OK, name another program that wont handle the footage? ANY current program???? There aint one!




ash =o)

Ash, your operative word there is "current" - Your complaint is that Premiere Pro 1.5 won't handle 24p correctly. That may be true - I can't weigh in with a knowlegeable opinion one way of the other on that and I'll take your word for it - but PP 1.5 is NOT a current program. That was then, this is now. Instead of being angry at Adobe for screwing it up in the old version, be happy they fixed it in the new version and move on. I truly don't understand why you're so vocally angry over it. Okay, so it was a bug. It got fixed. ALL software has bugs - some are fixed with a free patch release. Some don't get fixed until a new version is released and no free patch for the old one ever comes out. Sometimes the cause of the bug is so fundamental there's no way TO create a patch and the fix requires so much new code that it's a new product. In the case of PP1.5, the misbehaving program was retired and replaced with one that works properly and now all is right with the world. The cost of the upgrade is pretty insignifigant and you do get some new features to justify the cost. As the song goes, don't worry, be happy.

By current, I meant one that people are actually using. I venture to guess there are more people who currently own PP 1.5 than 2.0 My guess is that they could NOT fix the bug, hence, swept it under the carpet. I am just shocked that people put up with it. Most my freelance stuff is shot with 2:3 pulldown and I now understand why SOOOOOO many people switched to Vegas. I do have to say that PP 2.0 and the integration with the other apps like After Effects, is quite nice.



ash =o)

OK, name another program that wont handle the footage? ANY current program???? There aint one!
ash =o)

http://www.puremotion.com/editstudio/index.htm

Plus, of course, earlier versions of ALL the programs that are being discussed. NONE would have originally supported this kind of footage .... until a version was released that did.

PPro didn't use to support that footage .... now it does. Same as all the others.



>>I venture to guess there are more people who currently own PP 1.5 than 2.0

I'm sure you are right. But only a small proportion of them have any interest whatsoever in 24P.

http://www.puremotion.com/editstudio/index.htm

....

>>I venture to guess there are more people who currently own PP 1.5 than 2.0

I'm sure you are right. But only a small proportion of them have any interest whatsoever in 24P.

And those for whom it was mission critical probably upgraded to 2.0 the day it was released.

http://www.puremotion.com/editstudio/index.htm

Plus, of course, earlier versions of ALL the programs that are being discussed. NONE would have originally supported this kind of footage .... until a version was released that did.

PPro didn't use to support that footage .... now it does. Same as all the others.



>>I venture to guess there are more people who currently own PP 1.5 than 2.0

I'm sure you are right. But only a small proportion of them have any interest whatsoever in 24P.



That is 100% incorrrect, I dont think you guys understand. Please read everything I have been saying, I DONT GIVE A FRIGGIN FLIP about editing in 24P... Premiere Pro 1.0 did 2:3 29.97 fine, Premiere 5, 6 and 6.5 do it fine, ANY editor that will handle DV will handle NATIVE 2:3 footage in a 29.97 timeline, every one I have tried, imovie, Windows Movie Maker, Canopus, EVERY recent version of Premiere BUT 1.5. You see, an editor not capable of 24p will merely see it as what it is... 29.97 NORMAL 60i DV. Premiere Pro 1.5, AGAIN, is the ONLY editor which improperly interprets the footage as 24p 2:3:3:2. What arent you guys understanding here????????



ash =o)

Ash:

Got what your saying now. And I understand why you may have a problem with Adobe. Problem is most of us using Premiere Pro, both version, don't know 24p from a hole in the ground.

Sometimes the internet can make communication seem like it is between me and my wife! My only point in ALL of this was that there was a BUG in PP 1.5, it seems that they left it unsolved for so long that people either a) changed their shooting mode or b) left for another editor

When they gave PP an upgrade in 1.5 to handle 24P they goofed up in the handling of people who shot in camera pulldown. OOPS! The entire point is to make post EASY and universal!


ash =o)

> That is 100% incorrrect

Whatever.

And yes, I DO understand you don't want to edit in 24P. You have indeed made that point ... repeatedly.

Sometimes the internet can make communication seem like it is between me and my wife!

LOL!!! That is toooo funny.

Thanks Sheila... we can end this on a laugh...

Graham, I am not trying to insult you, sorry if it came out that way but any editor NOT capable of 24P will see 2:3 footage as normal DV and edit it normally... the entire purpose of shooting with 24P with 2:3 pull-up if you will, The editor you linked to will handle 24p 2:3 in a 29.97 timeline natively and without a problem. You see, if you can edit DV, you can edit 2:3 DV as it is imbedded in the NORMAL DV stream, this is true of EVERY editor but PP 1.5...




ash =o)

i've been editing a pretty big project with both 60i and 24p footage, i actually made a post about it long time ago and bout the work around i had to figure out so i could use both 24p/60i on same timeline.

YES 24p on a 60I timeline is screwd.
YES 60i on a 24p timeline will work if an effect such as CC is added to the 60i footage.

not sure what the big problem is here guys, lol.

I do not understand your point.
you tell us that premiere 1.5 is the only program not to work as you need.
-So use one of these many other, especially you mentioned you got 2 of them.

Then a partial answer has been provided to you(upgrade to PP2).
again you ignored this advice and nailed about silly thing about PP 1.5 support and free patch and so on...
As far As i know the numerous version of MAC OS upgrades always have been the answer to the "it dos not work" question. And there were not free.
And sometime the upgrade make it even worse.
And i do not know real professional application that has free upgrade on major version change. So you make a wrong trial to Adobe.

And finally if you are so convinced that premiere 1.5 is not what you need, do you think your long arguing on this forum will change anything ?
An if finally the message is to tell us how great it FCP, i think we got the message.

Uhhh... project was already loaded in Premiere... tapes were gone, I had to use Premiere to do it... Again, this is not an upgrade or 24p issue, it is an admitted BUG that Adobe never fixed, call them if you like. My issue is that a company would leave a $500 program with an unaddressed bug. This is not a niche issue, check the adobe forums! Many people left adobe for Vegas!

All I wanted to do was edit 29.97 footage in a 29.97 timeline, the BUG was that PP 1.5 incorrectly interpreted the 29.97 footage as 24P 2:3:3:2 and incorrectly built the "C" frame, meaning every had to be rendered and it looked TERRIBLE. You can work in a 24P timeline but no edit can start on the "C" frame... that is the workaround. As stated a billion times, this is a bug that ONLY PP 1.5 has... no other program that will edit DV exhibits the issue. I cant make it any clearer.

I use all edit platforms (as editor or producer), FCP, Premiere, Vegas, Avid... they all have pluses and minuses, there is not one that is THE best. Prem Pro 2.0 is vastly improved over 1.5, especially when it comes to handling various formats where it HAS been dead last!



ash =o)

i dont mean to be beating on a dead horse but how the hell can pro 1.5 screw up 29 footage on a 29 timeline???? i've been using pro 1.5 for a few years and never had that issue.

And why didn't you just tell it to interpret the footage as 29.97?

I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. If you shoot 2:3 pulldown where the 24p is wrapped in a normal 29.97 stream, Premiere incorrectly will see this as 24P 2:3:3:2 footage. If you force premiere to see it as 29.97, it will improperly interpret it and the speed will be off. 24P footage with IN CAMERA pull-up is no different than regular 60i footage, PP 1.5 has a bug that improperly interprets the 29.97 footage as 2:3:3:2 24P footage... As noted a million times now, PP 1.5 is the only editor that does this.



ash =o)

Uhhh... project was already loaded in Premiere... tapes were gone, I had to use Premiere to do it... Again, this is not an upgrade or 24p issue, it is an admitted BUG that Adobe never fixed, call them if you like. My issue is that a company would leave a $500 program

It's $850 :-)

So upgrade already. I'm sorry Ash. I just don't see the point in complaining about outdated software. We all site around and bitch about software, Adobe fixes it. So it is time to complain about new stuff.

If you read everything you will see I did get an upgrade for free from Adobe =o) All I can figure is that very very few DVX and XL2 users are using PP 1.5 because it does not play well with the 2:3 footage those cameras use. For the very last time, this was a known and admitted bug that was never addressed by Adobe. And for the very last time, PP 1.5 is the only DV editor that will not handle 2:3 footage. They never found a way to fix it via a patch... if you want that feature either use PP 1.0 or PP 2.0


ash =o)

1. Is it just me being thick and has everyone else found a way of relating the DVD reference numbers in the PPro 1.5 Index of the Studio Techniques Manual to the accompanying DVD? Total Training Videos for 1.5 don't help me much on that subject either.
2. Did anyone else notice that the same Manual ignores the basics of exporting and so does the DVD? That's 500 pages + User Guide Supplement + 11 hours of JR on video missing or obscuring fundamental aspects of How to manage Output.
Oh yes, they are covered in the 2003 edition of PPro, but how does one become inspired to discover that? It took me bloody hours over several months!

3. I wonder what's the story with PPro 2 Manuals on these points? It's ok for you who have been at this for years but for beginners like me it seems to amount to arrogance.