has included more recent applications of the term towards the bottom now, including garbage mattes - cool.

It's the nature of the development of language for people to keep pounding square pegs into round holes until everyone gets used to it and thinks it's correct. There's little point in worrying about it, as pretty soon it will the error will be declared orthodox. You are only right until you're outnumbered, and then you're just a sulky old goat clinging to the past (though I still scream in my head when the kids at Dairy Queen say "Can I help who's next?")

[medeamajic]

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope)

Heres how wikipedia uses the term rotoscope.

Please don't shoot the messanger :devil:

This is exaclty what I mean. You posted the same info (link) I did from several days ago.

I take it this must be a joke. :D


This link has got to be a joke. If this is not a funny joke then everyone has to agree that the reading comprehesion on the site is poor.

[SBowie]

As this thread is calming down I think you will admit my post contained valid information. What was upsetting is the fact the your were implying that I thought filters would produce as good of quality as a true rotoscoping artist.Unfortunately, your initial remark can be read that way - but yes, I do agree with most of your comments ... not everthing, perhaps, but most (I am a bit of a joker, but would not like to be widely thought of as a joke.) :)

Forget about it, it's not a huge issue - everyone just got a little excited. I think you'll find this forum a pretty friendly place once you've been here for a little while.

[Rich Deustachio]

Has anyone here heard of the term beating a dead horse?

[JackJ]

Yes, I've heard the term, but you're using it wrong. It actually refers to beating an actual dead horse with a physical object, not something electronic, like a cattle prod or an online discussion forum. :compbeati

All I know is that something about this thread reminds me of the clip used for the first 35 seconds of this video. (only it needs some pyro effects and makeup prosthetics so the parts of some of the actors could be played by flaming trolls.):bangwall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PodW6aNESs

[bluerider]

SBowie=You are only right until you're outnumbered, and then you're just a sulky old goat clinging to the past (though I still scream in my head when the kids at Dairy Queen say "Can I help who's next?")
--------

Nope.....personally I'm always suspicious of the majority and stick to my guns even if I could be wrong, thats the fun :D .

Enjoyed reading your posts though :)

[Thalek]

All I know is that something about this thread reminds me of the clip used for the first 35 seconds of this video. (only it needs some pyro effects and makeup prosthetics so the parts of some of the actors could be played by flaming trolls.):bangwall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PodW6aNESs


I'm an amateur makeup artist. I could do the makeup part. [grin]

[JackJ]

Okay, I'm an amateur pyromaniac...I'll do the fire.

[Jim_C]

And I am a flaming troll so I can....er ahhh...ummm...nevermind......

You never read this.....