|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 13th, 2005, 11:09 AM
|
#16 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 493
|
Bill,
If you put 24p, 30p, and 60i in a 60i timeline, they will all look as they were shot. If you put 24p, 30p, and 60i in a 30p timeline, they will all look as they were shot. If you put 24p, 30p, and 60i in a 24p timeline, I have no idea, but I don't think the result will be too good. Likely it will just drop frames from the 30p and 60i footage. Josh
__________________
Owner/Operator, 727 Records Co-Founder, Matter of Chance Productions Blogger, Try Avoidance |
|
|
|
August 13th, 2005, 01:34 PM
|
#17 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ventura, California, USA
Posts: 751
|
Theoretically that sounds good. :) But from what I just read (googled it), in a 60i timeline some people's 24PA footage looks good but not their 24P footage, and for others, their 24P footage looks good (in 60i timeline) but not their 24PA footage.
And there's this: "If your original footage is 60i, then make your project settings 24p and set deinterlace to blend, and render out to NTSC 24p with 3-2 pulldown. Works every time for me... So, project is set to 24p (no pulldown here), render out to 24p with pulldown to get back to 29.97 interlaced for print-to-tape." Lordy!! :head spinning: |
|
|
|
|
August 13th, 2005, 08:18 PM
|
#18 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Posts: 55
|
Quote:
That was helpful, thank you. Makes sense. Bill- I hear ya, it's all... enough to make ones head explode. I've read MANY different variations of all of this, all pretty much saying the same thing- but there often many ways of achieving the same result. I dont know. This was helpful discussion, and I'm sure one that will persist for some time as the 'new' technology is streamlined into a straightforward process and people begin to 'absorb' its theory/technical concepts. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
