The next step in Muzzle Flash

looks very cool, but as I always tell people searching for flashes... weapons do NOT emitt flashes as often as you would think. In the daytime you rarely see a muzzle flash.

If this plugin can generate the telltale 'smoke' puffs out of the barrel instead, then... damn. I want that thing.
 
From looking at it it seems to me that this used in conjunction with blank guns in the demo, which should be taken into consideration as the smoke they produce greatly adds to the effect.
 
Just from my little test with the demo, it adds the flash verry nicely! If the background is bright, you dont see much of it. but if the background is dark, its obvious. my ecxperance is that is how cuns usually are.
 
looks very cool, but as I always tell people searching for flashes... weapons do NOT emitt flashes as often as you would think. In the daytime you rarely see a muzzle flash.
Click to expand...
While that is great, and I agree with you, narrative filmmaking is not about what actually happens. That's documentary. You have to give the people what they expect, otherwise they will think it looks fake. The best way to sell a gunshot? Sound and muzzle flash. But even if you have the sound, if there is no visible sign of gunfire, it wont sell. You have to sell it, not do press junkets explaining what real guns do.

This is a DVX frame capture from a user on another forum. It was taken midday during the summer - 24Pa. And I have seen the motion footage, full res. While muzzle flash is clearly visible (although certainly not as prominent as in movies), at no time was smoke visible.

61010466.jpg



Does that mean I think smoke should not be included in a film or the muzzle flash should look as it does above? Certainly not. But it should look like what the audience expects. And you dont play it to the one guy in the theater that will KNOW what it looks like, you play it to the general audience.

That's why James Bond's gunshots sound like "ffffffft" instead of a loud "CLACK" with a smaller "blam" underneath. Because the general audience thinks a suppressed firearm sounds like "ffffft". Give them what they expect. If they heard the real sound they'd wonder what they were hearing.
 
Last edited:
you have a good point, but I'm too involved in guns to change my opinions, haha. To me, the most realistic guns on TV are the non-muzzle flash shell ejecting smoke puff emitting real ones. A muzzleflash is believable in a dark room, and yes it CAN happen in a shaded area, but not often. That's my experience haha. I've been shooting for years and I still havent seen a muzzleflash.

here's an example... MP-5 full auto, 60fps: http://www.doodlesofamadman.com/video/MP5slow.html

to me, you gain more realism from the smoke and shell casings. I understand that in an action movie where realism is already shunned that muzzle flashes are acceptable (and required). I won't argue about that. Its when realistic productions get muzzleflash heavy that I am bothered. I'm talking about things like WWII movies where the weapons should function as close to their real counterparts as possible. If I remember correctly, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and other war movies don't use muzzle flashes as dramatically as the beefhead action movie genre does.

I guess there's no real point in arguing it anyway, I just give a word of caution to people who think that a big muzzle flash will make gunshots look better all the time.
 
Agreed, spent brass and smoke looks better then muzzleflashes IF you are going for a 100 percent realistic effect. However, as you stated, if your doing a beefhead action movie (and honestly, who doesnt like those?), the exadreated muzzleflashes add a sort of... I dont know how to describe it it just makes the movie for your avrage joe.
 
I agree with you totally. Rambo just wouldn't be rambo without muzzle flashes, and I'll never argue against that. I just don't like seeing realistic projects trying to use muzzle flashes. If you're making a "beefhead action movie", then by all means flash away!
 
..true true true. its all about the presentation of the effect within the given environment. you can put either flashes and smoke into a realistic, or non realistic film, or you could not use any, and the effect of a gun firing can be sold very convincingly to the audience either way. just the same as somebody getting shot can be easily convoncingly sold without showing blood flying everywhere. it all depends on the mood, feel, and general presentation of the film and specific scene. its more about sound , shot planning and editing than anything else. and in the end its about giving the audience the elements that they would expect to be there given the presentation of the film/scene. .. a ittle more ..a little less, just dont leave them thinking "what on earth?" ..because then youve just lost the captivating power of your story, and have to earn it all over again.
 
FxHome's products are much, much better than they are given credit for. I've been using VisionLab for two years now, and it gets a better key for greenscreen work than any other program I've used. It also has the muzzle-flash plugin functionality, as well as a fully customizable particle generation system for smoke, explosions, etc.

Well worth the money. Plus, it runs fine in Windows 2000, and has no Product Activation, so you'll never have to worry about not being able to use it the night before a project needs to be done just because you had to reinstall.
 
$175 for a muzzle flash plug-in is really overpriced if you're only going to do a few muzzle flashes in a film.

But if it's a battle scene with a lot of machine guns and at a variety of aspects, it's a lifesaver and money well-spent.

As for realism, as everyone else has mentioned, it depends on the project. Sometimes it's about drama and you'll get fiery car crashes. At other times it's a realistic documentary and it shouldn't be over-sold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top