What, if any, "cues" define 24p, 30p, and 25p?

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

... sorry for any confusion. I was just comparing how camera manufacturers do this.

heath

No confusion and no reason to be sorry -- the addition of 2-3 pulldown can be done equally well to either inter- or intra-frame. Makes no difference. The inability to this has nothing to with MPEG-2. It's either an NLE lack or a Sony restriction.


The point you made very well -- is that you went back to HDV tape. Just like everyone did with DV. Of course, those with big bucks claimed one "shouldn't" do this either. Of course, few listened to them.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Of course the CineForm folks say this. But, it is very minor -- at least with FCP. One decode and one re-encode. Really nothing to worry about, because the big hit is in the first encode.

In any case, you are not going to deliver CFHD to anyone. So there's no point in talking about it here.

You have to live with there being no HD deliverable that is not inter-frame 4:2:0 MPEG-2, VC-1, or AVC. Moreover, the fact is that HDV, XDCAM HD, and both HD DVD and BD are all brand names for exactly the same MPEG-2 codec.

HDCAM and D5HD are not MPEG 2, VC1, nor AVC, nor interframe formats. HDCAM and D5HD are the only formats that broadcasters and HD replication houses accept at this time excepting HDD delivery.

Even XDCAM is rarely handed back to XDCAM; it's a medium ENG and corporate likes because they can inexpensively shelve their originals.

There is a reason that every NLE developer offers an intermediary, an recommends it.

DCT doesn't like recompression; results are exceptionally easy to demonstrate, as CineForm and many others not involved in developing intermediary codecs have shown in numerous demonstrations. Remember those difference frames, Heath?

CineForm is not a delivery format, but it is indeed an editing and acquisition format in the Wafian device.

MPEG Encoders are not all created equal, just as codecs are not all created equal.
With the entire future of visual presentation directed towards repurposing for many, many (can't say "many" enough times here) formats and devices, having your master in HDV is a serious mistake. From broadcast to cell phone, iPod to big screen, having the most pristine master possible is the optimal practice, and the most common practice in any post system, whether a bedroom house or professional post house.

Once again however, we're way OT. I think the flag discussion has been beaten to death, making it difficult to find the road back to it.

Piotr, I can see significant differences in the various file types in Cygnus, but can't understand the patterning differences either. Certainly is a good way to look at the file info though.

[Bob Grant]

Originally Posted by John McManimie

Forgive an amateur for popping in here but...

I asked whether it was possible to export 1080/24P with pulldown as 60i to tape in Vegas in a post in January (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=85159) and learned that I could not.

But, I asked this from the perspective of an amateur trying to do things on the cheap.

I would find it surprising that any professional (who by definition requires higher standards with regard to his/her work) would ever be concerned with going back to tape. Like I said, I was interested because I wanted to do things cheaply and "good enough" for an amateur (I have since changed my mind in this regard, however).

Considering the investment that many of you make to work in your profession, why would you ever want to go back to HDV? As the Cineform website clearly says in one of their HDV quality analyses: "Clamping the image to the original 25Mb/s forces data loss". I know I've seen it. I would think that any pro would want their footage left in a format that maintains image integrity.

If it really is important, two inexpensive (for a professional, at least) options exist:

• DVFilm Maker: "Maker will add either 3:2 or 2:3:3:2 pulldown to HD and uses the correct field dominance (upper field first). You would then have to encode to HDV using Vegas for recording back to tape."

• Cineform AspectHD HDLink: "Once you have completed your 24p production, some may wish to archive back to HDV tape. The CineForm M2T export with Aspect HD and Prospect HD will support 24p encoding into a 60i stream, by simply adding the 3:2 pulldown back."

I've had no trouble adding 2:3 pulldown to 24p and printing it to tape as 60i then ingesting it again with Pulldown Removal enabled to get back the 23.976 fps. Not that I'd want to do that, just to prove to myself that it works.
I even posted a link to said clip from memory. The original clip was shot as 25PsF on a V1P, time stretched without interpolation to 23.973fps.

IF I was ever going to do a 24fps project that'd certainly NOT be the way I'd work. Even though the image held up remarkably well through recompression I'd much rather send an image sequence or a CFDI on a HDD, which yes, my local post house can read. In fact they now get a lot of their work on HDDs.

Apart from all that I gotta ask what has this got to do with the V1 and Vegas?
It's not like the the V1U is the first camera to shoot 24fps and Vegas isn't the only NLE on the planet and HDV isn't the only HD tape format. Even at the lofty heights of HDCAM, not all HDCAM gear supports 24p which is a MUCH bigger PIA in my opinion.

[Heath McKnight]

Bob, what NLE are you using when you added the pulldown back to output to tape? Also, how did you do it, exactly? I'm curious about this for my converted footage from 50i/CF25 to 24p.

Steve, I only went back to HDV tape for archival purposes. Again, we shot in 50i/CineFrame 25 and the final movie will be 24p. I'll have it available on a firewire drive, BetaSP, HDCAM and a 24p DVD--ALL 24p.

heath

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Bob Grant

Apart from all that I gotta ask what has this got to do with the V1 and Vegas?

Now given the V1 is the only HDV camcorder that uses 2-3 pulldown -- which is what IS the thread topic title indicates is the topic -- your question asking what has "this got to do with the V1" is just plain silly. Of course, we are talking about the V1.

And Bob -- you might want to look at the title of this thread:

'What, if any, "cues" define 24p, 30p, and 25p?'

This is not a question about HOW folks export. I really don't care what folks do or don't do. And, I definitely do not give a d*mn about they think "should not" be done. This is a thread about bits and bytes -- not options about exporting.

Bob -- is Vegas even part of the TOPIC TITLE? Nope! I only asked for a confirmation of what you and Piotr reported -- and you guys use Vegas.

Since it's now clear that not one post, other than Piotr's, has had anything resembling an answer to my questions -- I'll wait until NAB to get my answers.

PS: Heath asked a good question -- Bob did leave out the details of how/when the 2-3 pulldown was removed on the re-capture.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

After all the greatest gurus having expressed their opinions about how irrelevant this topic is, let me again drop my $0.03 in. I understood Steve's inquiry as another, very valuable, prompt to further understanding the intricacies of the V1 24/25 PsF format. Because, if we don't know how it is flagged (or cued), we're not going to understand how to deliver it (PTT'ed, burned etc - you name it) so that as many as possible viewing devices can display it correctly, ie. as progressive that does not need (in fact even tolerate) deinterlacing!

[Tony Tremble]

The flagging of the V1 stream has nothing to do with how it will be deinterlaced upon delivery. Completely separate. I explained that in the previous thread but that was ignored.

TT

[Steve Mullen]

It is now clear that the answers will have to come from Japanese Sony folks at NAB.

[Tony Tremble]

Take a look at the V1 review at DV.com and Adma Wilt has got some seriously good grabs to show the oil paint effect.

It's not a complete picture as he hasn't shown the effect in poor light under no gain nor has he sown the effect on areas of similar coloour. But it is a start and it shows the effect drops the resolution down to 540 lines under modest gain settings.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

But it is a start and it shows the effect drops the resolution down to 540 lines under modest gain settings.

The EFFECT does not drop resolution down to 540 lines.

As the Sony engineer clearly stated -- the lower rez. is from the design that increases DNR as gain is increased. This is exactly what should be done since most folks want clean pix in bad lighting more than they want detail.

[Chris Hurd]

If anybody has something further to add to this thread, shoot me an email stating what it is, and I'll consider re-opening it. Thanks,