DVX100B 24P vs. 24PA

M

msteve0000

New member
Hello,

First ever post. I'm shooting a short film for a film festival. I want to shoot 24P and I'm confused over all the posts. First, I will be editing with Premiere Pro 1.5. and exporting to DVD. I've read that 24PA is the way to go. I also read that 24P gives you the film-look. What is the best way to film, capture and edit and export?

Thanks

MS
 
blackdogs377 said:
yea definately 24pA. 24p looses some resolution.
Click to expand...

The only difference between 24p and 24pA is the pulldown. One is meant to be edited in a 60i timeline (24p) and the other in a native 23.98 timeline. No resolution difference, although there might be a slight cadence difference.
 
And there's only a slight cadence difference if you're watching them without the pulldown removed. Other than that, they're identical.
 
That's so weird.
Why would a company spending millions on research and development bringing a camera to the market put two settings on it that are IDENTICALLY THE SAME?

More confused than ever now.
 
They aren't exactly identical.

But the only difference between them is how the progressive frames are split up and arranged in a 60i stream, which is necessary for recording to DV tape. They're both shot exactly the same way. They're only recorded slightly differently.

24pA exists because the original 24p frames can be extracted more efficiently, thus making it ideal for editing in native 24p. But it's not ideal for playback.

24p standard is the standard telecine pulldown which has been used to show 24p material on 60 hz TV for many decades. It's ideal for retaining the smoothest motion when played back, or when editing on a 29.97 timeline.

That's why both options are there.
 
quote:
>>Other than that, they're identical.<<

so, this then is not exactly correct, is it?

and this one:
>>They're both shot exactly the same way.<<

do you mean 'exposed' there (for 'shot')?
 
so 24pa and 24p will look different if raw footage is played back on a monitor/tv? one being less smoothe than the other??

But after editing it they look the same?
 
Last edited:
NoNoob said:
quote:
>>Other than that, they're identical.<<

so, this then is not exactly correct, is it?
Click to expand...

It is, because you're quoting me out of context. This was in reference to how 24p and 24pA appear on screen, not the technical difference between them. If you play them back from tape, the only difference you will see between the two is a slight difference in cadence, and even then, you may not see it.


and this one:
>>They're both shot exactly the same way.<<

do you mean 'exposed' there (for 'shot')?
Click to expand...

They are both acquired by reading the CCDs progressively, 23.976 times per second; all digital signal processing (DSP) is exactly the same except for how the 23.976 progressive frames per second are split up and arranged in a 59.94 interlaced stream.
 
jambredz said:
so 24pa and 24p will look different if raw footage is played back on a monitor/tv? one being less smoothe than the other??
Click to expand...

There is a possibility that 24pA may appear slightly more strobed when there's movement, yes. But it'll be slight, and sometimes you won't even see it.

But after editing it they look the same?
Click to expand...

If you remove the pulldown for both and edit them them exactly the same way, as native 24p, then yes, they are exactly the same.
 
All About The F.P.S.

All About The F.P.S.

Don't know if this is correct:
>>It is, because you're quoting me out of context.<<

I clipped exactly what you wrote. Then said it's not 'exactly' correct- right?

Let's try this 'work flow' scheme- hoping it makes some sense....

A flying spot scanner telecine uses 29.97 as a reference when duplicating film (normally exposed -here in the USA- @24ƒps) to 30ƒps NTSC video (RS170A) ---- is this also correct?

Digital storage (frame buffers) downstream of the scanner lose the eighth bit when converting to the analog medium through a type of alternating dropping of fields, right?
[the idea being that it will add up -smoothly- to the required 30ƒps in the end]

The 'plan' is to produce an accurate rendering of FILM to tape, appearing to the human eye to be smooth and precise- nearing that mythical pinnacle of 'film look'.

The difference of six frames needs to be made up somehow- yes?

With these handicams we're sporting, the two 24P & 24PA settings are meant to affect the result the other way- so a TRANSFER to film will be better.
Am I getting this right??

Therefore- one of the two settings is BETTER for that process, of getting the best look out of your digital footage when getting output (@4K resolution) to a film scanner??

If one is better then they cannot be 'exactly the same'- no?

One might be better for staying in the video realm though?

It is a kind of minutia that fascinates and boggles the inquiring mind.
{and thanks for helping in this dialog}
 
They are exactly the same except how the frames are split into fields and then arranged to fit into a 29.97 (actually 59.94) stream. The difference lies in which original frames are used, and in what order, to create those six "frames" you need to fill out the frame rate.

The 24pA arrangement is designed that so that in order to recreate the original frames, you need only blend field pairs back together into frames and then drop every fifth frame. That fifth frame will be the only frame in the group of five that's made from two fields of two different frames, and would show a comb artifact. So, it's dropped. And you're left with only the original 24p frames.

But the classic, telecine 2:3 pattern doesn't allow for that. The way it works, if you blend the fields together, you get three of the original frames and two blended frames right next to each which show artifacts. You can't drop just one of them; you still have a mixed frame. You can't drop both of them; you'd end up with only 20 frames per second. You actually have to take one field from the first blended frame, match it up with a field from the next blended frame, and discard the two leftover fields.

This is harder to do. At the very least, it takes more processing power, and depending how it's done, more RAM.

24pA is more efficient, because it's much easier. Blend/drop is all you have to do.

BUT, the two are exactly the same in terms of how they're shot.

Think of it as taking film, and taking two different ways of cutting it apart. Either way you do it, it started out the same, right? Same concept. One is not "higher quality" than the other, is what the concern most people seem to have over the two.

Also, one is not "real" or "true" 24p while the other isn't. They're both actual 23.976 progressive frames per second. Same resolution, same color, same gamma, same everything.
 
Might anyone have any scene file settings they could suggest for getting the most filmic look with the DVX100? I'll be shooting outside. I know that they're situation-specific and will most likely need tweaking, but I'm looking for something I can start with as a base that folks have had success with. Thanks very much for your time!
 
Thanks David. I should have mentioned that I am borrowing this camera from a friend, and he's already messed with all of the preset scene file settings. Is there somewhere that the default settings are listed?
 
You can restore the default settings by going into the scene file menu and choosing load/save/init, and choosing "initial".
 
Thanks Barry, will do. If you or anyone has any tweaking tips that have gotten you closer to the filmic look, please let me know. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top