I've been reading various posts on 2:3 and 2:3:3:2 pulldown settings.

What criteria determines which setting you should choose when shooting in the 24p mode on an XL2? When would you want to use 2:3? ...When would you want to use 2:3:3:2?

Is there a simple answer?

I'm editing in Final Cut Pro 5 and exporting to Quicktime and then compressing in Soreneson Squeeze for the web.

Any help on the subject or links to answers would be appreciated.

Thanks.

The short, basic answer is if your final output is intended for 35mm film transfer, shoot 2:3:3:2. Otherwise if your final output is intended for video, shoot 2:3.

Thanks Chris. I won't be doing any transferring to film, so 2:3 it is! I appreciate your quick answer. Now I can get on with shooting some footage on my new XL2 (purchased from Brian at Zotz), which so far seems to be just a great camera.

Derek--you just turned his reply upside down. 2:3:3:2 is for transfer to film.

No more coffee for me today...
(made the correction to 2:3 above, thanks Bill)

I know this is an older post I'm bringing alive, but while researching my own questions, I ran across it.

Derek, you have an identical camera/computer/software setup as me. When exploring the pulldown question, I ran across this:

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

It suggests that using the 2:3:3:2 pulldown (24P advanced or 24Pa) is the best option for me because of my ultimate workflow:

Shoot at 24Pa. XL2 automatically creates the 2:3:3:2 pulldown and converts the footage to 60i.
During the capture (using the DV-NTSC 24p (23.98) Easy Setup), FCP will automatically remove the pulldown and I will be editing on a 24P timeline. If the footage was shot with a 3:2 (2:3:2:3) pulldown, the DV video would need to be decompressed by another program, Cinema Tools, so the pulldown can be extracted. I've tried Cinema Tools to do this and I could never get it to work right.
I will edit on a 24P timeline.
Hopefully, this will allow me to edit my footage on my progressive computer monitor. Previously, I've edited on a 29.97 timeline and had all sorts of interlaced effects. If I am editing a 24 progressive timeline, hopefully my problem will be solved.
I plan on also viewing footage on a TV by sending the video out via firewire to my XL2 using a 3:2 pulldown (better quality than 2:3:3:2 for this purpose) to turn the footage back into NTSC for real time viewing on a TV through the XL2 video outputs.
Finally, I plan on making 24P DVDs. Since these are only 24 frames per second, they will take up less space (and potentially require less compression) than a normal NTSC DVD. Normal DVD players should apply the 3:2 pulldown when sending the signal to a television set.

I admit that I haven't put this whole plan into action but it seem technically correct based on the link I provided.

Please someone correct me if I am mistaken.

Thanks,

Kelly

I've always wondered about this a little bit. I understand the whole 2:3 for video 2:3:3:2 for film transfer, but the thing that throws me off is Premiere (which I edit with). In the Playback Settings in Premiere Pro, it has two options for "24p Pull-up Method": Repeat Frame (ABBCD) or Interlaced Frame (2:3:3:2). I leave the setting on the latter, but does that mean I should be filming my XL2 footage at 2:3:3:2 or 2:3? It's all just so confusing.

Brent,

I haven't used Premiere, so I am going to guess based on the technical aspects of the question.

The first pulldown is what the XL2 uses to convert 60i (29.97 fps) from the 24p (23.98 fps) you shot at. You can convert four frames to ten by either using a 2:3:2:3 (called 3:2 or 24P) pattern or 2:3:3:2 (called 24Pa) pattern.

If we weren't even talking about transferring to anything and were just going to watch the video as is, the answer would be simple: use the 3:2 pulldown. It will seem smoother and less "jerky" than the 2:3:3:2 pulldown simply because of the way the frames are converted and will be displayed. So that covers what you want the pulldown to be if you are going to just watch the video as is.

Scenerio 1: removing the pulldown during edit and leaving off for 24p DVD or adding back in for NTSC DVD.

If you choose to remove the pulldown when you transfer your footage from XL2 to computer, you will then be editing in 23.98 fps timeline. At this point, it doesn't matter what the pulldown originally was because it is removed (however, for technical reasons FCP doesn't automatically remove 24P, so for logistical reasons I shoot with 24Pa). Since the pulldown is removed, you are watching a simple 23.98 frames per second without any pulldown (replicate frames).

In this case, you can either burn 24p DVDs (the DVD player will add back the pulldown for the NTSC TV) or you can add back the pulldown (you'd want to use 3:2) to play directly back to an NTSC television. I guess you'd call adding back the pulldown as the "pullup" option you mentioned. I don't know why you'd want to add back the pulldown though since it makes your DVD files bigger and the DVD player would add it back anyway.

Scenerio 2: You don't remove the pulldown during edit

If, when you bring your footage into the software from the camera you DO NOT remove the pulldown, you will be editing at 29.97 fps. If this is the case, 3:2 will look better because of the "jerky" issue with the 2:3:3:2 pulldown. After editing, when you burn your DVD, you will ultimately either remove the pulldown (or do your pullup option) and have a smaller 24p DVD or just leave it as is and have a bigger NTSC DVD file.

I'm waiting for anyone to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks,

Kelly

2:3:3:2 pulldown is best, whether you intend to go to film or to DVD. It doesn't matter. Your ultimate result with 2:3:3:2 pulldown will be a 24p timeline and a 24p DVD with no lost frames in true 24 fps. And if you don't want a 24p movie then you shouldn't be shooting in 24p in the first place. 3:2 pulldown is just inferrior, unless you plan on going back to 29.97 interlaced. But then if that's the case you should just shoot in regular NTSC DV and forget the 24p.

Douglas

I've always wondered about this a little bit. I understand the whole 2:3 for video 2:3:3:2 for film transfer, but the thing that throws me off is Premiere (which I edit with). In the Playback Settings in Premiere Pro, it has two options for "24p Pull-up Method": Repeat Frame (ABBCD) or Interlaced Frame (2:3:3:2). I leave the setting on the latter, but does that mean I should be filming my XL2 footage at 2:3:3:2 or 2:3? It's all just so confusing.

Go to http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html and scroll down the page about half way. You will find a very easy to read, yet detailed explanation with graphical representation of the two methods. If you don't get it the first time, wait a little bit and read it again. It will make sense eventually.

regards,

-gb-

There is no "best" it depends mainly on how you want to work. If you want to work in a 24P timeline, you shoot 2:3:3:2. If you want to work in a normal 60i timeline you shoot in 2:3. In my experience footage looks best for everything EXCEPT film out when shot in 2:3 and edited in 60i. People will argue all day long so decide for yourself.

I find that people in general BY AND LARGE prefer the look of 30P for DVDs... go figure....



ash =o)

Thanks to everyone for posting on this.

Kelly: I'm anxious to try the workflow you suggested and appreciate you putting all the info together.

Douglas: on your comment - "And if you don't want a 24p movie then you shouldn't be shooting in 24p in the first place." 100% with you on that. That was one of the reasons at the top of my list for buying the XL2. And now that I've got the information on this thread I'm looking forward to doing EVERYthing from shooting all the way to exporting 24p(a).

-------

I thought that just buying the camera and flipping the switch to 24p would take care of everything. Guess not, but I'm glad to learn now since I've only shot a few tapes on the XL2. It will be best to get all this set up correctly the first time.

I'm going to be exporting the majority of my footage to the Internet so loosing the 6 frames per second before compression in Sorenson will work out well. Or... I may be able to set the quality up a notch or two and keep it the same file size.

It's all good. See you all around here.

24pA is also excellent for web movies, and as noted above 24p DVDs etc. etc. It also has the advantage that the file sizes are smaller after pulldown has been removed, so if you're putting the video on a laptop to edit, you can fit more on it.

24pA opens the door to a relatively easy 24p progressive workflow.

24pNormal is great for NLEs that don't understand advanced pulldown or don't allow a 24p timebase, or for integration with more analogue, tape to tape or other such ancient workflows where you'd still like the film look.

Graeme

2:3:3:2 pulldown is best, whether you intend to go to film or to DVD. It doesn't matter. Your ultimate result with 2:3:3:2 pulldown will be a 24p timeline and a 24p DVD with no lost frames in true 24 fps. And if you don't want a 24p movie then you shouldn't be shooting in 24p in the first place. 3:2 pulldown is just inferrior, unless you plan on going back to 29.97 interlaced. But then if that's the case you should just shoot in regular NTSC DV and forget the 24p.

Douglas


Thanks Douglas. Your comment summed it up the best for me. So just to verify this one more time (so I don't have to ask again). 2:3:3:2 keeps the footage in true 24p and requires a 24fps timeline in whatever software you use. 2:3 is for when a 24fps timeline is not available to you and you must edit on a 29.97fps timeline. Is this correct, or am I back to square one? Thanks for the replies.

yes that is correct. If you shoot in 2:3 you have no choice but to end up with 1/4 of your frames having screwy 1/48sec-off interlacing artifacts. 2:3:3:2 however puts 24p into 60i DV in such a way that all of the full progressive frames are completely recoverable assuming your software does 2:3:3:2 pulldown removal. We are used to seeing the cadence of 2:3 on DVD and on TV I believe, so 2:3:3:2 will look jittery until you get it in a computer as real 24p but assuming you are doing that, which you should be, 2:3:3:2 converted to real 24p will end up being the best to work with. I would also imagine that shooting in 2:3 and working in a 60i timeline with frame-accurate editing, you could easily get a really screwy 2:3 cadence where two hybrid frames get cut together (or anywhere but 4 frames apart) and that would make for would make for an occasionally jittery looking end product. So unless you are linear editing on dv decks or converting directly from dv to dvd or any workflow thats not going through an NLE or a film transfer... 2:3:3:2 makes the most sense.

At least thats how I understand it.

Brent,

Yes, you understand it correctly. G. Nattress is really the guy we should be asking the questions to (not me). Nattress turned me onto the 24p DVD workflow in the first place and his plug ins have saved my ass on more than one occasion.

And yes Nattress is correct to note that 3:2 pulldown largely still exists for people who use old school work flow or old NLEs that can't handle the advanced pulldown. But if you're using Final Cut Pro 4 or 5, you're golden on the 2:3:3:2.

Douglas

This is for anyone using the work flow process Kelly described up above -

Kelly,

I have the "Set Up" done as you described above. How about the capture settings though (under the "Sequence" menu)?

Before capturing, when setting the "Sequence Settings," should I change the "Editing Timebase" to 23.98 to match the "Easy SetUp"? I would think that would be the way to do it, but you never know....

I'll do that for now, but would like to see what you have to say on the subject.

Derek, I believe you are correct in the way you are setting it. However, I haven't actually gone through all the steps (I'll probably do that this weekend) because people have me shooting at different frame rates.

My thought is that you want your sequence and timeline to be at 23.98 because during capture the pulldown was removed and your footage should now be at 24p (23.98).

It is kind of strange because there is a 24 fps setting. Everything I read tells me that 24p is actually 23.98. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? When would you actually use "24?"

Thanks,

Kelly

I'm working on some footage right now (just to do the process) with 24pa footage. I did run into an issue with FCP wanting to convert my 16:9 footage to 4:3 (even though I had it set to anamorphic) when I used the "During the capture (using the DV-NTSC 24p (23.98) Easy Setup)"

So I switched to the "DV-NTYSC 24p (23.98) Advanced Pulldown Removal and this problem stopped. <the next setting down on the menu>

*** ...and as an added bonus for the folks watching from home right now, this made the 23.98 become standard in the sequence settings when capturing. Which would make my question above no longer applicable.***

Will doing this throw the 24p moons out of alignment?

So I switched to the "DV-NTYSC 24p (23.98) Advanced Pulldown Removal and this problem stopped.

Actually, this sounds like the most appropriate setting to begin with. I looked back at my original post and I see where I listed the other setting. The "Advanced Pulldown Removal" setting seems like the one to use. If it works out OK (and I bet it will), I'll go back and edit my original post.

In my experience footage looks best for everything EXCEPT film out when shot in 2:3 and edited in 60i.

Ash,

Are you saying that a DVD made from 2:3 footage looks better than one made from 2:3:3:2 footage? How so? In your opinion does the 2:3 footage DVD provide a smoother motion?

I haven't got one of these camera's yet and I've wondered if the DVD player's pulldown would remove the jerkiness of 24PA material.

Thanks.

Are you saying that a DVD made from 2:3 footage looks better than one made from 2:3:3:2 footage? How so? In your opinion does the 2:3 footage DVD provide a smoother motion?
I haven't got one of these camera's yet and I've wondered if the DVD player's pulldown would remove the jerkiness of 24PA material.
Thanks.

John, when you burn to a DVD that is going to be shown on an NTSC TV, from my understanding you are going to encode it one of two ways:

A. with 60 fps data (that was created with a 3:2 pulldown from 24 fps footage) or

B. encode it with 24 fps data (which the DVD player will use its own 3:2 pulldown and turn into 60 fps for the TV).

In the world of making DVDs to play on NTSC TVs, the only time that 24pA (2:3:3:2) footage should exist is between the camera and the computer when you are going to edit on a 24 fps timeline. The 2:3:3:2 pulldown is removed at the computer editing stage and then you are left with simple 24 frames per second. You edit and then you either give it back a 3:2 pulldown into 60i for DVD or you leave it at 24 fps and let the DVD player apply its own 3:2 pulldown.

Let me also make some clarifications:

When people talk about 24p or 24pA, they are not talking about footage that is CURRENTLY in a 24 frames per second format. They are talking about footage that was SHOT at 24 frames per second, was translated with a 3:2 or 2:3:3:2 pulldown and is CURRENTLY in a 60 fps format.

To sum up:

24p = footage shot at 24 fps, converted 3:2 into 60 fps (you can watch this directly, it will look smooth).
24pA = footage shot at 24 fps, converted 2:3:3:2 into 60 fps (if you watch this directly, it will look jerky)

Another note:

24pA footage is never meant to view directly. It is always meant to be converted back into a standard 24 fps wihout any pulldown so it can be edited or burned directly to DVD.

Thanks,

Kelly

Good thread. Yet there's still one question on my mind that begs asking... How come 2:3 can't be pulled-up to 24fps(23.98)? I recall back when 24p was first introduced, all the talk was about 2:3 pulldown, and then shortly after 24pA was created because it was more 'computer friendly' or whatever. When I think about it tho, I don't see why 2:3 should be any more difficult to shuffle back into a solid 24p. If I were king I'd do away with 24pA and spare all the confusion. Maybe I'm wrong? So anyway... back to my real question, does anyone have a tech explanation for the difficulty of pulling-up 2:3 so I can finally put this to rest?

does anyone have a tech explanation for the difficulty of pulling-up 2:3 so I can finally put this to rest?

Chris, I will look for a link that explains this and post later today. It has to do with the interlaced fields that are reassembled. In the 24pA (2:3:3:2) pattern, for every 24 fps frame you want to reassemble, there is a unique first and second field interlaced frame that can be reassembled into the original frame. In the 24p (3:2) pattern, you occassionally run into a situation where you don't have unique first and second field interlaced consecutive frames to assemble back into the original 24 fps frame. Additional processing must be done to the video to reassemble the frames.

For example, let's take a look at four frames of 24pA turned into ten frames of 60i (a and b will represent first and second field interlaced frames). The original footage is F1 F2 F3 F4 and the 60i footage is F1a F1b F2a F2b F2a* F3b* F3a F3b F4a F4b. When reassembled back into 24 fps, we take all the footage, discard the frames I've marked with the asterisk and assemble the matching frames.

Now, let's take a look at four frames of 24p turned into ten frames of 60i. The orignal footage is the same at F1 F2 F3 F4 and the 60i footage is F1a F1b F2a F2b F2a F3b F3a F4b F4a F4b. Now, from the 60i sequence, try to pick out consecutive first and second fields of each frame to reassemble your sequence. Well, it is easy at first: pick F1a, F1b, F2a, F2b and then throw out the next F2a. But then what do you do with the next frame which is F3b? It doesn't have a predecessor F3a to match up with it. Therefore, further processing of the signal must occur.

I will try to find a link with a graphical representation of this. And although I may have gotten some of the semantics incorrect, I believe I am representing this issue fairly accurately.

Thanks,

Kelly

You will find a good graphical representation of both the pulldowns and associated effects at:

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

You will find a good graphical representation of both the pulldowns and associated effects at:

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

Kelly,

You beat me to it. I have posted that link on another thread here recently. To me, it's the best graphical representation and text explanation out there. However, your explanation above was also very good. To me, if your NLE supports a 24p timeiine, then 24Pa is better since you get all your frames reconstructed intact with no blending required.

This question keeps popping up over and over again. Maybe we need a sticky thread for folks to see before posting.

regards,

-gb-

Well, Kelly, I think you've done it. Your explanation checks out in my mind. Havn't looked at the link yet, but your explanation was sufficient. I appreciate both. I've waited long for the day when I could merrily shoot 24pA without second guessing myself.

Thank ya

Chris

Kelly,
This question keeps popping up over and over again. Maybe we need a sticky thread for folks to see before posting.


Greg, I agree that this should be a sticky. It is a very important point. However, posts #2-#4 should be deleted as they are inaccurate (which made me bring this thread back to life to begin with). Post #2 is from the big man Chris Hurd and I'm not sure what his opinion is (as his answer was incorrect).

Thanks,

Kelly

deleted post

Err, Kelly, you've got mail!

;-)