Ultra 2 vs. V6 Chroma Keyer

dand9959 wrote on 12/28/2005, 10:43 AM
Is Ultra 2 really so much better than NLE-ased chroma keyers (including V6's, I presume) to make it worth the cost ($400-$500)? I know Spot shows it off at the VASSt seminars, so the implication is that Ultra is, indeed, that much better than Vegas', but I was just curious about others' input.

(Forget the cool virtual sets in Ultra for the purposes of this discussion...they are no longer included in the Ultra purchase anyway.)

Comments

Bob Greaves wrote on 12/28/2005, 10:55 AM
Ultra uses vector keying which is similar to choma keying. The difference is that vector keying recognizes the subtle changes that the key color can go through based on uneven lighting. This allows for more exact keying. It follows the vector of the color not the color.

THis makes it better for certain purposes - such as the virtual sets they use in the ultra program itself.
p@mast3rs wrote on 12/28/2005, 10:59 AM
So this leaves me to ask the question of is vector keying better than traditional NLE type keying? Does it provide better quality?
farss wrote on 12/29/2005, 3:05 AM
Just me taking a guess here but I'd say the actual quality of the key is no better but it's more reliable.
If the screen is not consistent then the Ultra method will compensate, hence poorly lit screens will still key. However the quality of the key i.e absence of fringing, is a product of the color sampling, NTSC DV performs slightly better than PAL DV but for best results 4:2:2 or higher is the go.

I'll add that I've rarely seen good keys and that's not the fault of how the key process is used but how the subject is matched to the background, e.g. the lighting is totally different. Note that for cinema CGI composites matching the lighting is the holy grail of the process, if that's wrong nothing else matters, your monsters might be rendered perfectly but if they're lit differently to the rest of the scene the gag dies.
Matching perspective is another key (no pun intended) ingredient.

Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/29/2005, 3:26 AM

I have both--Vegas and Ultra 2. I have used both--Vegas and Ultra 2. Ultra 2 is more user friendly, flexible, and, yes, it provides better quality results.


TomE wrote on 12/29/2005, 8:44 AM
the only thing I don't like about Ultra 2 is that you cant preview through firewire onto a monitor (TV) the way we are accustomed in Vegas. So when you have tweaked and render you get it into Vegas and only then do you see the result. Otherwise it really does do a great job.

It would be nice if you could key frame. It works best if it is a locked down shot and the lighting is consistent throughout the clip. If not you have to render out sections. If you could keyframe you would be able to accomplish more. I have had a heck of a time with a poorly lit greenscreen shot. I had a guy with a Navy blue hat from (from an aircraft carrier) and the gold colors of the lettering on the front and the blue also did not key cleanly in relation to the rest ot the shot. I would have to make a separate pass of just the hat and then stack that on top in Vegas. I then brought it into AE and played around with keylight and the color range and realize I have to re-shoot.
Ultra 2 got me the best results and it was the fastest of all that I tried even though the end result is still not satisfactory. It is a great tool to have in the arsenal but it is not the only tool.

TomE