NTSC is 29.97 FPS. It can not display anything 24P unless the 3:2 frames are present (making it 29.97). If you need to view 24 FPS then you'll need to use a computer monitor.

24fps is not NTSC
 

Very true - the DVX100, as well as DVD players, and the FIlmComposer, have been able to display 24fps media on NTSC monitors for a while. I believe one of the techniques has been to show fields instead of frames, sometimes hardware is used to 'translate' the 24fps media to stay compatible with the NTSC display rate. Again, I'm not sure how Avid will be doing this, or how FCP will either, for that matter.

This should explain how it is done in FCP. Also see the discussion I refer to in my first post in this thread.

NTSC monitor question
 

Todd's question was specifically about how 'native24p to display 'native 24p media will be displayed on an NTSC monitor'; I'm very familiar with how the software brings in and sorts out the corrrect pulldown ratio for editing purposes, but the question concerns how NTSC monitors, sometimes called Client monitors, are able to display 24p. I don't find that information on Mr Wilt's link you provided, nor on the Avid site; logic would dedicate that the NTSC monitor will probably NOT show the non-interlaced frame, since that wouldn't work, so some form of half-frame, or field, will be shown, and the pulldown algorithm will be re-inserted for display purposes, whether it's FCP or Avid, or other 24p editing solution.

FCP can play out to firewire from a 24P dv codec timeline right now.

From appearances. it's not inserting a standard pulldown cadence so much as it is just repeating one frame out of 4 to fill the gap.

It's not pretty, but it's not awful either and seems serviceable for the time being.

Here's why I asked about the 24P on NTSC monitor. I was at the DVFilm site (which is interesting BTW - a good deal about good transfers from the DVX), and it said that one should always shoot in the advanced mode, drop the extra frames, edit in 24P (or really 23.976), and then transfer either to film or bump back to 29.97 for video release. It apparently gives a better look either way, far better than 24P standard pulldown mode, due to the fact that you are never reconstructing a frame from two disparate, although adjacent frames. They say that they use a Radeon 7500 to display 24P on an NTSC monitor, and the Radeon does the conversion on the fly. I was just wondering if anyone had come up with a similar solution, or a better one perhaps....

24P standard and advanced mode question.....
 

Do the standard and advanced mode start with the same 24 frames, and then add the 2:3 or 3:2 pulldown, or are they 24 different frames altogether? Here's why I ask. If they are the same 24 frames couldn't you record in advanced mode, use DV Filmmaker to remove the redundant frames, and then perform a pulldown to get to 24P standard, allowing for regular video use, while still protecting for a possible film release. I know this would involve editing twice, once in 29.97, and once in 24P, but at least you could still go back to the 24P advanced version to do your cuts, if and when you transfer to film......If it's the other way around, 24 different frames, you can forget my question altother.....

Hi Todd,

Hopefully this answers what your after - I got a little lost in the middle there...

No, the pulldown will not affect the images captured and EITHER pulldown can be used for film output.

The 24p Standard footage can be edited with the pulldown intact to stay at 29.97 (although this will break the cadence) and still provide the look of film's 24fps frame rate. (Akin to editing telecined film with pulldown intact for broadcast.) This would work in applications where the cadence of the pulldown is not an issue. (Read: do not edit this way if planning on film or other 24fps output since it will be difficult to remove the pulldown after the edit.)

This 'Standard' pulldown can be removed to work at 24/23.976 fps. (For effects or if editing as a 24fps master.) Many software packages can handle this (ie - After Effects) although they will require a render pass to do so. (Unlike some hardware cards [ie - AJA Kona] that have built in uncompressed pulldown removal.)

Thus the point of having the 'Advanced' pulldown - rather than burying some of the progressive frames between mixed fields it creates 1 'dummy' frame every five frames to bring 24 (23.976) fps to 30 (29.97) fps. This allows systems which do not have uncompressed pulldown removal (most DV setups) to strip the pulldown without a render pass - the dummy frames are simply flagged as such and ignored. (See the DV Filmmaker utility at www.dvfilm.com.)

There might also be an additional benefit from the 'Advanced' pulldown in that none of the progressive frames are left solely in fields. As I understand it, the DV codec is frame based instead of field based and some loss occurs when pulling the original images out of the 'Standard' pulldown mixed fields even when uncompressed...

The one catch with the 'Advanced' pulldown is that it should be removed before editing even if you are only planning on a 29.97 master. Its cadence is non-standard and may look a bit odd if left intact. The idea would be to remove the pulldown, edit at 23.976fps and then reintroduce a 3:2 pulldown on the final edited piece. This is the process I would suggest if patience and time can afford it (a lot of the NLE packages are still a bit rough around the edges when it comes to handling 24fps editing.)

Otherwise the results are the same - you can still use whichever other camera settings you would like with either: thick/thin, gamma/matrix settings, color settings, etc. It really all revolves around how you perceive your post process.

FWIW, my current workflow is to: 1) shoot 24p Advanced ('thin', other settings to taste) using a clapboard, if narrative project; 2) capture footage at 29.97 (FCP); 3) bring stringers of selects out of FCP into DVFilmmaker; 4) convert to 23.976 in DVFilmmaker, *without* automatically adjusting audio sync; 5) reimport new clips into FCP; 6) manually sync audio to clapboard (primarily as confidence measure), relink clips with newly established sync; 7) edit footage/sequences at 23.976fps (if edit is very complicated*, then I proxy any titles, animations, composites, or filters for next step); 8) bring edit into After Effects if necessary (via Automatic Duck) for 'online' of animation, compositing, color correction, effects, etc; 9) add pulldown in After Effects on final render along with everything else.

Oh and I guess the audio prep, track building, and sound mix are in there as well somewhere... ;)

* FCP currently does not handle progressive imagery well when any movement is involved - animations, keyframed scaling/position, wipes, etc. These need to be done in AE for the time being to preserve resolution or progressive images. (This is a post all in itself...) If only doing cuts/fades and filters which do not move the image than one can probably stay in FCP (although an intermediate render pass will be necessary to add pulldown in AE.)

Although it is somewhat of a pain currently working at 23.976 fps, it is worth it to retain the progressive images and it also serves as the most versatile master frame rate - from there one can go to film, NTSC, PAL, web, etc.

Probably far more info than was asked for...

HTH,
Clayton

P.S. - Hey Todd, I just reread your post. Just in case in didn't come across in the babbling above - you do not need to 'edit twice', Just edit once at 23.976 and then add 3:2 pulldown to the finished piece for your NTSC master.

You posted the following comment:
"* FCP currently does not handle progressive imagery well when any movement is involved - animations, keyframed scaling/position, wipes, etc. These need to be done in AE for the time being to preserve resolution or progressive images. (This is a post all in itself...) If only doing cuts/fades and filters which do not move the image than one can probably stay in FCP (although an intermediate render pass will be necessary to add pulldown in AE.)"

Can you expand on this, please? I'm curious why FCP can't handle progressive imagery very well. Is it something the Apple is aware of and working on, or is it just the nature of the program? Or, is this something that is resolved with Apple's Cinema Tools? Does it lack the need support for progressive editing?

Curious,
Russell

Hi Russell,

It seems to come down to the way that FCP 3 works with fields or the lack there of.

When working with progressive footage you obviously don't want to introduce interlaced material when renders are created. If FCP's settings are left in their standard DV setup this will occur when a render has movement (ie - animation scale/position/rotation or a transition like a wipe.)

The solution would seem to be to set the sequence settings to 'None' for field order and/or turn off 'Field Rendering' within the render settings. Unfortunately, this does not work as expected and FCP essentially ignores every other line and cuts the vertical resolution in half.

The current 'fix' is to leave sequence field order settings to 'Lower' and keep 'Field Rendering' enabled. This will preserve the image quality but of course will get you back to having fields introduced if there is clip/transition animation. I don't believe it will become a problem if one is only cutting/dissolving and adding effects that do not animate the image.

The workaround for avoiding inappropriate renders is to cut in FCP as noted above and either bring just the animated / composited sections into After Effects or if the edit is very complicated, use FCP only for cutting and effects / placement proxy - ultimately bringing everything into After Effects for 'onlining'. (Either through importing reference sequences or with a utility like Automatic Duck.)

I don't know for certain if this will be addressed in the next update, but given that Apple is trying specifically to accommodate this camera and 24p editing, hopefully they have become aware that this bug is currently a large obstacle to that end.

Hope that helps,
Clayton


These links are to some of my posts at 2-pop with additional info/details:

http://www.2-pop.com/ubbthreads/show...rue#Post585149

http://www.2-pop.com/ubbthreads/show...rue#Post548963

<<<-- Originally posted by Clayton Farr : It seems to come down to the way that FCP 3 works with fields or the lack there of. -->>>


Seems like this problem would have been noticed by the thousands of people that have edited XL-1 frame mode material in FCP. Any of you all out there? Is it possible there is an *earlier* version of FCP that plays well with progressive-scan frames?

Yeah you would think...

Also, for that matter, what about the people who are using FCP with film originated material (via something like Cinema Tools) and finishing to a video master or for those working with HD progressive?

I'd love to hear of some combination of settings that work properly, if they're out there...

Clayton

(BTW - To accurately notice the fields being tossed out in FCP either view at 100% with 'square pixels' turned off OR export footage/frame and view in separate app. [with 'High Quality' turned on if viewing in QT Player.])

24p cine footage
 

Hi I'd like to see various pieces of footage from the DVX100 in 24p cinema gamma mode.

Can anyone point me to where to see some?

Thanks

http://momentsinmotion.com/demo.htm
Download the demo "Christmas Magic"

native 24p output to filmstrip in AE 5.5
 

can anyone provide some info on this process? the goal is an entirely deinterlaced progressive filmstrip for work in photoshop, from 24AP footage. i'm capturing with FCP 1.2, if that makes a difference. Thanks!