2:3 or 2:3:3:2
 

I've been reading various posts on 2:3 and 2:3:3:2 pulldown settings.

What criteria determines which setting you should choose when shooting in the 24p mode on an XL2? When would you want to use 2:3? ...When would you want to use 2:3:3:2?

Is there a simple answer?

I'm editing in Final Cut Pro 5 and exporting to Quicktime and then compressing in Soreneson Squeeze for the web.

Any help on the subject or links to answers would be appreciated.

Thanks.

The short, basic answer is if your final output is intended for 35mm film transfer, shoot 2:3:3:2. Otherwise if your final output is intended for video, shoot 2:3.

Thanks!
 

Thanks Chris. I won't be doing any transferring to film, so 2:3 it is! I appreciate your quick answer. Now I can get on with shooting some footage on my new XL2 (purchased from Brian at Zotz), which so far seems to be just a great camera.

Derek--you just turned his reply upside down. 2:3:3:2 is for transfer to film.

thanks
 

No more coffee for me today...
(made the correction to 2:3 above, thanks Bill)

I know this is an older post I'm bringing alive, but while researching my own questions, I ran across it.

Derek, you have an identical camera/computer/software setup as me. When exploring the pulldown question, I ran across this:

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage..._nattress.html

It suggests that using the 2:3:3:2 pulldown (24P advanced or 24Pa) is the best option for me because of my ultimate workflow:

• Shoot at 24Pa. XL2 automatically creates the 2:3:3:2 pulldown and converts the footage to 60i.
• During the capture (using the DV-NTSC 24p (23.98) Easy Setup), FCP will automatically remove the pulldown and I will be editing on a 24P timeline. If the footage was shot with a 3:2 (2:3:2:3) pulldown, the DV video would need to be decompressed by another program, Cinema Tools, so the pulldown can be extracted. I've tried Cinema Tools to do this and I could never get it to work right.
• I will edit on a 24P timeline.
• Hopefully, this will allow me to edit my footage on my progressive computer monitor. Previously, I've edited on a 29.97 timeline and had all sorts of interlaced effects. If I am editing a 24 progressive timeline, hopefully my problem will be solved.
• I plan on also viewing footage on a TV by sending the video out via firewire to my XL2 using a 3:2 pulldown (better quality than 2:3:3:2 for this purpose) to turn the footage back into NTSC for real time viewing on a TV through the XL2 video outputs.
• Finally, I plan on making 24P DVDs. Since these are only 24 frames per second, they will take up less space (and potentially require less compression) than a normal NTSC DVD. Normal DVD players should apply the 3:2 pulldown when sending the signal to a television set.

I admit that I haven't put this whole plan into action but it seem technically correct based on the link I provided.

Please someone correct me if I am mistaken.

Thanks,

Kelly

I've always wondered about this a little bit. I understand the whole 2:3 for video 2:3:3:2 for film transfer, but the thing that throws me off is Premiere (which I edit with). In the Playback Settings in Premiere Pro, it has two options for "24p Pull-up Method": Repeat Frame (ABBCD) or Interlaced Frame (2:3:3:2). I leave the setting on the latter, but does that mean I should be filming my XL2 footage at 2:3:3:2 or 2:3? It's all just so confusing.

Brent,

I haven't used Premiere, so I am going to guess based on the technical aspects of the question.

The first pulldown is what the XL2 uses to convert 60i (29.97 fps) from the 24p (23.98 fps) you shot at. You can convert four frames to ten by either using a 2:3:2:3 (called 3:2 or 24P) pattern or 2:3:3:2 (called 24Pa) pattern.

If we weren't even talking about transferring to anything and were just going to watch the video as is, the answer would be simple: use the 3:2 pulldown. It will seem smoother and less "jerky" than the 2:3:3:2 pulldown simply because of the way the frames are converted and will be displayed. So that covers what you want the pulldown to be if you are going to just watch the video as is.

Scenerio 1: removing the pulldown during edit and leaving off for 24p DVD or adding back in for NTSC DVD.

If you choose to remove the pulldown when you transfer your footage from XL2 to computer, you will then be editing in 23.98 fps timeline. At this point, it doesn't matter what the pulldown originally was because it is removed (however, for technical reasons FCP doesn't automatically remove 24P, so for logistical reasons I shoot with 24Pa). Since the pulldown is removed, you are watching a simple 23.98 frames per second without any pulldown (replicate frames).

In this case, you can either burn 24p DVDs (the DVD player will add back the pulldown for the NTSC TV) or you can add back the pulldown (you'd want to use 3:2) to play directly back to an NTSC television. I guess you'd call adding back the pulldown as the "pullup" option you mentioned. I don't know why you'd want to add back the pulldown though since it makes your DVD files bigger and the DVD player would add it back anyway.

Scenerio 2: You don't remove the pulldown during edit

If, when you bring your footage into the software from the camera you DO NOT remove the pulldown, you will be editing at 29.97 fps. If this is the case, 3:2 will look better because of the "jerky" issue with the 2:3:3:2 pulldown. After editing, when you burn your DVD, you will ultimately either remove the pulldown (or do your pullup option) and have a smaller 24p DVD or just leave it as is and have a bigger NTSC DVD file.

I'm waiting for anyone to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks,

Kelly

2:3:3:2 pulldown is best, whether you intend to go to film or to DVD. It doesn't matter. Your ultimate result with 2:3:3:2 pulldown will be a 24p timeline and a 24p DVD with no lost frames in true 24 fps. And if you don't want a 24p movie then you shouldn't be shooting in 24p in the first place. 3:2 pulldown is just inferrior, unless you plan on going back to 29.97 interlaced. But then if that's the case you should just shoot in regular NTSC DV and forget the 24p.

Douglas

Go to http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html and scroll down the page about half way. You will find a very easy to read, yet detailed explanation with graphical representation of the two methods. If you don't get it the first time, wait a little bit and read it again. It will make sense eventually.

regards,

-gb-

There is no "best" it depends mainly on how you want to work. If you want to work in a 24P timeline, you shoot 2:3:3:2. If you want to work in a normal 60i timeline you shoot in 2:3. In my experience footage looks best for everything EXCEPT film out when shot in 2:3 and edited in 60i. People will argue all day long so decide for yourself.

I find that people in general BY AND LARGE prefer the look of 30P for DVDs... go figure....



ash =o)

Thanks to everyone for posting on this.

Kelly: I'm anxious to try the workflow you suggested and appreciate you putting all the info together.

Douglas: on your comment - "And if you don't want a 24p movie then you shouldn't be shooting in 24p in the first place." 100% with you on that. That was one of the reasons at the top of my list for buying the XL2. And now that I've got the information on this thread I'm looking forward to doing EVERYthing from shooting all the way to exporting 24p(a).

-------

I thought that just buying the camera and flipping the switch to 24p would take care of everything. Guess not, but I'm glad to learn now since I've only shot a few tapes on the XL2. It will be best to get all this set up correctly the first time.

I'm going to be exporting the majority of my footage to the Internet so loosing the 6 frames per second before compression in Sorenson will work out well. Or... I may be able to set the quality up a notch or two and keep it the same file size.

It's all good. See you all around here.

24pA is also excellent for web movies, and as noted above 24p DVDs etc. etc. It also has the advantage that the file sizes are smaller after pulldown has been removed, so if you're putting the video on a laptop to edit, you can fit more on it.

24pA opens the door to a relatively easy 24p progressive workflow.

24pNormal is great for NLEs that don't understand advanced pulldown or don't allow a 24p timebase, or for integration with more analogue, tape to tape or other such ancient workflows where you'd still like the film look.

Graeme

Thanks Douglas. Your comment summed it up the best for me. So just to verify this one more time (so I don't have to ask again). 2:3:3:2 keeps the footage in true 24p and requires a 24fps timeline in whatever software you use. 2:3 is for when a 24fps timeline is not available to you and you must edit on a 29.97fps timeline. Is this correct, or am I back to square one? Thanks for the replies.

yes that is correct. If you shoot in 2:3 you have no choice but to end up with 1/4 of your frames having screwy 1/48sec-off interlacing artifacts. 2:3:3:2 however puts 24p into 60i DV in such a way that all of the full progressive frames are completely recoverable assuming your software does 2:3:3:2 pulldown removal. We are used to seeing the cadence of 2:3 on DVD and on TV I believe, so 2:3:3:2 will look jittery until you get it in a computer as real 24p but assuming you are doing that, which you should be, 2:3:3:2 converted to real 24p will end up being the best to work with. I would also imagine that shooting in 2:3 and working in a 60i timeline with frame-accurate editing, you could easily get a really screwy 2:3 cadence where two hybrid frames get cut together (or anywhere but 4 frames apart) and that would make for would make for an occasionally jittery looking end product. So unless you are linear editing on dv decks or converting directly from dv to dvd or any workflow thats not going through an NLE or a film transfer... 2:3:3:2 makes the most sense.

At least thats how I understand it.