Premiere Pro CS4 issue

[David Jimerson]

Exactly. Ditch the pulldown. Since the OP is already editing in an application that can remove pulldown, there is no reason to add it back

I don't disagree; I said it a couple of times.

"Never" is quite a strong word. You're limiting this perspective to common "pro" software.

No, I'm not. I mean any software. From Windows Movie Maker to iMovie, from Windows Media Player to the Quicktime viewer, from Adobe Media Player to anything else, if it can play DV, it can play 24p DV with 2:3:3:2 pulldown without a hiccup.

And any editor which can edit DV can edit 24p DV with 2:3:3:2 pulldown the same as it can with 2:3 pulldown, or just plain 60i.

(You can also play the tape of your 24pA footage back in any (NTSC) DV camcorder with no problems at all.)

Many players , editors, and software get hung up on pulldown , especially 2:3:3:2 pulldown, without the use of special treatment or scripts. e.g. Virtualdub, VLC, Mplayer, KMPlayer, MPCHC, many , many more

They don't. They just play it as 60i DV. They don't know what the pulldown cadence is at all. They simply see 60i video which they play just like any other 60i video.

The only software which DOES know would be editing/effects/DVD authoring software which can recognize and remove pulldown from the stream, and in every case, they can remove 2:3:3:2 pulldown -- but not every one can remove 2:3 pulldown.

So, in actuality, in any software where pulldown cadence could be in issue, it's better to use 2:3:3:2.

Standard 3:2 or 2:3 pulldown is handled more easily in those applications, because it's more common (e.g. retail DVD's)

A software player playing a 24p DVD would simply display the 23.976 stream and ignore any pulldown flags.

24p native (not referring to 24p in 60i) will be far more compatible in any application, wouldn't you agree?

Sure -- all other things being equal. I didn't say otherwise.

That's the point - forget pulldown, and I agree 2:3:3:2 is better than standard pulldown if the intent was to edit , because you can just discard fields and recover progressive content more easily . But 24p (as in real 24p) will have far less incompatiblities in all programs.

There simply will be no incompatiblities with any program which can handle DV.

The only problem, as I said, might be how the motion may appear, due to the 24pA arrangement. But that's NOT a player or playback issue. It's not a compatibility issue.

 

[PDR]

The only problem, as I said, might be how the motion may appear, due to the 24pA arrangement. But that's NOT a player or playback issue. It's not a compatibility issue.

I guess we are defining "compatibility" a bit differently. The motion will appear incorrectly or not as intended, and that is a problem.

They just play it as 60i DV. They don't know what the pulldown cadence is at all. They simply see 60i video which they play just like any other 60i video.

Yes. And that is a problem because 60i isn't the same thing as 24pA. The software "thinks" it's a "normal" 60i stream and doesn't discard the last and first field of a 2:3 field group of 10 fields (B3 and C1, if it was depicted as A1,A2,B1,B2,B3,C1,C2,D1,D2,D3). i.e it doesn't remove pulldown properly. Treating it as a 60i video is the wrong thing to do.

Not all software identifies this pattern and discards B3,C1. Instead they will either separate fields , blend deinterlace, drop field deinterlace, or bob deinterlace with or without interpolation, because they assume it's 60i. They see all the fields without the proper discard.

A drop field deinterlace will keep either the middle B or C field depending on top or bottom field, so you will get a studder repeat. A bob deinterlace will keep that garbage frame and it will be mixed of B & C, and you will get a studder. For software that doesn't understand 24pA, you can't recover the proper 24p frames (well you can, by decimating at regular interval afterwards if you didn't do any editing), hence my earlier recommendation to remove the pulldown while you can

 

[David Jimerson]

Look, as to the notion that straight 23.976p files are better (again, all other things being equal) for editing as 24p than files where you have to remove pulldown, then sure. No argument.

But you're making it sound like the 2:3:3:2 pulldown pattern will cause problems with a software DV player. It won't. The DV player will see it as DV and play it just fine, every time. DV players don't deinterlace.

And there's a difference between deinterlacing and removing pulldown, besides. You never want to try to deinterlace 24p footage, whichever pulldown pattern you're using. You'll end up with a mess either way (but, if you're blending fields, 2:3:3:2 pulldown would actually come out BETTER because there's only one resulting mixed frame; 2:3 pulldown will have two . . . which is the whole point of the difference in the patterns to begin with -- blend each 2:3:3:2 frame pair and drop every fifth frame starting with C, presto, 24p. 2:3 pulldown is much more complicated).

Bottom line is, there's enough confusion out there about 24p and pulldown; I don't want people thinking their 2:3:3:2 footage can't be played in any player, that you need special software for it, that you need special editing software even to view it. You don't.

 

[PDR]

Look, as to the notion that straight 23.976p files are better (again, all other things being equal) for editing as 24p than files where you have to remove pulldown, then sure. No argument.

But you're making it sound like the 2:3:3:2 pulldown pattern will cause problems with a software DV player. It won't. The DV player will see it as DV and play it just fine, every time. DV players don't deinterlace.

And there's a difference between deinterlacing and removing pulldown, besides. You never want to try to deinterlace 24p footage, whichever pulldown pattern you're using. You'll end up with a mess either way (but, if you're blending fields, 2:3:3:2 pulldown would actually come out BETTER because there's only one resulting mixed frame; 2:3 pulldown will have two . . . which is the whole point of the difference in the patterns to begin with -- blend each 2:3:3:2 frame pair and drop every fifth frame starting with C, presto, 24p. 2:3 pulldown is much more complicated).

Bottom line is, there's enough confusion out there about 24p and pulldown; I don't want people thinking their 2:3:3:2 footage can't be played in any player, that you need special software for it, that you need special editing software even to view it. You don't.

OK sorry if some folks were getting confused...

Look - all I'm saying is there are cases where 24pA isn't handled properly, when you implied it *always* works properly which clearly isn't the case. Actually, this thread was started because the OP had such a case when exporting 24pA.

I've given some examples of popular software e.g. virtualdub, avisynth, several software players. And those are exactly the times where pulldown isn't removed properly, and it is treated as a 60i stream.

And there's a difference between deinterlacing and removing pulldown,

Exactly. Big difference. And if the software cannot distinguish between the 2, you have problems.

Anyways, I've had enough, not trying to make a big issue out of this, just clarifying issues

Cheers

 

[David Jimerson]

You will NEVER have a problem if you treat it as 60i file. You will only have a problem if you tell your software to remove the wrong kind of pulldown, in which case, you are not treating it as a 60i file.

The only "problem" is strictly in visual motion cadence. But those "problems" aren't because of the software. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the arrangement of fields in the 2:3:3:2 pattern and how they appear onscreen -- which they will if you play the tape straight from the camera, too. It's not a technical issue. It's not an interpretation issue. It's not an issue of not being able to remove pulldown properly or the software being confused. It's entirely, completely, a visual issue, which is because 2:3:3:2 pulldown isn't meant to be watched. It is no more a problem of the video player than poor lighting or lousy composition is a problem of the video player. It's simply inherently what the footage is.

There is nothing wrong with the file. There is nothing wrong with the software. There is no incompatibility and there is no problem. The only way it's not being "handled" properly is humanly -- expecting it to be good for something it's not, nor was it ever intended to be. Any problems -- and I do mean ANY problems -- you have in virtualdub or avisynth is because you, the operator, are using it to do something you shouldn't be doing.

Exactly. Big difference. And if the software cannot distinguish between the 2, you have problems.

Distinguish between the two what? The software either removes pulldown or it doesn't. Deinterlacing is an entirely separate function, for an entirely separate purpose, and no software confuses the two. They are fundamentally different things.

 

[PDR]

You will NEVER have a problem if you treat it as 60i file. You will only have a problem if you tell your software to remove the wrong kind of pulldown, in which case, you are not treating it as a 60i file.

Yes. If you keep it as a 60i file (ie. do nothing to it :happy:.) But the problem is, in order to return the 24p frames, you need to drop B3, and C1 from the 10 field set as described above. Not all software does this properly. There is no problem if you intend to keep it as is in a 60i stream, but then you can't watch 24p as it was meant to be played, nor can it be edited properly without proper pulldown removal (the cadence can be messed up if the B3,C1 fields aren't dropped when doing cuts & appending).

The only "problem" is strictly in visual motion cadence. But those "problems" aren't because of the software. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the arrangement of fields in the 2:3:3:2 pattern and how they appear onscreen -- which they will if you play the tape straight from the camera, too. It's not a technical issue. It's not an interpretation issue. It's not an issue of not being able to remove pulldown properly or the software being confused. It's entirely, completely, a visual issue, which is because 2:3:3:2 pulldown isn't meant to be watched. It is no more a problem of the video player than poor lighting or lousy composition is a problem of the video player. It's simply inherently what the footage is.

I agree that it's NOT meant to be watched. It's a format meant for delivery for the ease of recovery of the 24pN frames - but not all software can handle that cadence. I've said that from my very first reply in this thread. I also described exactly what happens when it is watched.

Again this is where are our definitions of "compatible" diverge. I guess you could say, it's not entirely "compatible" for viewing

But, if you watch it with software that can properly do the removal, you can watch it "properly." For example, if you watch it in the preview window of your editor, internally it's treated as 24pN because the B3,C1 fields have been dropped.

There is nothing wrong with the file. There is nothing wrong with the software. There is no incompatibility and there is no problem. The only way it's not being "handled" properly is humanly -- expecting it to be good for something it's not, nor was it ever intended to be. Any problems -- and I do mean ANY problems -- you have in virtualdub or avisynth is because you, the operator, are using it to do something you shouldn't be doing.

If you are using software that can't handle the pulldown removal, then you have to leave it as is , and it's not "watchable" as it was meant to be watched (as a 24p native stream). You were implying that everything can do proper pulldown removal , which is clearly not the case.

Distinguish between the two what? The software either removes pulldown or it doesn't. Deinterlacing is an entirely separate function, for an entirely separate purpose, and no software confuses the two. They are fundamentally different things.

Yes , they are different things, and that the point I'm trying to make. I was replying to your comments that the software treats the streams as 60i - which is true. And in the case of playback software, they normally do a variation of deinterlacing on the fly, either bob, blend, or interpolate modes or variations of drop field (top or bottom) => This causes a problem when you attempt to watch; not end of the world problems, but clearly worse than if you had removed pulldown. At least we both agree it's not meant to be watched. Had a proper pulldown removal been done (e.g. in an editor like premiere) , there would be no problem.

 

[Hazel Parker]

Armislano: Do you understand how to choose settings in Premiere Pro CS4? There are eight to choose from under the AVCHD menu and I can't figure out which is correct, like 1080i 25, 30, 60I, anamorphic, etc. Does it make much difference which one I choose? Thank you.

 

[armisiano]

Armislano: Do you understand how to choose settings in Premiere Pro CS4? There are eight to choose from under the AVCHD menu and I can't figure out which is correct, like 1080i 25, 30, 60I, anamorphic, etc. Does it make much difference which one I choose? Thank you.

I'm never the guy to ask these questions, lol. Also, I haven't worked much with HD, and it sounds like you're working with HD. Sorry. Best ask someone else.

 

[David Jimerson]

You were implying that everything can do proper pulldown removal , which is clearly not the case.

No. In fact, I'm pretty sure I was quite clearly not saying that, in the slightest. Could the half-dozen times I said "they just play it as 60i."

But I'll leave that to others to decide for themselves.

 

[David Jimerson]

Armislano: Do you understand how to choose settings in Premiere Pro CS4? There are eight to choose from under the AVCHD menu and I can't figure out which is correct, like 1080i 25, 30, 60I, anamorphic, etc. Does it make much difference which one I choose? Thank you.

Hazel, choose the setting which matches your footage -- frame size and frame rate. If you don't know what you shot, you should be able to see the frame rate and frame size in the Project panel (though you may have to make the panel bigger to see all the columns of metadata).

You don't have to create a sequence before you import footage, so you should be able to look at your footage with no problem.

 

[PDR]

You were implying that everything can do proper pulldown removal , which is clearly not the case.

No. In fact, I'm pretty sure I was quite clearly not saying that, in the slightest. Could the half-dozen times I said "they just play it as 60i."

And that's the reason I worded it "implying" ; because earlier you stated:

There's no player or editor which would get hung up on 2:3:3:2 pulldown at all. Incompatibility would never be an issue.

Which implies that every editor or player can remove 2:3:3:2 pulldown - because in fact they *do* get hung up when you don't remove pulldown.

Why do you think this thread was started in the first place? It was a playback issue!

What do you think happens when you edit 24pA without removing pulldown first ? (ie treating 24pA footage as 60i)

And guess what? Many software have filters and provisions for 2:3 or 3:2 pulldown removal - or IVTC - because the telecine pattern is so prevalent. It's found everywhere, from DVD's , to Broadcast, to consumer level camcorders, so it makes sense that a lot of software can handle this. Many players , encoders, etc... can even IVTC on the fly.

Conversely, 2:3:3:2 is quite rare and only found in pro/prosumer camcorders, and pro/prosumer editing suites. And as I said earlier - and we are in agreement - all can handle 24p (as native, no pulldown)

Early you stated:

What not all editors can do is remove 24p standard pulldown, while every editor which can remove pulldown can remove 24pA (2:3:3:2) pulldown.

Which is wrong. Many editing and encoding applications (e.g. virtualdub, avidemux, ffmpeg) have an IVTC filter that can handle 2:3 or 3:2 standard pulldown, but not 2:3:3:2. And these aren't some obscure applications either, there are hundreds of thousands - probably millions - of users.

Now perhaps we have different definitions of what is "hung up", or "incompatibility" , but I'll leave that to others to decide.


Cheers



PS . Sorry for the tread hijack, and I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing... I'm trying to convey the truth, because threads like this get started all the time and it's important to understand why you're getting combing artifacts , or why your edit is all screwed up, instead of brushing it aside and saying "there are no incompatibilities".

 

[David Jimerson]

PS . Sorry for the tread hijack, and I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing... I'm trying to convey the truth, because threads like this get started all the time and it's important to understand why you're getting combing artifacts , or why your edit is all screwed up, instead of brushing it aside and saying "there are no incompatibilities".

OK, look. At this point, you are arguing simply to argue, because you're twisting what I said, and you've done it several times. What I said was clear, I "brushed" NOTHING "aside" . . . and VirtualDub is not an editor. Not going to go around this merry-go-round again, because it will just add to the confusion.

Bottom line, for people new to this game who might be scared off by all of this talk of what can handle what -- you need no special player or software to view or edit your DVX footage, whether you used 24p standard or 24pA. Anything which handles DV will handle it. 24p standard is better if it doesn't handle 24p natively, but 24pA would still work. If it's not 24p-aware, it will simply play it just like any other 60i DV file (which means on the computer screen, you will see some interlacing, just like you will with 60i footage). That's the "truth," and the sum total of everything I said.

There are enough people out there scared to try 24p because they think they need to invest in something expensive or "professional" even to watch it, or that they're screwed if they shot 24pA, and it's just not the case. It's DV.