2:3 or 2:3:3:2

[Douglas Robbins]

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.

[Kelly Wilbur]

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 Which would make my question above no longer applicable.***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?

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Derek West

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.

[John Trent]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

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.

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by John Trent

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

[Chris Frisella]

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?

[Kelly Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Chris Frisella

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

[Kelly Wilbur]

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

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

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Kelly Wilbur

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-

[Chris Frisella]

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 Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

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

[Kelly Wilbur]

deleted post

[Chris Hurd]

Err, Kelly, you've got mail!

;-)