So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

Just to back up my statements, I may do some tests doing a frame-by-frame comparison of the outputs of both methods (i.e., 24p in a 29.97 timeline vs. 24p in a 24p timeline exported as 24p). However, work is kind of busy right now so I may not get to it until the weekend.

Yes, in my opinion, 24pa is best for PPro 1.5. (I'm curious as to what others think, though.)

My opinion might change later with bug fixes or future versions that might provide a useful "Interpret Footage" function.

But somebody at Adobe decided DVX100 users would never, ever want to use 24p footage in a 29.97 timeline, and would prefer to *always* have the pulldown removed -- thereby defeating the flexibility of 24pn to go either way.

As a result, in PPro 1.5, 24pn works like a buggier version of 24pa. Sad but true.
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

[quote author=Kevin_Corcoran link=board=Premier;num=1089410878;start=15#20 date=07/13/04 at 08:14:49]
As a result, in PPro 1.5, 24pn works like a buggier version of 24pa.[/quote]
I don't want to be too hard on PPro. It's not *that* buggy. A little inflexible yes.

The bugs I'm talking about are the strobing issues in overexposed areas. The reason I say 24pn is buggier is because PPro will add the strobe twice in 24pn footage -- once on import and again on export. 24pa will only get the strobe on export.

But the strobing is not that big an issue, the Broadcast Colors filter will fix it.
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

Kevin,

I'm still floating around the forums here and Adobe watching more and more people realize this is a problem.

One thing though, I still have not had any luck using the Broadcast Colors filter to fix the strobing in 24pn footage.

And another thing that is really getting to me, is that there is no response to be had from any dept or person in Adobe about problems like this. It just seems like such a big thing (one that makes it impossible to use PPro 1.5 for me now). If I wouldn't have had version 1.0, I would be completely out of luck because I would not be able to edit my footage what so ever.

just another vent... thanks ;)
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

[quote author=Kevin_Corcoran link=board=Premier;num=1089410878;start=15#20 date=07/13/04 at 08:14:49]Just to back up my statements, I may do some tests doing a frame-by-frame comparison of the outputs of both methods (i.e., 24p in a 29.97 timeline vs. 24p in a 24p timeline exported as 24p). However, work is kind of busy right now so I may not get to it until the weekend.

Yes, in my opinion, 24pa is best for PPro 1.5. (I'm curious as to what others think, though.)

My opinion might change later with bug fixes or future versions that might provide a useful "Interpret Footage" function.

But somebody at Adobe decided DVX100 users would never, ever want to use 24p footage in a 29.97 timeline, and would prefer to *always* have the pulldown removed -- thereby defeating the flexibility of 24pn to go either way.

As a result, in PPro 1.5, 24pn works like a buggier version of 24pa. Sad but true.[/quote]

kevin,

check out this site especially the section on when to shoot 24pn. of course you may have already.

http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html#Introduction

this is a lot to digest for a small brain, but let me know if i'm on the right track here.

you shoot in 24pn, it's recorded on the tape as 60i (i.e. flags have been placed on the tape for an editting system to read, or maybe pulldown has taken place). ppro can only interpret this as 24p (meaning it now removes the pulldown)?? ppro now allows you to edit in a 60i or 24p timeline but it still considers the footage 24p. upon export to a ntsc, dvd, or whatever 60i project, it now must do the pulldown all over again (24p to 60i)? is that correct at all?

i tried importing 24pn into both timelines (60i,24p). you're right. you do have to render the footage in a 60i (rendered quickly however). I THINK the only advantage in using a 60i timeline is that it may be possible to use a matrox (or some other card) to speed up rendering? i think that's what "iamloser" has been suggesting in the posts above?

what are you using your 24p footage for (film,dvd,tv etc..)?
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

Desperado,

I just wrote this horrendously long explaination for you and then ditched it cuzz i feel you know it already. :)

but to answer your question in far fewer words and a bit simply, from what I know, Kevin back me up or show me the light...

Premiere does not actually remove the extra fields from 60i footage, it simply just skips them when playing back the footage.

The term "Pulldown" is what happens inside your DVX camera, not what happens in premiere. "Pulldown" is the process of expanding 48 fields per second (24 frames per second the DVX shoots) by duplicating some of the fields so that after 1 second it has 60 fields. Basically there are 12 fields that are duplicates made from some of the fields in the original 48 that were shot.

Those 60 fields (48 original and 12 dups) are all digitized via Premiere. When Premiere plays them back, as said, it simply skips the duplicates.

If the footage is shot in 24pn, there is some slight degradation in the original 48 fields because of the way they were combined with the 12 duplicates.

If the footage is shot in 24pa, there is no degradation in the original 48 fields because they were combined in a (smarter... more smart :) way with the 12 duplicates.

When exporting your Premiere 24p project to a 60i format (such as a dv tape), yes, Premiere must NOT skip the 12 duplicates... it MUST play back all 60 fields instead of only the 48 original.

Here's what seems to be the catch. Instead of simply not skipping the 12 duplicates, Premiere does what your DVX camera already did, all over again. It takes the original 48 fields (completely ignoring the 12 duplicates the DVX made) and does the pulldown AGAIN. So again, it made 12 NEW duplicates from the original 48.

Now, depending on what you have set in your playback setting (interlaced or repeat frame) is whether Premiere outputs to tape as 24pn or 24pa.

This is another thing that struck me as odd. Why does Adobe call it "repeat frame" and "interlaced frame" instead of 24pn or 24pa???? It makes me feel they are treating me like Apple treats their customers.

In any case, "repeat frame" is 24pa and "interlaced frame" is 24pn.

Lastly, the whole thing with the Matrox card. Basically, if you digitize through a specialty card such as the Matrox card or Canopus card, you are not digitizing into the Microsoft DV codec (MSDV) which Premiere uses by default. Premiere can only recognize the 24pn or 24pa flags in material encoded in MSDV. For example, if I capture material via my Canopus DVStorm, it encodes it to "Canopus DV". (Yes, there are different types of dv codecs).

Adobe Premiere does not recognize the 24pn flags in CanopusDV encoded material, so I am actually editing it all in 60i (meaning Premiere doesn't even bother with this whole ordeal of skipping fields and then creating them, etc. etc. etc.)

So, editing with the Canopus or Matrox cards, you are NOT actually editing ONLY the original 48 fields... instead, you are editing all 60 fields (48 original and 12 duplicates that were made in your DVX).

I'm gonna stop here cuzz i went and made a long response again. Hope you made it through.

thanks
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

malfunction, malfuction, brain overload!!! wow, where to start?

 When exporting your Premiere 24p project to a 60i format (such as a dv tape), yes, Premiere must NOT skip the 12 duplicates... it MUST play back all 60 fields instead of only the 48 original.  
 Here's what seems to be the catch.  Instead of simply not skipping the 12 duplicates, Premiere does what your DVX camera already did, all over again.  It takes the original 48 fields (completely ignoring the 12 duplicates the DVX made) and does the pulldown AGAIN.  So again, it made 12 NEW duplicates from the original 48.  

your saying that there is more or less a second loss of quality?

 Now, depending on what you have set in your playback setting (interlaced or repeat frame) is whether Premiere outputs to tape as 24pn or 24pa. how could they use a term like interlaced as a referance to anything 24p?

Lastly, the whole thing with the Matrox card.  Basically, if you digitize through a specialty card such as the Matrox card or Canopus card, you are not digitizing into the Microsoft DV codec (MSDV) which Premiere uses by default.  Premiere can only recognize the 24pn or 24pa flags in material encoded in MSDV.  For example, if I capture material via my Canopus DVStorm, it encodes it to "Canopus DV". (Yes, there are different types of dv codecs).

 
 So, editing with the Canopus or Matrox cards, you are NOT actually editing ONLY the original 48 fields... instead, you are editing all 60 fields (48 original and 12 duplicates that were made in your DVX).  

this sounds really weird! are you sure this is a good idea? of course you know those cards don't support 24p, but you must believe they don't support a true 24p project (i.e. 24p in a 24p timeline), or what then do they mean by not supporting 24p? couldn't they be causing a real lose of quality to your footage if they're not importing properly? but what you are saying is that as long as you are importing your 24p footage into a 60i timeline these cards are an asset??


again iamloser, my goals are to get a look as close to a film as possible. most of my stuff will be ntsc oriented. so, in this case you reccomend shooting 24pn, import with canopus or matrix card to a 29.97 timeline, right? however, i will be starting a project in sept. which i'm sure they will want to transfer to film if it goes well. in this case i believe it would be best to shoot it in 24pa, right?

thanks
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

[quote author=Desperado link=board=Premier;num=1089410878;start=15#25 date=07/13/04 at 17:04:09]your saying that there is more or less a second loss of quality?[/quote]
I don't think Lucas is suggesting there is a loss of quality, just that Premiere discards the DVX-created pulldown fields on import, and adds its own when you export or use the footage in a 29.97 timeline. Since the discarded pulldown fields and new pulldown fields are copies of original fields, there's no loss of quality.

Now, depending on what you have set in your playback setting (interlaced or repeat frame) is whether Premiere outputs to tape as 24pn or 24pa.
Click to expand...
Lucas, I didn't know that! I thought it was just for preview. I'll have to take a look.
 
So, editing with the Canopus or Matrox cards, you are NOT actually editing ONLY the original 48 fields... instead, you are editing all 60 fields (48 original and 12 duplicates that were made in your DVX).
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is why IAMLoser doesn't see the strobing -- I believe he is using a Matrox card.

Sounds like in that situtation, F5 in a 29.97 timeline might be worthwhile. (If that's your taste. Myself, I prefer F6 -> 24p timeline -> 24p DVD)

 this sounds really weird!  are you sure this is a good idea?
Click to expand...
When you think about it, Desperado, that's what you were trying to accomplish in the first place - 24pn footage in a 29.97 timeline, while still using the original DVX-generated pulldown.
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

yes.. it doesnt use the adobe render engine when using the matrox card, so it edits as regular 60i. however, im with you on prefferring to edit at 24p and output at 29..976 later if i need to, but its easier to just do it all in 29.976 and use the realtime features of the matrox card if i know i dont need 24p.
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

hi all,

Yes, using the Matrox or Canopus card you are editing in 60i... this is just another item that tells us that something is wrong with Premiere's pulldown and that its not something in the footage or otherwise.

And also why playing a clip in MediaPlayer, having captured in Premiere, works fine.

What we need is:

drumroll...

the option to turn off pulldown support in Premiere when we want to edit 24pn, and turn it on when we want to edit 24pa.

right? :)
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

Wow, I'm glad I haven't upgraded yet... This sounds like it could give me problems. I shoot in 24Pn and and edit everything in 29.97, I have no need for film out right now so I think I'll stick with Premiere Pro 1.0 until this is fixed.
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

Well, if the strobing problem only occurs on 24P footage when exporting to tape, might you not export the finished project to an AVI or uncompressed Quicktime, then using something like Vegas (if you have it) bring in the file, and immediately Print To Tape?
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

The current workaround (provided by Adobe) is to apply the ProcAmp effect. This sounds easier than exporting the file, importing into another program, and exporting again.

Also, if you try to work around the strobing problem by exporting, you need to make sure the file is a TRUE 24p with NO PULLDOWN FRAMES. It's the Adobe-generated pulldown frames that are displaying the problem, so if you export to an AVI with 24p Advanced pulldown, you will see the problem there as well.
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

Hello all.

Tried the proc amp workaround and it worked with some of the clips on the timeline. However, in some clips, very obvious artifacts became visible. All clips are slow-moed.

Any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks.
 
Re: So Adobe screwed us, Now what do we do?

What kind of artifacts? And they definitely weren't there before the ProcAmp filter was applied?
Can you fiddle with the settings?

Could you try another effect in place of ProcAmp, like Broadcast Colors, whch is pretty easy to use -- just limit luminance to 100 IRE.

Hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top