Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member Deuceofspades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,161
    Default
    David,

    It so happens that I just rendered 1 hr worth of my docu for my sneak preview screening coming up thursday. When i rendered it, I coincidentally had everything set the way you instructed above (disable resample for the 60i clips + project settings set to None & to Interpolate fields, which is my default custom "FAITH 24P TEMPLATE". So I just went and looked at the resulted rendered docu, and here is what I noticed:

    1- You are correct, no ghosting and no stripes, so clean footage.
    2- However there is a problem. the problem may not be too noticeable on static shots but it becomes quite noticeable on pans etc. If you view your pan frame by frame you will notice vegas skips a frame every 4 frames. It's like it is playing frame 1,2,3,4 and then skips 5 and then plays 6,7,8,9 then skips 10. AS a results when you look at the pan, it seems that every 5th frame the camera "jumps", (staggers). Have you noticed that? I believe this is why everyone was recommending to slow down 60i footage by 0.8 to have everyframe show up on 24p timeline, which of course results in smooth footage but in slow motion.... THEN to speed it back up using Twixtor or AE to get back to normal play back speed. This produces the smoothest footage, but you are right in that other problems are introduced. In AE the problem I encountered (other than a lot of time spent rendering) is the contrast problem. With Twixtor, there is a lot of tweaking needed to get footage without warped lines, I am still learning twixtor and have not given up yet. AE is easier, but more rendering time involved. If only I could solve the contrast problem, I'd be home free.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jimerson View Post
    WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT -- I messed up a little before; I was responding in two different threads about two different problems and turned myself around a bit.

    You want the deinterlace method to be Interpolate Fields -- absolutely not Blend Fields, and not none. When coverting 60i to 24p, you ARE deinterlacing, as opposed to working with 24p.



    It technically shouldn't matter, but do it in a 24p timeline just to be tidy.



    Again, it technically shouldn't matter. But if you're working in a 24p timeline, you're already working with a field order of None. So, just do that.



    As noted above, set the deinterlace method to Interpolate Fields. And yes, disable resample in the clips.

    Your render settings should be 23.976 and field order of None (progressive). If you're changing resolution, you want the render quality to be Best. Also, if the format gives you a choice, choose a high bit rate (ex: at least 10,000,000 for AVCHD).




    I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd ever need to slow anything down in order to do this. Using Interpolate fields will prevent ghosting; you'll get ghosting with Blend fields. Disabling resample means you're working with single images, as opposed to resampling, which will blend images/fields together, producing ghosting.

    What the settings I gave you will do is take a single 60i field and create a whole frame from it, drop the next few fields, then take another 60i field and make a whole frame out of it, and repeat the process in the equivalent of a reverse 3:2 pattern.

    You will lose some resolution -- you can't avoid that no matter what you do -- but the result should be nearly identical to what you'd have if you'd shot 24p from the beginning.

    You will open yourself up to the possibility of even MORE artificating and ghosting if you slow it down and then speed it up again. That's a completely unnecessary step.

    I've done this conversion quite a few times, and Vegas is very good at doing it.

    The worst you can do by trying is take up a little bit of time. Just choose a few clips which are a few minutes long and see what you get. Make sure they have some degree of motion in them.

    Good luck!
    FAITH GRANGER, Multi Award winning filmmaker

    "Best Feature Film", "Best Cinematography", "Best Editing", "Best Screenplay" Awards





    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Moderator David Jimerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    27,906
    Default
    I would have to see the footage to get an idea of what you're talking about there. I have not noticed this as a problem myself.

    Pans are often tricky when converting from 60 to 24 because it's a lot easier to pan too quickly for 24 fps when you're shooting at a fast frame rate.
    LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



    WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY



    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member Deuceofspades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,161
    Default
    well if you do the math it makes sense: 30 fps - 24 fps = 6 frames. So there are 6 frames extra every 24 frames (every second) that Vegas does not know what to do with. If it skips one frame every 5th frame = 6X5 = 30 then it now has 24 frames ;)
    You may not "see" the stagger so much as you can "feel" it , your eyes can feel it and will become tired after watching the footage for a few minutes. Kinda like having a camera that is shaking cause it's in a car bouncing around on a bumpy road, after a while you start getting nauseous visually. if its' only a couple clips, great solution, but with an hour worth of footage, maybe not such a good solution in the end? :/

    I'll test my eyes resilience to the "imperceptible stagger" Thursday during my ADVENTURERS CLUB presentation, since we are showing 1,5 hr of my docu. if it bothers me, then I'll have to find another way.

    slowing down the original 30p footage by 0.8 means that now, on a 24p timeline, each frame is getting its own "frame spot", hence you can see ALL frames, and you are not losing any. Of course this results in slightly slow mo play back. Then using Twixtor (or in AE, MATHEW KRAMER PLUG IN) you make the footage the correct speed (length) so it will sync back to audio. The reason beeing that twixtor or M.K. plugin in AE are better equipped at altering speed without losing frames or creating unwanted artifacts, creating a SMOOTH playback. in AE the plug in works GREAT. Smooth as a baby's butt. If I can resolve my contrast issue, I'll be home free.


    I did spend days reading up on all this crap (sigh)...
    FAITH GRANGER, Multi Award winning filmmaker

    "Best Feature Film", "Best Cinematography", "Best Editing", "Best Screenplay" Awards





    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Moderator David Jimerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    27,906
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuceofspades View Post
    well if you do the math it makes sense: 30 fps - 24 fps = 6 frames. So there are 6 frames extra every 24 frames (every second) that Vegas does not know what to do with. If it skips one frame every 5th frame = 6X5 = 30 then it now has 24 frames ;)
    Well, when I asked if the footage was 30p or 60i, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuceofspades View Post
    It's 60i interlaced...
    If it's 60i, then it's not 30 frames per second. It's 60 fields per second, and each field is a separate motion sample, giving you 60 motions per second, so the difference is 36, not 6. Vegas works on the individual field level and interpolates frames from individual fields, not two fields mashed together into a "frame" (this is why you choose to Interpolate fields and disable resample).

    So the math is fine when converting 60i to 24p. There's plenty of difference. It's the same as converting 60p to 24p, except you're working with fields instead of whole frames.

    What you say is completely true of 30p, which is why I asked if the footage was 30p or 60i. I've been running under the assumption that it's 60i, because that's what you said.

    Later, though, you say:

    slowing down the original 30p footage
    So, was the footage actually 30p? Was it possibly 30p recorded in a 60i stream (which works out to the same thing)?

    If so, then you can't make a clean real-time conversion from 30p to 24p, for the reasons you state above. There's no software that can do it, because the math is the math. There isn't enough of a difference in motion samples to do it. It doesn't matter if you slow it down then speed it up, whatever; there's simply no pattern for dropping frames which will make a clean conversion, because a difference of 6 is not enough to work with.
    LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



    WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY



    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member Deuceofspades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,161
    Default
    i apologize, I shoudn't have said 30P, I am going from 30i (which I believe is called 60i?) to 24P:

    I wish I could say I am an expert, but I am not, I am barely able to make ANY sense of all of this. here is the clip media properties, you tell me what I have, but it is definitely interlaced (and I was told that 29.970 interlaced is called 60i ? which of course confused the heck out of me, but I accepted it ):

    General
    Name: 00894.MTS
    Folder: G:\frame rate conversion folders\POST PRODUCTION
    Type: MPEG-2 Transport Stream
    Size: 10.85 MB (11,108,352 bytes)
    Created: Monday, January 07, 2013, 11:11:37 AM
    Modified: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 1:09:26 PM
    Accessed: Sunday, March 22, 2015, 7:05:17 AM
    Attributes: Archive

    Streams
    Video: 00:00:07.508, 29.970 fps interlaced, 1440x1080x12, AVC
    Audio 1: 00:00:07.508, 48,000 Hz, 5.1 Surround (stereo downmix), Dolby AC-3
    Audio 2: 00:00:07.508, 48,000 Hz, 5.1 Surround, Dolby AC-3





    Quote Originally Posted by David Jimerson View Post
    Well, when I asked if the footage was 30p or 60i, you said:



    If it's 60i, then it's not 30 frames per second. It's 60 fields per second, and each field is a separate motion sample, giving you 60 motions per second, so the difference is 36, not 6. Vegas works on the individual field level and interpolates frames from individual fields, not two fields mashed together into a "frame" (this is why you choose to Interpolate fields and disable resample).

    So the math is fine when converting 60i to 24p. There's plenty of difference. It's the same as converting 60p to 24p, except you're working with fields instead of whole frames.

    What you say is completely true of 30p, which is why I asked if the footage was 30p or 60i. I've been running under the assumption that it's 60i, because that's what you said.

    Later, though, you say:



    So, was the footage actually 30p? Was it possibly 30p recorded in a 60i stream (which works out to the same thing)?

    If so, then you can't make a clean real-time conversion from 30p to 24p, for the reasons you state above. There's no software that can do it, because the math is the math. There isn't enough of a difference in motion samples to do it. It doesn't matter if you slow it down then speed it up, whatever; there's simply no pattern for dropping frames which will make a clean conversion, because a difference of 6 is not enough to work with.
    FAITH GRANGER, Multi Award winning filmmaker

    "Best Feature Film", "Best Cinematography", "Best Editing", "Best Screenplay" Awards





    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member Andrius Simutis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,133
    Default
    Faith, I'll let David handle your framerate concerns in more detail, but the "contrast issues" you're having are because of the codecs used and nothing to do with the frame rate. Think of the codecs as language. You shot in French and are exporting in German. They're going to sound different and not have the same nuance even if the same idea is there. In order to retain the most out of your image, you need to stay in the same codec or move to one that has more room to accurately display your image.
    I'm guessing you shot in some kind of compressed codec like h264, AVCHD, or MPEG2. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but you have to be careful in where you go from there. The recommendations for ProRes422 earlier were your best bet. If you go from a compressed codec to another compressed codec you're going to lose information. That information could be how many shades of each color you have.
    The other possible culprit is what's called Gamma. Take a minute to read this basic intro on Gamma: http://www.cgsd.com/papers/gamma_intro.html
    Does that look like what you're seeing with your output image? If so, then the likely culprit is Gamma correction being applied in either the conversion or on the playback.
    After Effects is a very powerful program. It has a ton of options that can change your image any way you like, and if you're not careful and push the wrong button it can change it in ways you won't like. Video can get complicated too, and sometimes it's worth taking some time to learn the underlying concepts so that you can understand what each of those buttons is going to do.
    Your third and final option of course, is to find someone who has studied all this stuff and pay them to do it for you. I'm a big fan of DIY but I still pay my doctor and dentist.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Moderator David Jimerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    27,906
    Default
    The terms "30i" and "60i" refer to the exact same thing. It's 60 interlaced fields per second. The term "30i" really needs to go away.

    It also doesn't help that both are said to be "29.97." That's true of 30p. It's not true of 60i/30i. That, too, needs to change.

    The clip properties below say it's a 60i clip, but here's the question -- how was it shot? What was the frame rate of the camera? The recording was 60i, but was the frame rate being shot 30p?


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuceofspades View Post
    i apologize, I shoudn't have said 30P, I am going from 30i (which I believe is called 60i?) to 24P:

    I wish I could say I am an expert, but I am not, I am barely able to make ANY sense of all of this. here is the clip media properties, you tell me what I have, but it is definitely interlaced (and I was told that 29.970 interlaced is called 60i ? which of course confused the heck out of me, but I accepted it ):

    General
    Name: 00894.MTS
    Folder: G:\frame rate conversion folders\POST PRODUCTION
    Type: MPEG-2 Transport Stream
    Size: 10.85 MB (11,108,352 bytes)
    Created: Monday, January 07, 2013, 11:11:37 AM
    Modified: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 1:09:26 PM
    Accessed: Sunday, March 22, 2015, 7:05:17 AM
    Attributes: Archive

    Streams
    Video: 00:00:07.508, 29.970 fps interlaced, 1440x1080x12, AVC
    Audio 1: 00:00:07.508, 48,000 Hz, 5.1 Surround (stereo downmix), Dolby AC-3
    Audio 2: 00:00:07.508, 48,000 Hz, 5.1 Surround, Dolby AC-3
    LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



    WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY



    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member Deuceofspades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,161
    Default
    Doing more research in regards to smooth frame rate conversion (please note this has NOTHING to do with the contrast problem in AE), I found some threads about MAGIC BULLET plugin called "Frames" and looked at their videos and it sounds like it is specifically designed to do conversions quite well. Including 60i to 24P. Has anyone tried it and what was your experience like?
    FAITH GRANGER, Multi Award winning filmmaker

    "Best Feature Film", "Best Cinematography", "Best Editing", "Best Screenplay" Awards





    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member Deuceofspades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,161
    Default
    Andrius, I know that the contrast problem has nothing to do with frame rate, I already stated that in some of my posts. You are correct about the compressed codecs, but I did render from AE to uncompressed quicktime and had same outcome. As far as DIY, I am also in communication with a pro company that does frame rate conversions and exploring both avenues, (have been for 2 months now). Giving 64 minutes worth of 60i footage to convert is both expensive and also a bit of a pain, because it's even more of a headache to send the footage out and reorganize it when it comes back, then keeping it in my own PC and gradually replace the clips. I'd rather find a way to do it myself also because it would allow me to convert other clips in the future, or even if I want to change my edits of this docu and replace some clips etc, if I can do this conversion myself it give some more flexibility in the long run, cause I will not be dependent on someone else do get the work done. So I think it is a good idea / cause, worth investing some research and tests in.
    FAITH GRANGER, Multi Award winning filmmaker

    "Best Feature Film", "Best Cinematography", "Best Editing", "Best Screenplay" Awards





    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member Deuceofspades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,161
    Default
    David, the cast used their little camcorders, and I don't believe any of those give you options to change frame rate. I checked my SONY camcorder, used for some of the clips, and it only gives me options to shoot in HD or SD, no frame rate options. I think it safe to then assume that none of us shot anything in 30P? What's your take on this?


    Quote Originally Posted by David Jimerson View Post
    The terms "30i" and "60i" refer to the exact same thing. It's 60 interlaced fields per second. The term "30i" really needs to go away.

    It also doesn't help that both are said to be "29.97." That's true of 30p. It's not true of 60i/30i. That, too, needs to change.

    The clip properties below say it's a 60i clip, but here's the question -- how was it shot? What was the frame rate of the camera? The recording was 60i, but was the frame rate being shot 30p?
    FAITH GRANGER, Multi Award winning filmmaker

    "Best Feature Film", "Best Cinematography", "Best Editing", "Best Screenplay" Awards





    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •