No extra steps, unless you need to see only 24 frames in your timeline as needed to do a film out. See my above post.
Forgive me, Idiot question.
- Thread starter Ryan Patrick O'Hara
- Start date
No extra steps, unless you need to see only 24 frames in your timeline as needed to do a film out. See my above post.
Well then Cinema tools is his best option.
Yes, it will. I mean I hope it will. I have never really used Cinema tools for this type of thing, so I will leave the how to to someone who knows this side.
Last edited:
Nexis
Well-known member
If I can throw in my two cents here, there's another important reason to shoot using pA rather than p if you are editing in FCP - FCP does not have the correct codec to automatically remove the pulldown on 24p footage. Go ahead and take a look at the DVCProHD codecs and you'll find one for 24pA but not 24p.
Thus, unless you want to have to use Cinema Tools, shoot pA. End of discussion.
P.S. Ryan, if it's any consolation, I learned this lesson the hard way too.
Thus, unless you want to have to use Cinema Tools, shoot pA. End of discussion.
P.S. Ryan, if it's any consolation, I learned this lesson the hard way too.
Jimmy Moss
Well-known member
The thread is confusing but here is a little quote from the famous Barry Green HVX book. (and if you don't already have it, you should buy one).
"The main difference as to when to choose which mode is determined by how you intend to edit the footage: if you are going to edit it on a 24p timeline, using a program that understands 24PA pulldown, its better to shoot in 24pA. If youre going to edit it on a 60i timeline, (or you dont know how the footage will be edited) its better to shoot regular 24p. The choice between 24p (2:3) and 24PA is one of editing convenience."
"The difference is, 24PA footage can be reconstituted to its original 24 distinct frames easier and with no uncompression/recompression, something thats not as easy to do with 24p 2:3 footage. As you can see in the example, all of the original frames exist in their original un-blended, un-compromised form; all the editing program needs to do is discard the "split frame" and it can directly edit with the original, pure progressive frames."
Your client is seeing interlaced lines becuase DVCPRO in 1080 rez can only be recorded as 60i. It takes the 24 true progressive frames and slips it into video fields (60i) because thats what the codec/recording medium supports. They have to do it that way otherwise everytime a new format came out you might have to upgrade your entier edit suite to support it. This way its more widly compatible with programs/gear.
So like everyone said, he needs to take his footage into cinema tools and remove the pulldown (aka, decompress and recombine the video fields into true progressive frames) Then he will have TRUE 24p footage.
PS What version of FCP his he running?
"The main difference as to when to choose which mode is determined by how you intend to edit the footage: if you are going to edit it on a 24p timeline, using a program that understands 24PA pulldown, its better to shoot in 24pA. If youre going to edit it on a 60i timeline, (or you dont know how the footage will be edited) its better to shoot regular 24p. The choice between 24p (2:3) and 24PA is one of editing convenience."
"The difference is, 24PA footage can be reconstituted to its original 24 distinct frames easier and with no uncompression/recompression, something thats not as easy to do with 24p 2:3 footage. As you can see in the example, all of the original frames exist in their original un-blended, un-compromised form; all the editing program needs to do is discard the "split frame" and it can directly edit with the original, pure progressive frames."
Your client is seeing interlaced lines becuase DVCPRO in 1080 rez can only be recorded as 60i. It takes the 24 true progressive frames and slips it into video fields (60i) because thats what the codec/recording medium supports. They have to do it that way otherwise everytime a new format came out you might have to upgrade your entier edit suite to support it. This way its more widly compatible with programs/gear.
So like everyone said, he needs to take his footage into cinema tools and remove the pulldown (aka, decompress and recombine the video fields into true progressive frames) Then he will have TRUE 24p footage.
PS What version of FCP his he running?
Ah, but thats the confusion that always occurs over 24p. There doesnt need to be a "24p" timeline, as its really 29.97. But again the resulting output for broadcast to tv or output to DVD, shows it with pulldown and it looks every bit the same as 24PA. Just a different workflow.
Dont you mean - Thus, unless you want to have to use Cinema Tools because your going to film out OR need to cut the footage in a 23.98 timeline, shoot pA. End of discussion.
?
Many times clients make decisions, judgments, and accusations based on erroneous information and assumptions. I think that your client believed you were shooting 1080 24p “native.” Hence his accusation that you didn’t shoot “true” progressive. There is no 1024p native, unless they want to record to tape on something like HDcamSR. It is up to us as video professionals to educate clients prior to the shoot about the various options available to them. In order to do that we need to understand when it is appropriate to shoot 1080pa or 1080p. Both are viable options and both have their place. It is not up to us to dictate to them what to use because some edit software can’t deal with 24p vs 24pa without additional software (e.g. CinemaTools).
It is incorrect to say always shoot 24pa. I agree with everything Barry Green explains in his book, regarding 24p vs. 24pa. Always give the client the option. Be proactive. Ask questions of him/her up front. “How will this footage be used? Will it go into a 60i timeline and stay in that format? Will it need to be mixed with 24 native footage? “ This will put an end to the accusations later on after the shoot wraps.
The bottom line is, with the low cost of editing software nowadays everyone thinks they can be an editor. Most do not have the technological knowledge necessary to jump into that role. Then, when something happens that they do not understand they start accusing the videographer.
When confronted with this, I guess your short answer should be, “I shot true progressive recorded with an interlaced codec as requested.” If they don’t understand that, they should hire a professional editor who understands the issue and can deal with it.
Suggestion: 1080 24p(really 60i using 2:3 pulldown) is used if it will stay 60i. 1080 24pa (which is also 60i but using 2:3:3:2) is only a holding tank for your 24progressive footage. The extra frames must be discarded before being used in a 24 frame timeline. In other words think of 1080p for shooting and finishing/viewing. 1080pa is for shooting and is a holding tank for the progressive frames until they can be extracted for post production.
Sorry this is so long winded. Hope it helps.
Stephen Beecher
Flame Artist, Disney ABC Television Group
It is incorrect to say always shoot 24pa. I agree with everything Barry Green explains in his book, regarding 24p vs. 24pa. Always give the client the option. Be proactive. Ask questions of him/her up front. “How will this footage be used? Will it go into a 60i timeline and stay in that format? Will it need to be mixed with 24 native footage? “ This will put an end to the accusations later on after the shoot wraps.
The bottom line is, with the low cost of editing software nowadays everyone thinks they can be an editor. Most do not have the technological knowledge necessary to jump into that role. Then, when something happens that they do not understand they start accusing the videographer.
When confronted with this, I guess your short answer should be, “I shot true progressive recorded with an interlaced codec as requested.” If they don’t understand that, they should hire a professional editor who understands the issue and can deal with it.
Suggestion: 1080 24p(really 60i using 2:3 pulldown) is used if it will stay 60i. 1080 24pa (which is also 60i but using 2:3:3:2) is only a holding tank for your 24progressive footage. The extra frames must be discarded before being used in a 24 frame timeline. In other words think of 1080p for shooting and finishing/viewing. 1080pa is for shooting and is a holding tank for the progressive frames until they can be extracted for post production.
Sorry this is so long winded. Hope it helps.
Stephen Beecher
Flame Artist, Disney ABC Television Group
No, I disagree strongly, respectfully.
There was only ever one reason to edit 24 fps material in a 29.97 (59.94) stream, and that's because there was only 29.97 video (in the NTSC world).
But that's not true anymore. Now, technology allows you never to touch 29.97 until you have to for displaying on a 29.97 screen. And if you can, you should do that as you very last step, i.e, at output to tape, or outputting 24p material from a DVD player to a standard TV.
Now, of course, when recording to a 29.97-only codec like DV or 1080 DVCPRO HD, the accomodation has to be made when you record it. But that's the whole purpose of 24pA -- making it the easiest to get back out of it in order to edit.
You appear to me to be saying that the right way to edit is to shoot 24p standard and edit as 29.97 unless you're planning to go to film, and I disagree entirely. Your output should not matter UNTIL you get to the output stage. If you have 24p material, you should be editing as 24p regardless of your output, because it's the natural timebase of the footage, and because you still retain all output options when you do -- which is NOT so if you edit as 29.97. And anyone who's seen a local TV commercial with 60i text on top of 24p video (one possible result of editing 24p as 29.97), they've seen how badly the motion cadence between the two can clash.
If you create a 29.97 DVD, the material is inherently interlaced and there are interlaced frames in the video. If you were to display these frames on a progressive display without doing a deinterlacing, you would see them. I see them all the time on my HDTV when displaying interlaced material from a DVD. Now, my TV is an older model and it doesn't automatically deinterlace an interlaced stream, so that's why I see them. It's true that you won't see them on a TV which automatically deinterlaces, but you are compromising the picture by deinterlacing. True, there may be line doubling and uprezzing and other processing which makes it less noticeable, but it's mathematically impossible to deinterlace without compromise.
Every Hollywood movie is put on DVD as 24p, not as 29.97 (at least in NTSC land); if it didn't matter, they probably wouldn't do it.
So, I disagree. Shooting 24pA and editing as 24p is the most flexible, frame-accurate, full-option way to go. Unless you HAVE to edit as 29.97 (it's the only editor you can use, or you're mixing with another frame rate that you can't (30p) or don't want to (60i for reality purposes) convert to 24p, then you should shoot 24pA. As for archiving, if you NEED to edit on a 29.97 timeline at some point in the future, you can still take 24pA footage, put it on a 24p timeline, and output it as 29.97 with a 2:3 pulldown cadence -- you will have converted it to 24p standard footage, and assuming no edits or FX or any need for recompression, you will not have lost anything by doing so. (You can also use a conversion app to do it.)
:beer:
Yeah David, reading my post it could be taken that way on the face of it. As I did say "shoot 24pa when going for a film out". So I will clarify.
I would always shoot 24pa unless, as I mentioned in an earlier post, and this is where 24p still has a place, if I a mixing in a bunch of footage shot at 60i, such as sports, or footage archived to 60i. If I know that going in, and its not going to be a film out project, then to save all the messing around, I would shoot it 24p.
And appreciate your respectful approach and please take mine the same.
My actual disagreement with your post was
Because once output, 24p doesnt look interlaced and does not need to be de-interlaced.
Cheers.
Totally agree, and also if you're mixing with 30p, because the only timeline on which both can exist without one of them looking awful is a 60i timeline.
In my experience, though, it does. You won't (usually) see it on a standard TV, but I do see it on others.