24p confusion
 

I've read a number of posts on this topic, and still have some questions.
I want to be able to get a more filmic look with my xl2, but don't plan to transfer to film. We out put everything we do to dvd.
1- Do I use the 2:3 pulldown in this case?
2-If I use the 2:3, do I edit on a 24 tmeline or 30? ( were just trying out Premiere pro, and itlooks like the only option offered is what it calls "Panasonic 24p...2:3:3:2").
3- Is Vegas any better for 24p editing?
4-If you edit on a 30 timeline, do you still retain the 24p look?
Thanks
Bruce Yarock

Hi Bruce,

I don't have PPro in front of me right now so unable to be very specific. I assume you want to shoot 24fps and end up with a 24fps DVD?

FYI, there are some bugs and problems with PPro and 24p handling, so unless 24p is specifically important to you and you're ready to do a fair amount of reading and fiddling around to deal with these issues, it might be a whole lot easier to shoot 30p -- after all, frame rate isn't the only determinant of "film look."

Anyway, 24p certainly is a confusing topic. As best I understand so far, the short answer is:

- If you choose to use a 24fps timeline in PPro, you can shoot either 24p (2:3) or 24pA (2:3:3:2). From the 24p timeline, you can capture or import using either pull-down method. I can't remember exactly how to access the dialog box, but there is one that allows you to choose between the pull-down / pull-up methods...can't remember if it is the Interpret Footage dialog, or in the project settings somewhere.

- If you choose to use a 30fps timeline in PPro, use 24p (2:3).

From a 24p timeline, regardless of how the footage got there, export either using a native 24fps file format for further transcoding, or using 24p (2:3). The cadence of 2:3:3:2 doesn't work with 30fps projects and DVDs, so you wouldn't want to export that.

Thanks Pete3, I'll try shooting at 2:3 and import to pro . Then I'll edit in 24p timeline and try to burn to dvd.
Bruce Yarock

Pete, what are these bugs you're talking about? I recently edited a 24p project without any glitch. Have I been lucky or you've been unlucky?

Bruce, it's all about the timeline. If you edit in a 30fps timeline, use 3:2. If editing will be done in a 24fps timeline, use 2:3:3:2.

3:2 is not reversible, so it will give you the film look you're after, but you will never be able to get your true 24p sequence back without quality loss due to recompression.

2:3:3:2 means you discard the fake frames introduced by the XL2 to comply with the DV 60i standard to get your true 24p sequence back and edit it as such. You can then burn a 24p DVD. The DVD player will do the 3:2 pulldown on the fly to see it on an NTSC TV.

Notable advantages of editing and outputing to DVD in 24p is less rendering time (less frames to render) and potentially better image quality (needs less compression per frame on the DVD).

<<<-- Originally posted by Bruce S. Yarock : Thanks Pete3, I'll try shooting at 2:3 and import to pro . Then I'll edit in 24p timeline and try to burn to dvd.
Bruce Yarock -->>>

Don't. If you capture in 3:2, you need to edit your footage in a 30fps timeline.

David,
i'm glad you've had good luck with pro.here's the summary of what I want to do, and what I understand that you're saying.
1-Shoot in 2:3:3:2 if I want to edit on the 24p timeline.
2-Edit in that timeline.
3-export to dvd from that setting.
Is that correct?
Another question is ...
I shot the test at 24p, 2:3;3:2, 16:9.The footage looked correct ( I think). We edited in pro 24p.We then created a dvd, but somehow it got turned into 4:3 ( I think). In other words, there was no letterbox on my tv (which is 4:3 only). Also I seem to remember that somewhere between the two programs the aspect ratio was 720 (or is it 780?) instead of the 16;9 ratio.
Thanks again for the help.
Bruce Yarock

According to the Canon XL2 Manual, page 44, it reads:

"24p 2:3 Mode
Signals are converted into 60 fps interlace using the 2:3 pulldown method. This mode is suited for playback on a TV screen."

"24p 2:3:3:2 Mode
Signals are converted into 60 fps interlace using the 2:3:3:2 pulldown method. This 24p mode is ideal for extracting true 24 frames per second in order to transfer to film."

Therefore, if he plans to display the video on television (by way of DVD) and not transfering to film, he should be shooting using the 24p 2:3 mode.

To a degree, yes. However, you can make a 24p DVD. This gives you better compression and running times (and also requires that you shoot in 2:3:3:2).

The only reason to shoot 2:3 is if your editor can't extract the true 24 fps.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bruce S. Yarock : David,
i'm glad you've had good luck with pro.here's the summary of what I want to do, and what I understand that you're saying.
1-Shoot in 2:3:3:2 if I want to edit on the 24p timeline.
2-Edit in that timeline.
3-export to dvd from that setting.
Is that correct?
Another question is ...
I shot the test at 24p, 2:3;3:2, 16:9.The footage looked correct ( I think). We edited in pro 24p.We then created a dvd, but somehow it got turned into 4:3 ( I think). In other words, there was no letterbox on my tv (which is 4:3 only). Also I seem to remember that somewhere between the two programs the aspect ratio was 720 (or is it 780?) instead of the 16;9 ratio.
Thanks again for the help.
Bruce Yarock -->>>

Bruce, you are correct about steps 1 to 3. I can think of 2 reasons why your DVD played as 4:3 footage.

1- You didn't edit in a 16:9 timeline and/or export it as 16:9 footage. When you export your movie to DVD (I assume you'll be using Adobe Media Encoder, which can be accessed directly via the "export to DVD" option), you need to tell Premiere what settings to use for encoding. So frame rate (you should choose 24p here), aspect ratio and bitrate are all user selected.

2- If you did adjust your export settings properly and still ended up with 4:3 footage, your DVD player is probably not properly configured. In other words, your DVD is 16:9, but the DVD player sends a signal to the TV that it assumes is 4:3. This happened to me a while ago. The director of the project I edited told me he wasn't able to see the whole 16:9 image. It was cropped. Turned out he needed to go dig in his DVD configuration menus and set the aspect ratio at 16:9. To my knowledge, all DVD players have the ability to read 16:9 footage and output it as such, but not all DVD players have the proper settings to do so enabled out of the box.

The 720 you're reffering to I assume is 720 x 480, which is standard DV resolution. Both 4:3 and 16:9 footage are in 720 x 480, only the pixel aspect changes (0.9 for NTSC 4:3, 1.2 for NTSC 16:9).

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Shaw :
The only reason to shoot 2:3 is if your editor can't extract the true 24 fps. -->>>

Where is that stated, Aaron?

According to cinematographer David Castillo, from Canon, that is not accurate. He told us in a Canon siminar several months ago, Oct. 23, 2004, to be exact, that 2:3 was for TV and 2:3:3:2 was for film transfer.

Jay, not wanting to make it sound like I disagree here, but it is actually more complex than that. This would be the K.I.S.S. way of looking at it, however, there is one undeniable fact: you can turn 2:3:3:2 footage into 3:2 footage at any point in post. However, you cannot do the other way around and turn 3:2 footage into 2:3:3:2 footage, without image degradation.

You can also find reasons to work with true 24p all the way through even if you only want to export to NTSC TV sets, 2 of those reasons being, like I mentioned above, that 24fps is less render intense for your editing/effect software since you render 6 less frames every second. You can also encode to a 24p DVD, which allows to put less compression per frame and/or give more room on a DVD disc (less frames to encode and write per second).

Aaron is correct. The difference between 2:3 and 2:3:3:2 has nothing to do with whether you're going to film or not. It's all in how the footage is to be edited.

2:3:3:2 provides for easier, lossless extraction back to the original 24p frames. If you're editing in a 24p timeline, you will get cleaner 24p footage from having shot in 2:3:3:2. And editing in a 24p timeline is most certainly not restricted to just transferring to film! Making a 24p DVD is probably the most tangible benefit to shooting 24p in the first place, and in order to make a 24p DVD, you'll want to shoot in 2:3:3:2.

The 2:3 mode simulates the look of film that's been transferred to 29.97 video. It's ideal for editing in a 29.97 timeline. It can also be edited in a 24p timeline, but with more work and a small loss in a) original compression quality, and b) another small loss in reconstructing the original 24 frames. If you're intending to make a 24p DVD, you will definitely be better off if you shot 2:3:3:2 in the first place.

To summarize again: 2:3:3:2 is for when you intend to edit on a 24p timeline. 2:3 is for when you intend to edit on a 60i/29.97 timeline, or perhaps if you don't know how you intend to edit. The decision has nothing to do with whether you intend to transfer to film or not.

Bary is totally right ... yet again.

Just think backwards.

1. Your final media is DVD. On DVD you can create 60i, 30p or 24p mpg files. Any of these will be shown correcty on a video media (TV, projector, etc.) because the DVD player will take care of that. The DVD player will automatically add a 2:3 pulldown to the 24p mpeg to be able to see it on video. So as Bary said, you want to put 24p mpegs on your DVD if you want the film cadence feel. It will also make your files smaller does make it able to add more to your DVD.

2. Since it's 24p mpegs, it has to come from a 24p project on your NLE.

3. You need to add 24p footage to your project

4. To get clean 24p footage from your XL2 you should shoot in 2:3:3:2 . The NLE will convert that cleanly to 24p.

If your final DVD mpeg was 60i with film cadence look, you could use a 60i NLE project and 2:3 footage from the XL2. But it's MUCH easier to edit in true 24p.

Frank

Frank, I think you put it best. An earlier post used the word "only" when it's not an "only" situation at all. And like David suggested, what I said "would be the K.I.S.S. way of looking at it." I never argued any other point about NLEs or what the DVD player can or can't do, etc. I qualified my statement and provided a valid reference. That's all I've done. That's my personal philosophy. "Keep it simple, stupid."

There are many people who love to make things complicated. There are those who revel in the minutia, and that's fine. I'm just not one of them. I don't need to know (and don't) how my car works, but I'm a darn good driver, even if I do say so myself.

Yes, there are a hundred and one ways to skin a cat.

Here's an article that you might want read
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html#24pRecording