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

Excellent article, Kevin! Adam says basically the same I was saying, if I understood him correctly. He said, "The general rule is to shoot 24p Advanced [2:3:3:2] if you want to extract the original 24 frames/second for a 24fps edit or film-out. Shoot 24p Standard [2:3] if you are going to stay on video and edit at 30 frames/seconds (60 fields/second, i.e., plain ol' video at NTSC frame rates)..."

Isn't that what I was saying?

Yeah, I just posted it b/c I was very confused at one time and had people explaining it to me but seeing the visual representation really helped me wrap my head around the whole concept. I will have to admit I had toread it a couple of times to taake it all in.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay Gladwell : Excellent article, Kevin! Adam says basically the same I was saying, if I understood him correctly. He said, "The general rule is to shoot 24p Advanced [2:3:3:2] if you want to extract the original 24 frames/second for a 24fps edit or film-out. Shoot 24p Standard [2:3] if you are going to stay on video and edit at 30 frames/seconds (60 fields/second, i.e., plain ol' video at NTSC frame rates)..."

Isn't that what I was saying? -->>>

Jay, what you said was

"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."

This does not seem to apply to the situation of viewing on TV via 24p DVD where you would want to edit with a 24p timeline and so would want to shoot in 24p Advanced.

Richard

Whatever, Richard. I really don't care. To each his own. If you're showing on it TV, the end result will be the same by the nature of the viewing medium.

If you want to edit in 24p Advanced and it makes you feel good, go for it, big guy!

Well, it does make a difference. It makes a big difference. If editing in a 24P timeline, you can make a pure 24P DVD, which means 20% more space on the disc, or the ability to use a higher bitrate for more efficient compression.

And if playing back on an NTSC TV, yes there'll be pulldown added, whether you did it yourself in the timeline or you let the DVD player do it. But if playing back on a progressive TV, you can get a much better look by encoding the DVD at 24P in the first place, completely bypassing pulldown entirely.

Jay, the point is... you seem to be saying that if your final output is TV, then just use 2:3 because that's what you're "supposed" to do.

As Barry said, there is a difference, and it doesn't really have anything to do with final output. You can still use 2:3:3:2 if you're final output is television. In fact it's the prefered method, because it gives you other options, such as better compression, output to 24p DVD, and if you decide down the road you want to transfer to film, it's much easier.

In reality, if you can edit in 24p, I don't see the point of using 2:3.....ever.

This is making my head hurt

DV Maker
 

I have yet to use my XL2 (what is WRONG with me??) but when I do I'll be shooting 2:3:3:2. Now my question: when I pull it into Premiere Pro do I create a 24p project? Or do I need something like DV Maker to convert the 2:3:3:2 to 24p before putting it in Premiere?

Thank God I live in PAL Land
 

We just have 25 P, that's it. Due to the math, we can not do 24 P whether 2:3 or 2:3:3:2....



Have fun with the additional options avaialbel to the 60 Hz, 100 V, 60 fps inahabitants.

John, Premiere Pro incorporates the ability to deal with 24p footage all by itself and remove the fake frames when you edit in a 24p timeline. So no need for Maker, just create a 24p project with your corresponding aspect ratio and acquire your footage normally. It will detect and remove the fake frames introduced by the XL2 (for 2:3:3:2 pull down).

It's kind of amazing how you have to repeat the same thing over and over again hey Barry ? :-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Simmons : Jay, the point is... you seem to be saying that if your final output is TV, then just use 2:3 because that's what you're "supposed" to do. -->>>

Brad, that is not at all what I was saying. If you go back and re-read my posts, you'll see that I said "it's not an 'only' situation at all" and that Adam Wilt said "the general rule is...".

No where have I said this is the way it's "supposed" to be done.

But you did say something along those lines Jay:

"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."

Big guy. :)

Quoting from the Canon XL2 manual and David Castillo, that would be an accurate statement, which I will stand by.

David,
Thanks so much for the info. I appreciate it very much.

Hi Jay. I don't think the section in the Canon manual is written with DVD in mind, so when you mention DVD, you are no longer quoting from the Canon manual. There are good reasons (very well explained in this thread) for using Advanced mode if you are going to TV via 24p timeline and DVD, so your statement is not really very accurate after all.

Richard

need shutter speed info for 24p fps!
 

Hi guys, I recently bought a Canon XL2 and shooting with 24p fps. I wanted to find out what shutter speed should I use for 24p fps? Anyone please,
Thanks,
ZIA

I'm gonna ahead and say 1/48.

Ding, ding, ding! Josh wins the first lightening round with the 'most correct' of many 'correct' answers. What do we have for Josh today?

We have a lovely assortment of spam, lens cleaning wool, and 5 lbs of pan motion grease.

It's also funny cause your name is Pat, and many-a gameshow host is named Pat...



What do we have for them Pat?!

Abou the shutter speed? 1/48 is standard film shutter speed (1/48th of a second, 24 frames a second... 24x2=48) however, if you use a shorter shutter spee dyou can acheive the gladiator (stutter) effect of no motion blur. I think it looks cool.

For that and other fun facts about 24p read this article.
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html#24pRecording

Also good for the most stubborn cases of insomnea!
Back to you Pat!

Zia,

Sorry to be so flip in my response...it was LATE. I'll see if I can actually help you now instead of just having sport with the response from another forum member (and Josh, no offense intended, you we thinking the same thing I was: 1/48th).

Here is a DV Info article discussing the topic: Achieving a Filmlook with Digital Video

And Sony has a good description of 24p in a Whitepaper, obviously slanted toward use of 24p in their product: 24p.pdf

Oh Pat, No offense was intended. Sorry I was also quite tired and I thought your response was humourus.

Matt

Well now you guys are making me feel bad about my attempt to continue the humor!

It's Okay Kevin, no one takes you seriously anyway.

None of you can top me 'cause I still answered first, and no one will ever take that away from me.

Takes it away...

Ok so heres a question. I shot in 2:3 and have been editing in vegas in a 24p timeline. I now want to render it down to a new avi. What should I use 2:3 or 2:3:3:2? I then will go to mpeg for DVD.

Also, if I stay 2:3 which apparently eats up more space...how much are we talking here? At this ponit Iv learned my lesson and will always shoot 2:3:3:2 from now on but what is best for my project at hand as far as best quality?

thanks!

If you're staying in the 24p realm, stick with 2:3:3:2.

Rendering out to 2:3 causes the frames to need to be uncompressed and split and then re-compressed. Rendering out 2:3:3:2 causes the frames to be directly copied with no uncompression.

2:3:3:2 is really superior for just about any purpose, except for editing on a 60i timeline. However, neither version takes up more space, they take up exactly the same amount of space. But 2:3:3:2 is optimized for 24p extraction and 24p editing.

So 2:3:3:2 even though I shot it all at 2:3 on my XL2? Also, this is a side question. Does anyone know what the DVX100s use. Not the A's the first modle. The shoot Ive been editing is with 3 dvx and one xl2.

Thanks again all. Id be dead in the water with out this site.