I am a long time Premiere user, yes, even from vesion 1.0 but WOW... I am coming off about a year of working with FCP and diving into a Premiere Pro 1.5 project. Is it true that even if you shoot in 24P normal with 2:3 in camera pulldown that Premiere will do the pulldown to 23.976 anyway? I cant seem to find a way around it and the help forums are FULL of people with issues. The entire point is that I dont WANT to work in a 24P timeline and I SURELY dont want to pulldown from a 2:3 source, that will never look very good.

If this is indeed true, I wont be solving it by upgrading to 2.0, I will be moving to Vegas and doing more work with FCP. I cannot for the LIFE of me understand how this has not been solved in 18 months of complaining, it is a fairly large issue effecting MOST users... PLEASE tell me I am mistaken!



ash =o)

I hate to tell you this but MOST users do not shoot 24p.

Ron Evans

Ash, AFAIK, it is still true in PPro2 that 2:3 or 2:3:3:2 sources will automatically be displayed in a 24fps timeline -- so they behave on the timeline as progressive footage (even though the source file is not affected).

I know people gripe about this but I personally haven't found it to be a problem; if I were to need a 2:3 final product for some reason I would just render/export it that way to a 29.97 file, while having reaped the advantages of working in a progressive 24fps timeline. I normally go to 23.976 so don't typically do that...what am I missing that makes a 24fps timeline display a problem for 2:3 material? To me, it is an advantage not to deal with interlaced video on the timeline.

Here is the problem... 24P shot with 2:3 pulldown is not 24P... it is 29.97 with the 24P look. When you edit it in 24P you are adding the interlaced frames recorded by the camera to make it 29.97 to your 24 "progressive" frames. You then edit in 24P and have to go back to 29.97 for delivery and that is what is causing all the issues. 24P with 2:3 pulldown is meant to be edited in a 29.97 timeline.

WOW... Premiere is the ONLY editor in the world that cant handle 24P with 2:3 pulldown... even Windows Movie Maker and iMovie can do it...



ash =o)

No, that's just wrong.

24p shot with 2:3 pulldown is every bit as much 24p as that shot with 2:3:3:2 pulldown; the only difference is how the frames are split up to record in a 60i stream.

Premiere Pro 2.0 has no problem detecting and removing the 2:3 pulldown from the footage, and then you're editing in native 24p. I've tested this extensively, and it works just fine -- in fact, it works very similarly to Vegas, which has the best 24p integration of any NLE.

If you don't WANT to edit in 24p, then choose a 29.97 timeline. But it looking bad when you remove pulldown? Nonsense.

OK, how do you do it then... I want to edit 29.97 footage shot by an XL2 in 24P mode with 2:3 pulldown. I do NOT want to extract 24 frames, I want to edit it native 29.97 because with 2:3 and not 2:3:3:2 pulldown it is NOT 24P it is 24P pulled up to 60i.

In PP 1.5 you cant seem to edit 2:3 footage in a 29.97 timeline as it will interpret the 29.97 footage with 2:3 pulldown, as footage with 2:3:3:2 pulldown. Therefore, even native clips must be rendered. Nonsense? Check the Adobe user forums for the 18 month threads about these issues.

Your statement about 24P is actually incorrect. Pulldown from 2:3 footage is DIFFERENT than pulldown from 2:3:3:2 footage. You simple cannot extract the TRUE 24 frames from 2:3 footage, the "C" frame is actually regenerated. This is what is causing all the issues with Premiere that are void in every other program...



ash =o)

Can't speak to PP 1.5. I do know that 2.0 leaves pulldown of both kinds in place when editing on a 29.97 timeline, and you're editing with 29.97 files in that case.

Vegas will do the same.

As for the "true 24p," you're arguing semantics. Of course the pulldown schemes are different -- one's 2:3, the other is 2:3:3:2. There's an extra step involved in removing 2:3 pulldown, but it was 24p before the pulldown was added for recording to tape, and it's 24p after the pulldown is removed.

The "nonsense" part is where it looks bad after removing the pulldown. Granted, I've never seen your footage and I have no idea what Cinema Tools does to it in FCP. But in Vegas, and with what I've done in PP 2.0, it looks just fine, indistinguishable from 2:3:3:2.

There's enough confusion out there about the different pulldown schemes without adding more, and saying 2:3 pulldown isn't really 24p just isn't true.

Let me clarify again. In Premiere 1.5 if you capture video at 29.97 with 2:3 pulldown, it will interpret it as 2:3:3:2 pulldown true 24P. This is a HUGE problem for many. Like I said, check the Adobe forums.

You absolutely CANNOT extract the true 24 frames from 2:3 because the "c" frame no longer natively exists. It must be regenerated, this can be a problem for many, if not most.

Adam Wilt explains the difference and the potential issues on his site.


ash =o)

Weren't you asking about the difference between 1.5 and 2.0? It's not a problem in 2.0.

Yes, there's an extra step in the C frame. No, it's not a problem if you're using an NLE which can remove it efficiently, like Vegas. I've watched hundreds of hours of 24p of both pulldown stripes, and it has never, not once, been any kind of problem. A generation's worth of difference on a single frame -- especially at DV resolution -- is nothing.

If you are going to continue shooting 24p, save yourself some headache Ash: Get Vegas.

You will not experience any issues with it.

-

Can't help you with the XL2 problem though. :O :) ;)

I do have Vegas, just not as familiar with it. Again, it is a problem, Premiere Pro 1.5 simply cannot handle 2:3 files in any real useable way... It just baffles me, I mean friggin Windows movie make can do it!


ash =o)

Doesn't David's statement indicate that your concern is addressed in PPro 2.0?

"I do know that 2.0 leaves pulldown of both kinds in place when editing on a 29.97 timeline"

If so, there is no point in continuing to gripe about 1.5....

I am not about to spend the money to upgrade, this should have been supported, as every other NLE on planet earth supports it. Also, there is some debate on whether PPro 2 actually fixes the issue. Like I said, hop on over to the Adobe forums. Here is the "C" frame rebuild from trying to extract 24 frames from a 2:3 29.97 stream. MOST users are experiencing this FYI...

http://www.members.aol.com/ashvid/Cframe.jpg


ash =o)

I am not about to spend the money to upgrade, this should have been supported, as every other NLE on planet earth supports it. Also, there is some debate on whether PPro 2 actually fixes the issue.
So, download a trial version of Premiere Pro 2.0 and check it out: http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/main.html

That must be the easiest way to find out if PPro 2.0 can handle 24P ot not.

/Roger

This IS a problem in 1.5, but not in version 2.0

I think 24p in a 60i timline is over rated anyways. Its the look of VHS movie tapes and so forth. Why are you so set in doing this? Have you consider 30p? or true 24p? instead of 60i 24p?

Here is the "C" frame rebuild from trying to extract 24 frames from a 2:3 29.97 stream. MOST users are experiencing this FYI...

http://www.members.aol.com/ashvid/Cframe.jpg


What the heck did you do this in?

Here's a C frame from 2:3 footage:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6479/trimotor74lu.jpg

Vegas. PP 2.0 has identical results.

Over-rated? 24p with 3:2 is universal, should be no issues.

David, that is a 2:3 "C" frame as interpreted in PP 1.5, it sees it as a 2:3:3:2 "C" frame and does not process it properly.

Adobe confirmed this today on the phone with me and recommended some 3rd party app to solve the problem. When I asked if PremPro 2.0 solved the issue, the tech said "I think so" So can you force Prem Pro 2.0 to interpret footage as 2:3?



ash =o)

The good news it's only $199 for the upgrade to 2.0..:)

You don't have to force it. It already does it. Download the demo and see for yourself.

Or just use Vegas, if you already have it.

So if I dumped 29.97 footage shot with 2:3 pulldown in a 29.97 timeline, I can edit natively without recompressing? If so, that is what I want to hear. Still absolutely unforgiveable they have not fixed this in 1.5 Thanks...


ash =o)

Ash,

Do you have After Effects? It is much better at getting file formats and flags correct, and it gives you more options for interpreting footage.

If the Premiere capture is getting the flags wrong, try importing the file into After Effects, manually Interpreting the footage correctly, and exporting the file with whatever pulldown you want. You'll take a recompression hit (unless you go uncompressed), but likely the flags will be correct and Premiere will be able to handle it.

There is a long history of unresolved issues with Premiere. I think you'll also find that when exporting a movie from a 24p timeline to DV-AVI, your only option is 2:3:3:2. It doesn't even offer standard 2:3 pulldown. Again, another task I switch over to After Effects to complete.

Josh

So if I dumped 29.97 footage shot with 2:3 pulldown in a 29.97 timeline, I can edit natively without recompressing? If so, that is what I want to hear. Still absolutely unforgiveable they have not fixed this in 1.5 Thanks...


ash =o)

In both Vegas and PP 2.0, yes. In that respect, the two operate identically.

If you edit in Vegas, there's no reason at all not to edit in 24p. In PP, there are export issues, as Josh points out.

After Effects wont help on the import... no matter what you do, Premiere sees the 29.97 stream as 2:3:3:2 removes the pulldown to native 24P. So to make a DVD of this project, I need to import the project into After Effects (I have 6.5) and make is 29.97 with 2:3 pulldown?



ash =o)

Ash, we've given you several possible solutions here, all within your reach. You have Vegas and can use that (and that's what I'd recommend). You can download the PP 2.0 demo (free) and see if it solves your problem -- you can't render an MPEG from it (licensing), but you can render AVIs with 2:3:3:2 pulldown, even from 2:3 footage, so you're covered there.

You can also use either Vegas or the PP 2.0 demo to capture your footage, and both will do so as 60i files with no pulldown removal -- then take it into AE if that's what you want to do.

PP 1.5 doesn't work for you; that's well-established. Use one of the solutions that will.

I think Ash has a legitimate complaint. With all due respect to Mr. Jimerson, 24P with 3:2 cadence and 24Pa using 2:3:3:2 are not the same coming out of the camera. The XL2 and some other cameras give you a choice of using both methods of recording 24p because there is a difference.

I haven't used anything but a trial version of Vegas because I have already invested in the Mac platform and FCP for editing work. FCP gives you the option of removing 24P advanced pulldown via a menu selection.

Traditionally, 3:2 is meant for 24p material that has to be telecined for playback on NTSC tv as it 'fits' the spec easier. 24p advanced, or 2:3:3:2 allows for extraction of 24 'complete' frames from a 60i stream without the need to 'fake' a frame by combining fields.

In the end, I agree with the advice to Ash to download the 2.0 trial version to ascertain whether or not his complaints have been addressed.

regards,

-gb-

I know there's a difference between the pulldown cadences, Greg; I said so. I only said that recording in 2:3 pulldown does not keep the footage from being "true 24p." I know FCP has all sorts of pains in the butt when dealing with 2:3 pulldown (for editing in 24p), but not every NLE does.

But what you say about the difference in removing pulldown isn't quite accurate. To remove 2:3:3:2 pulldown, you're still combining fields, it's only that the field order is such that it's much more efficient. Fields 1 and 2 become frame A. Fields 3 and 4 become frame B. Fields 7 and 8 become frame C. Fields 9 and 10 become frame D. Fields 5 and 6 create a mismatched fame in between frames B and C, and it can simply be dropped. Efficient.

Removing 2:3 pulldown isn't actually that different -- fields 1 and 2 become frame A; fields 3 and 4 become frame B; Fields 9 and 10 become frame D. Fields 5-8 are an inefficient jumble of frames B and C, no question, but an NLE which knows what it's doing -- like Vegas or PP 2.0 -- can reconstruct frame C with almost no quality loss (see the frame I posted above).

Advanced pulldown also takes advantage of frame-based compression, but rest assured, it's split into fields in the 60i stream every bit as much as standard pulldown is; it's simply better for reconstructing the original frames.

So yeah, if you're going to edit in 24p, use 2:3:3:2 pulldown, and I'd never recommend otherwise. But this thread wasn't about that, and I wasn't addressing it. I was addressing the myth that somehow 2:3 pulldown keeps footage from being "true 24p." It does not.

Greg, if you want to see how Vegas handles 24p capture/timelines, check out the tutorial at the link in my sig.

I finally figured out a workaround, VERY annoying but figured it out. You cannot have ANY clip start on the "C" frame or the entire duration of that clip will look like crap. You cannot output to dv tape or to DV.AVI in ANY mode unless every clip is re-rendered via an effect. I WAS able to output a 24p file with the Adobe Media Encoder and make a DVD with that file. It looks pretty good with progressive playback, very good actually but it is total junk if you do not have a 480p TV or prog scan DVD player. Oh well, lesson learned... back to FCP for me!

Sorry David but I just dont accept that upgrading is a fair solution. Adobe knows this is a major issue and instead of addressing it, you can BUY the solution to the problem for $200. SILLY!



ash =o)

They did address it, Ash. They improved the capabilities for PP 2.0.

That is only a good enough response if the upgrade is free. Otherwise, Adobe should fix this bug as a patch to the existing release. If you think upgrading is good enough, then Adobe has you exactly where they want you.

Adobe has a long history of this. I still use them because I grew up on the interface, but it's not pretty. And why can't PP1.5 output true 23.976 AVI files? AE6 can do it, but PP1.5 cannot. When I move files around, I need to output QT to get true 23.976 so my audio will sync, then convert that back to AVI in AE. Bad. I hope that's fixed in PP2.0.

According to Joshua, if car manufacturers come out with a car that runs on water, they should be responsible for retrofitting all vehicles without charge. Unless the original program that you bought advertized that it did what you now want it to do, why do they owe an obligation to upgrade it for you.

I was in the same boat as Ash 4 weeks ago, although with a different problem "Premiere Pro failed to return the video frame" errors with PrPro 1.51 after 4-5 hour rendering time. I tried every imaginable fix offered by Adobe and Microsoft, I even reinstalled XP with SP1a, not SP2. 4 days later and I was nowhere with deadlines quickly creeping. I downloaded PrPro 2, and on the 1st shot, perfect. I am all about principle and that I shouldn't have to pay more money for something that should already work, but I believe I read a post in the Adobe forum where somebody had the same problem with the same dilemma and somebody replied "At some point you have to ask yourself what is your time worth". I purchased PrPro 2.0 that same night and haven't looked back. 4 crucial days were already down the drain which was worth well over the $199, so I believe I did the right thing. I met my deadline and am now wrapping up another project as I type.

The interface alone is worth it in my opinion. Now, be aware though, After Effects 6.5 will NOT import PrPro 2.0 projects, they got me there as well, but hey AE 7 Pro is awefully nice and once again is worth the $199 for the interface alone (workflow is much more efficient), and it is so much more responsive than 6.5 ever was.

Kevin

That is only a good enough response if the upgrade is free. Otherwise, Adobe should fix this bug as a patch to the existing release. If you think upgrading is good enough, then Adobe has you exactly where they want you.

Well (and I have no idea if they did or not), if they advertised PP 1.5 as fully supporting both advanced and standard pulldown, I'd agree with you, if the results are as bad as you're saying. Did they?

Adobe doesn't have me anywhere; I'm a Vegas guy (and I don't understand why Ash won't just use IT if he has it instead of all these headache workarounds, but that's neither here nor there), but I've used PP 2.0 extensively over the past month or two.

According to Joshua, if car manufacturers come out with a car that runs on water, they should be responsible for retrofitting all vehicles without charge. Unless the original program that you bought advertized that it did what you now want it to do, why do they owe an obligation to upgrade it for you.

Chris, please. PP1.5 is advertised to support 24p, including detecting and removing pulldown, which it is not doing accurately in this case.

I'm not looking for a free upgrade. I'm saying there should be a fix or patch, which, as mentioned, is not (and likely will not be) forthcoming, despite the problem being around since the program was released. Adobe doesn't do this as well as other vendors (this from an Adobe die-hard).

Chris, please. PP1.5 is advertised to support 24p, including detecting and removing pulldown, which it is not doing accurately in this case.

But . . . standard pulldown?

FCP doesn't remove standard pulldown, either, and Apple doesn't claim it does. Did Adobe?

FCP 5 will handle anything you throw at it... As far as Premiere 1.5 I didnt want it to do ANYTHING special... not even 24P! I just wanted to capture and edit in 29.97 but it improperly detected my footage as 24P causing lots of issues or re-rendering of native files. THIS IS A BUG! Like I said, Windows Movie Maker can handle 2:3 pulldown file natively!




ash =o)

I know there's a difference between the pulldown cadences, Greg; I said so. I only said that recording in 2:3 pulldown does not keep the footage from being "true 24p." I know FCP has all sorts of pains in the butt when dealing with 2:3 pulldown (for editing in 24p), but not every NLE does.

But what you say about the difference in removing pulldown isn't quite accurate. To remove 2:3:3:2 pulldown, you're still combining fields, it's only that the field order is such that it's much more efficient. Fields 1 and 2 become frame A. Fields 3 and 4 become frame B. Fields 7 and 8 become frame C. Fields 9 and 10 become frame D. Fields 5 and 6 create a mismatched fame in between frames B and C, and it can simply be dropped. Efficient.

Removing 2:3 pulldown isn't actually that different -- fields 1 and 2 become frame A; fields 3 and 4 become frame B; Fields 9 and 10 become frame D. Fields 5-8 are an inefficient jumble of frames B and C, no question, but an NLE which knows what it's doing -- like Vegas or PP 2.0 -- can reconstruct frame C with almost no quality loss (see the frame I posted above).

Advanced pulldown also takes advantage of frame-based compression, but rest assured, it's split into fields in the 60i stream every bit as much as standard pulldown is; it's simply better for reconstructing the original frames.

So yeah, if you're going to edit in 24p, use 2:3:3:2 pulldown, and I'd never recommend otherwise. But this thread wasn't about that, and I wasn't addressing it. I was addressing the myth that somehow 2:3 pulldown keeps footage from being "true 24p." It does not.

Greg, if you want to see how Vegas handles 24p capture/timelines, check out the tutorial at the link in my sig.

I personally have no problems getting FCP to do whatever pulldown I need it to do. It will remove 3:2 just fine. But 3:2 is not intended to be edited on a 24P timeline, whereas 24P at 2:3:3:2 is.

We are probably in agreement here for the most part and it may be just semantics or wording, but in a nutshell, you can never recover 24 complete progressive frames from a 3:2 cadence whereas you can recombine 60i from the tape to a complete and whole 24 frames using 2:3:3:2.

Although advanced pulldown was traditionally better for filmout, I like to use it for material going to DVD because a 24P file gives you more program room on the DVD. Let the player do the 24->60i instead of wasting DVD real estate by doing it yourself to the source material.

But hey, Ash has got his problem worked out now so we can all go back to our other issues of the day. ;-)

regards,

-gb-

Maybe it's semantics, Greg, and yes, I agree about 24p DVDs, no question.

And I know Cinema Tools will remove 2:3 pulldown; I was just referring to FCP itself.

FCP 5 will remove any pulldown, even from Varicam footage... I just came off a 6 month project doing so... Audio in Vegas is much superior but FCP handles everything footage wise.



ash =o)

I don't think so, Ash:

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/FCP5_HD_and_Broadcast_Formats.pdf

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

Like I said, you can do it in Cinema Tools, and Cinema Tools comes free with FCP, but FCP doesn't do it itself.

I finally figured out a workaround, VERY annoying but figured it out. You cannot have ANY clip start on the "C" frame or the entire duration of that clip will look like crap. You cannot output to dv tape or to DV.AVI in ANY mode unless every clip is re-rendered via an effect. I WAS able to output a 24p file with the Adobe Media Encoder and make a DVD with that file. It looks pretty good with progressive playback, very good actually but it is total junk if you do not have a 480p TV or prog scan DVD player. Oh well, lesson learned... back to FCP for me!

Sorry David but I just dont accept that upgrading is a fair solution. Adobe knows this is a major issue and instead of addressing it, you can BUY the solution to the problem for $200. SILLY!



ash =o)

Wait a minute Ash - is it reasonable to expect Adobe to retrofit a patch to a obsolete product that has already been superceded by a newer, more up-to-date release? Your rants against PP1.5 are kind of like being upset at Microsoft because they haven't issued a patch to DOS 3.2 to let it run Windows Media Player. Perhaps handling 24p *was* an issue with PP1.5 but so what? That was then, this is now. You're complaining they haven't fixed it, but they did. They call the fix Premiere Pro 2.0 and while they were at it they fixed a lot of other things too AND added functionality on top of it- WOW! It's a fact of computing life that you'll need to replace your software every 18-24 months with newer generations and staying up to date won't be free. Might as well get used to it.

Maybe you guys are missing the point, I DIDNT WANT TO EDIT IN 24P! I just wanted PP to work like EVERY OTHER EDITOR ON EARTH. It is indisputable fact, that PP 1.5 is the ONLY editor on the planet that cannot do 29.97 footage that has in-camera 3:2 pulldown in a 29.97 timeline. Instead of fixing the bug, which existed from day 1 apparently, they fixed it in a new version. Upgrades to software happen, I understand but this was an admitted BUG, not a missing feature. There is a difference...

David, you are incorrect and those links are old, Final Cut Pro while will remove the pulldown in 2:3:3:2 footage on capture if your settings are correct. You can also capture 2:3 footage and edit it natively in a 29.97 timeline. The only time you need Cinema tools is if you are removing pulldown from 2:3 footage or dropping in non-native footage that is at a different frame rate. I just came off a 24P project that mixed Varicam, HVX, and XL2 footage, all shot in 24P 2:3:3:2 and nothing had to be processed in Cinema Tools.



ash =o)



PS Adobe sent me a free 2.0 upgrade, and it has a better interface and seems to have addressed the 24P issue. Still not as robust as FCP5 as far as formats but easier to maneuver in.

David, you are incorrect and those links are old, Final Cut Pro while will remove the pulldown in 2:3:3:2 footage on capture if your settings are correct. You can also capture 2:3 footage and edit it natively in a 29.97 timeline. The only time you need Cinema tools is if you are removing pulldown from 2:3 footage or dropping in non-native footage that is at a different frame rate.

Dude . . .

That’s exactly what I said. FCP removes advanced pulldown but you need Cinema Tools to remove standard pulldown.

Those links both refer to FCP 5.

I’m starting to think you just want to argue here. So, have fun with that.

> It is indisputable fact, that PP 1.5 is the ONLY editor on the planet that cannot do 29.97 footage that has in-camera 3:2 pulldown in a 29.97 timeline.

Bollocks!

Neither does Premiere 6.5. In fact, I don't think it did HD or HDV. And Vegas 5, didn't either, did it ? And if I recall, Premiere Pro 1.0 didn't do HD, and HDV wasn't available until PPro 1.51. These software developers are pure devils....

Your rants against PP1.5 are kind of like being upset at Microsoft because they haven't issued a patch to DOS 3.2 to let it run Windows Media Player.

Microsoft still fully supports Windows 2000 and Windows NT, and sort of still supports older products too. We are talking about professional tools here. Any software corporation is bound by law to fully support, document and fix their products (if they are defective) for 10 years from the date of release. I've had problems with Adobe not supporting FrameMaker as a multi-platform multi-language application anymore in a huge paneuropean documentation production chain, and all they had to say was 'you should upgrade to InDesign' which was not technically feasible...

Microsoft still fully supports Windows 2000 and Windows NT, and sort of still supports older products too. We are talking about professional tools here. Any software corporation is bound by law to fully support, document and fix their products (if they are defective) for 10 years from the date of release. I've had problems with Adobe not supporting FrameMaker as a multi-platform multi-language application anymore in a huge paneuropean documentation production chain, and all they had to say was 'you should upgrade to InDesign' which was not technically feasible...
But if a product never purports to do something like 24p, does that mean they have to create a new module to do so ? What law are you referring to ?

And Vegas 5, didn't either, did it ?

Yes. Fully supported 24p since version 4. But as for editing 24p in a 60i stream, always.

Wow... focus in here fellas... forget 24P... The WHOLE IDEA of 2:3 in camera 24p is that it can be edited natively in a 29.97 timeline... otherwise you would shoot in 2:3:3:2... you with me? I didnt WANT to edit in 24P! I didnt WANT to remove pulldown frames!

OK... so... I had footage shot at 29.97 with in-camera 2:3 pulldown that I wanted to capture and edit in a 29.97 timeline. 24P ONLY became a factor because Premiere IMPROPERLY and automatically detected the footage as 2:3:3:2 pulldown, extracted the extra frames and improperly rebuilt the "C" frame, see here http://members.aol.com/ashvid/Cframe.jpg this is a known BUG... still with me?

Premiere 1.5 is THE ONLY DV EDIT PROGRAM that does this. All I wanted to do is capture NATIVE 29.97 footage and edit it in a NATIVE 29.97 timeline which again, is possible in EVERY OTHER EDIT PROGRAM... Vegas, iMovie, FCP, Canopus, Windows Movie Maker, Ulead, etc. etc. etc.

As far as FCP, I dont see your point? Choose your project settings and pulldown is removed accordingly... unless you are mixing formats it doesnt matter.


ash =o)

> It is indisputable fact, that PP 1.5 is the ONLY editor on the planet that cannot do 29.97 footage that has in-camera 3:2 pulldown in a 29.97 timeline.

Bollocks!


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




ash =o)