Which is better, Vegas 6 (60i to 24p) or DVFilmakers 60i to 24p?

[Laurence Kingston]

Wierd, I used to see what you're talking about in Vegas 5 and below. In Vegas 6 I see no double images at all. I wonder what we're doing differently.

[Riley Harmon]

anyone want to post the specific instructions on how to do this in vegas? thanks

[Laurence Kingston]

You just open a regular NTSC project in Vegas 6 and render to NTSC P24 3:2:2:3 pulldown avi or NTSC 24P mpeg 2. It couldn't be easier. If you're going to AVI, selecting the 3:2:2:3 pulldown method is important. You'll see double images on certain frames if you don't choose this option.

[Patrick Jenkins]

I'm kind of losing the idea of what the prefered look of 60i->24p should be. Are there any good examples of really good 60i->24p that don't involve some sort of 2:3 work for looking good on a crt?

Or perhaps my brain has shut down and I'm blurring all these things together.

Here's a 2-3-3-2 export (then exported to quicktime) of the same clip. The original Vegas 6 clip as 2-3.

While the frame/field patterns noticably vary between the three samples I've posted, I have no clue anymore which one is superior to the other nor why it is... I mean, if it looks right in motion, that's the most important part...

*head thump*


Vegas 6 - 24p w/ 2-3

DVFilm Maker 24p

Vegas 6 - 24p w/ 2-3-3-2

[Joshua Provost]

Patrick, you know, that is absolutely bizzare. The 2:3 vs. 2:3:3:2 cadence correlates exactly to the double/triple images in the files.

What's really weird is that 2:3 and 2:3:3:2 refer to interlacing methods when storing 24p in 60i files. It's a question on storage. 2:3:3:2 is the ideal storage format not for playback, while pure 2:3 is smoother on playback but isn't intended for storage.

Neither should impact what the image looks like at 24p. 24p is 24p. The frames should be the same, and the image shouldn't change based on the storage format.

It seems like Vegas is defining these terms in a new way. If you use 2:3, it blends 2 fields into a frame (double image), then combines the next three into a frame (triple image), and so on. 2:3:3:2 just changes the number and sequence of frames blended. That's completely backwards.

Like I say, it really smooths things out, but it's unlike anything I have seen.

[Laurence Kingston]

I don't really have enough experience to know what to look for either. I do know that the Vegas 6 24p conversion looks smooth and pleasing to my eyes, and that on my own stuff I don't see any double images.

I will probably never transfer a project to film. My interest in 24p is really just for four reasons:

1: I think it scales better between 16:9 and 4:3 TVs. Interlaced 16:9 footage played back on a 4:3 TV goes through some kind of extra hardware deinterlace stage done by your DVD player as it's dropping every 4th line. To my eyes at least, 24p widescreen looks better as it is seen letterboxed on a standard TV.

2: 24P compresses better, both when you want to compress it down for the Internet or if you want to stick more than an hour on a DVD.

3: I like the way still picture and title animations look at 24p.

4: It is the look people are used to on their DVDs.

[Joshua Provost]

Lawrence, I'm with you on all those reasons and more.

The reason we are seeing the double and triple images is because the image contains tall, thin, vertical objects like the lampposts. On larger objects you won't see a "double image," but rather blurring around the edges of objects moving horizontally across the screen.

A bit of blurring/blending can be advantageous since 60i's 1/60 shutter speed is slightly faster than films 1/48 shutter speed. However, too much blurring/blending, you lose defintion and detail.

If it looks good, use it.

[Mike Moncrief]

Hello,

Interesting thread.. Had not seen it before today.. i have FX1..And I am also interested in getting that nice 24p look for my DVD's.. Does everyone recomend just shooting in plain vanilla 60i to start out?? No picture profile settings , like cinema tone etc...???

Mike M.

[Joshua Provost]

Mike, congrats on getting an FX1.

If you can get the look you want in-camera, go for it. It will certainly be much faster than correcting in post. 60i is the way to go, though, for any 24p conversion or output to film.

[Riley Harmon]

for some reason when i render from vegas to 24p it keeps it 29.97/interlaced and im using the defaults for that profile. I have a NTSC wide project and I go to render as and tried both of the NTSC 24p Wide settings, tried both pulldowns and they both ended up giving me a 29.97i video

[Mike Moncrief]

Hey Riley,

Just curious are you rendering to a file, or are you printing to tape??


Mike Moncrief

[Riley Harmon]

rendering a file

[Mike Moncrief]

Hello,

I had a little bit more time tonight to experiment with what you were saying.. And I got confusing results.. I took some footage shot with my FX1 captured in Vegas 6.. Set my project size for DV widescreen 24p.. Then rendered out the footage to a file using the Ntsc DV Widescreen 24P (2-3-3-2 pulldown)
After the render i load the new file I just rendered out into Vegas as some media.. and Vegas 6 shows it being DV widescreen footage 23.976 fps..
Ok all looks well..

But if I load that same piece of media in After Effects 6.5.. It list the footage as DV at 29.97 fps....
Also if I use windows explorer and right click on the file to see its properties,, I see 29 frames per second listed???

Anyone have any insight at what is true here??

Mike M.

[Patrick Jenkins]

If you're using the DV format (regardless of 24p, or the pixel aspect), it'll always be 29.97. 24p encapsulated inside 29.97 just pads frames (all the 2-3 or 2-3-3-2 stuff in this thread) to fudge out 23.976 to 29.97.

If you want a true 24p file (23.976) without fields, render to another format - like a YUV quicktime file or a YUV avi, etc.

[Patrick Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Joshua Provost

Patrick, you know, that is absolutely bizzare. The 2:3 vs. 2:3:3:2 cadence correlates exactly to the double/triple images in the files.

What's really weird is that 2:3 and 2:3:3:2 refer to interlacing methods when storing 24p in 60i files. It's a question on storage. 2:3:3:2 is the ideal storage format not for playback, while pure 2:3 is smoother on playback but isn't intended for storage.

Neither should impact what the image looks like at 24p. 24p is 24p. The frames should be the same, and the image shouldn't change based on the storage format.

It seems like Vegas is defining these terms in a new way. If you use 2:3, it blends 2 fields into a frame (double image), then combines the next three into a frame (triple image), and so on. 2:3:3:2 just changes the number and sequence of frames blended. That's completely backwards.

Like I say, it really smooths things out, but it's unlike anything I have seen.

I finally figured it out!

Here's a clip of 24p (from 60i) that's supposed to actually look how it's supposed to. The car shot from before isn't a good example using the 'proper method'. It's too unsteady (doh!) and it'll make the footage look jerky from the 24p method when really it's the bad camera movement.

Hopefully this is better. I've tried a few different things and I haven't noticed any odd reconstructed blended frames, nor stacattoing images that look downright odd.

24p finally

What Vegas is doing in the earlier examples actually makes sense now. Though I'm new to Vegas, I'm imagineing that this way it uses is actually superior to how it used to(?) and other ways of doing.

Do a 24p project and turn off Smart resampling for a clip. The deinterlacing is still in effect to clean up and reconstruct the image, but in 24p mode using resampling is blurring the sequence of frames (that was figured out in earlier posts) to make less obvious the differences between the shutter speeds. 60i converted to 24p gets that realtime-movement-yet-hyperreal shutter look to it and the resampling effectively eliminates that. The actual 60i -> 24p process also generates smooth (non 2:3 stuttery - but it is normal progressive stuttery) motion.