Basic issue: the look of 24p?

A

alan b

Active member
I imagine this may be dealt with in another thread but I have no idea what search parameter I would use, so:

Being new at this 24p world I am in a bit of a quandary regarding what I'm seeing on my NTSC monitor. I am editing footage shot 24p normal, captured in FCP with its DV NTSC preset (29.97) editing on a 29.97 timeline. I am using full-res online captures, not low-res offine. As far as I can tell, everthing is at full render.

As far as I can determine this is the proper environment to be working on a piece destined for NTSC broadcast.

However, as I watch the edit take shape on my NTSC monitor I am somewhat disturbed by the image quality. I've read the warnings about not panning too quickly; about the propensity for a strobing look in the motion. But I'm seeing a bit of a jerky feel to even the simplest of motions such as a slow pan or even a talking head moving from side to side.

Again, I'm new at this environment and maybe that's what it's supposed to look like but I'm doubting it. Anyone with an explanation?

alan b
 
It's a little stroby, but I think there was some fix or something by setting shutter speed. I don't know, this topic has been talked about so many times that I don't even know what to believe anymore. 24p is good for us filmmakers, but there's books and instructional DVDs and loads of threads on this subject. I would say that if you don't already have it, get Barry Green's DVX book, even if you're not using a DVX camera for 24p, it should help on many fronts from what I hear about it.

There's also something about pull-downs for 24p and 24p advanced, but I'm confused as kcuf on that subject. Try experimenting a little bit, maybe your pan wasn't as smooth or slow as you thought? Also, sometimes things just don't look right with 24p, if it's little nit-picky things that nobody within "the know" knows about, then you should be fine. Also, have you tried exporting your footage to DVD to at least check and see what it looks like on a TV? Sometimes the footage looks bad on LCD displays, even with my GL1 things look messed up or soft sometimes but look perfectly fine when watching it on a TV. I've heard that this is the case with 24p a lot of the times, so just try it out and see. If you need a technical answer, you'll need to talk to Barry, Jarred, John, or any of the other big guys on here.
 
You'd probably be better off editing on a 24p timeline (will FCP do that?) rather than the 29.97, and not worry about it being NTSC 29.97 until the render.

The "strobing" you're seeing might not be stobing, but the extra frames inserted to bulk up to 29.97.
 
I was disturbed at first too but that was because I was watching the footage on a sharp production monitor. I burned it on a DVD and watched it again on a decent TV and was amazed by the result.
 
moebius said:
I was disturbed at first too but that was because I was watching the footage on a sharp production monitor. I burned it on a DVD and watched it again on a decent TV and was amazed by the result.
Click to expand...
same thing here. To see if its a pulldown or NLE issue to be investigated, hook your DVX up to a monitor and play your source footage right from the original tape. That should look good, as it does mine.

IF that is still to stroby for you, try a faster shutter speed. Keep in mind, film does the same thing (Barrys book proved this: DVX and 16mm side by side showed the same strobing)
 
Boy I almost lost my stuff when I read GenJerDan suggest I edit in a 24p timeline. You probably haven't seen my posts in this and other FCP forums around the net in the last week searching for an answer to my dilemma of having done just that. I subsequently lost three days of editing going from a 23.98 timeline to the 29.97 in which I needed to be.

I do not want to be on a 23.98 line. Of that I am reasonably certain. I hope the Noah Kadners and Barry Greens of the world will chime in here and back me up on that. My trevails of this past week taught me that the DVX pulls down the footage itself to 29.97 and that is where I need to be for final output. You might want to read a post by Noah Kadner elsewhere in this site for a related explanation:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=23413

As for the DVD idea, I've had such miserable luck creating DVDs that I wouldn't trust it. Besides, that would be a real time killer for me right now. I may just dump some of my edit to tape and see what it looks like on a real t and v.

thanks

alan b
 
alan b said:
Boy I almost lost my stuff when I read GenJerDan suggest I edit in a 24p timeline.
alan b
Click to expand...

See, the thing is...if you shot in 24p and edit in something else, you're editing things you didn't shoot.

Yeah, you can do it...but why? I guess whatever workflow works for you, though.
 
alan b said:
I do not want to be on a 23.98 line. Of that I am reasonably certain.
Click to expand...

On the contrary; it's exactly where you want to be. Edit in the native environment of what you shot.


I hope the Noah Kadners and Barry Greens of the world will chime in here and back me up on that.
Click to expand...

They won't.



My trevails of this past week taught me that the DVX pulls down the footage itself to 29.97 and that is where I need to be for final output.
Click to expand...

Final output, sure; but for editing, you should be in 24p. After that, output as anything you want.

As Dan points out, when pulldown is added, extra frames which you did not shoot are added. What's more, you'll be dealing with mixes of frames which started out clean.

Plus, working in an interlaced environment automatically sacrifices about 30% of your resolution.
 
Now wait...before I shoot myself...I just went to :

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/24p_in_FCP_nattress.html

Everything talks about (or seems to in my tiny brain) editng on 29.97. Especially at the bottom of the page where he enumerates several editnign situations.

I mean, yeah it's shot at 24p but it's pulled down to 29.97 by the camera to the tape. You're capturing at DV-NTSC for editing and that's 29.97. So why wouldn't you edit in a 29.97 timeline?

alan b

ps--I know a certain TV station that used Vegas and they wouldn't share you opinion of it (then again, they now use Avid)
 
There's no quality loss in editing 24p in 29.97 timeline. You're going to have the same 24fps film look and any additional fields are added same as a telecine of film to video.
If you have any plans to output to film then edit it on a 23.98 timeline after removing pulldown.
If you want to go to a 24fps DVD (same as film these days) then edit at 23.98 afrter pulldown removal.
In both of these cases I'd suggest filming 24pa if you do plan to go to 23.98 edit.

Note that not all DVD creation software supports 24fps.
If you're tryign to cram a full feature film length project onto a DVD you will better compression ration at 23.98 for the reduced number of frames but for a short film it won't matter.

One advantage of editing 23.98 is you now have the option of 23.98 or 29.97 (with conversion) output. If you edit at 29.97 there's no clean & simple way to go to 23.98 even if the original was 24p.

Strobing- Make sure you're outputting to a video monitor or TV. Make sure your playback is set to best quality. If you're editing at 23.98 make sure it's adding 2:3:2:3 pulldown. In FCP set the canvas window to 100% and ideally stretch it out to reveal the full frame.
 
Well, when John's right, he's right . . . none -- NONE -- of this is an issue with Vegas.

I stand by what I said -- if you're shooting 24p, your best bet is to work in a 24p environment. Working in interlaced, you retain the 24p aesthetic, but you DO sacrifice some resolution. It's unavoidable due to the nature of interlace.

But you know, hey -- it's your choice. Do what you want, of course.
 
Oh boy... here we go... if you shoot in 24P you should edit in a 29.97 60i timeline with the field dominance set to lower field first. If you shoot in 24P ADVANCED, you should edit in 24fps 24P timeline with field dominance set to NONE. This will give you no problems.

MANY people dont agree but I think it is silly to shoot 24PA and edit in 24P for anything but a film out. For DVDs 30P looks better... for TV stuff, the 29.97 with IN CAMERA 24P (not advanced) looks better...



ash =o)
 
AshG you are a godsend!

Not only did your post more or less vindicate me--and spare me the ignominy of going back to a 23.98 timeline--but I did as your said and changed the sequence's field dominance to lower field first and the strobing I originally began this thread about has nearly disappeared! What's the reasoning behind that anyway?

I can't thank you enough. Molte grazie!!!

alan b
 
AshG said:
MANY people dont agree but I think it is silly to shoot 24PA and edit in 24P for anything but a film out. For DVDs 30P looks better... for TV stuff, the 29.97 with IN CAMERA 24P (not advanced) looks better...
Click to expand...

Sure, you may think 30p "looks better" for DVD, but that's an aesthetic choice on your part. Any Hollywood movie you rent is 24p, so it's hardly axiomatic. It could be that you just like the look of 30p. No harm, no foul. But saying you should shoot 30p if you want to go to DVD is not good *technical* advice by any means.

If you're calling 24p "29.97 with IN CAMERA 24P," and differentiating it from 24pA, it indicates that you don't quite get how it works. Both 24p and 24pA start out the same way, with the CCDs being read progressively 24 times per second. The only difference between the two is how the frames are split up and arranged in a 29.97 stream when they're laid to tape. It's on tape as 29.97 either way; 24pA merely has the frames split and arranged more efficiently than traditional pulldown. Both are done "in camera."

Now, if you play them both straight off the tape, 24pA may look a little more stuttery than normal pulldown because of that efficient arrangement. I think where the confusion comes in is when people say the 24pA is made for editing in 24p, which it is. It's not meant for watching or final output, and because of the frame/field arrangement, it's not meant for editing in a 29.97 timeline. (Though you can get away with it.)

But this does not imply that normal 24p pulldown is NOT suitable for editing in 24p. 24pA and 24p normal start out exactly the same way, and when you remove the pulldown, they're exactly the same on the timeline.

And, as has been said before, if you want to make a 24p DVD, you really need to be editing in 24p.

Now, all that having been said . . . specific to your case, alan b, it just might be that if you're using Final Cut Pro, with its 24p limitations, you'd be better off editing in 29.97. The FCP gurus do seem to have spoken on this.
 
Well, then this begs another question: does editing on a 29.97 line rule out a DVD should someone say, hey, let's make a DVD out of this?

Or, gods forefend, is there some pulldown thicket one must ensnarl oneself in to bring that off? Or does Cinema Tools somehow come to the rescue?

alan b
 
If you edit in 29.97, you can certainly make a 29.97 DVD from it. Making a 24p DVD, however, will be much trickier and involve compromises.
 
I've been shooting 24P, Editing FCP, editing on 29.97 Timeline, and burning great looking DVDs for the last few years. I too am not sure why most anyone on this board would actually shoot 24PA and edit on a 24P timeline, only to burn a DVD. Does this actually 'look' different on the DVD/TV than the other way around?

Or is the reason for pure 24PA just for hoping to someday be able to make an Answer Print on film? 100% of everyone on this board would love to do this, but I can guarantee that 99.9% of us never will, unless someone else is paying for it or your grandpa just died and left you a ton of money.

So, even though the majority of projects anyone here will never end up on actual film, is it better to shoot/edit as 24PA-24Timeline or the 24P-29.97 timeline?

Any thoughts?
 
Ok, here's the deal, to sum up a couple of questions and concerns.

First to Alan B.
For some reason it sounds that your project file was making the upper field first for your output. For all NTSC DV, if you are editing in a 29.97fps timeline, it must be lower field first. I am glad you got this solved, as switching fields looks really bad as you seem to have experienced.

Now for the 24p issue.
First of all, a 24P DVD will look exactly the same as a 24pn exported to a 29.97 DVD looks, IF, and that is a big IF, it is viewed on an interlaced television.

However, if that DVD is later viewed on a Computer, or a Progressive scan TV, with a progressive scan DVD player, there is a big difference in quality. So for anyone not making progressive scan DVD's these days, it seems rather silly, as more and more progressive scan televisions, and HD televisions in general are populating the market.

Other than that, the 24p DVD does allow for 20% more room on the DVD, so there is another incentive.
 
stabsteer said:
I too am not sure why most anyone on this board would actually shoot 24PA and edit on a 24P timeline, only to burn a DVD. Does this actually 'look' different on the DVD/TV than the other way around?
Click to expand...
Yes, depending on the TV. If you're playing on a progressive-scan player, to a progressive-capable TV, the 24p-native DVD will look noticeably better than a 29.97-edited DVD.

So, even though the majority of projects anyone here will never end up on actual film, is it better to shoot/edit as 24PA-24Timeline or the 24P-29.97 timeline?
Click to expand...
If you're shooting 24p, and like the look of 24p, it's much better to shoot 24pa and edit on a 24p timeline and output a 24p dvd. You get better quality footage on a progressive DVD player, and you get less compression (or more running time on the disc at a comparable compression level).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top