Jump to content


Photo

new show 24P


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 bbfilmsguy

bbfilmsguy

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Producer

Posted 28 April 2006 - 03:57 PM

Hello-Im new-

We are shooting a series for TV-They want the 24P/Widescreen look-We are shooting on SDX900-that is all set-

I need to deliver DigiBeta/ 4x3/ letterbox/ 29.97/ to the network-

Editing in FCP-

Id like some options for the following-

-Ill probably want to downconvert to DigiBeta so I can edit many shows at once-(Im set up for DigiBeta SDI on all my systems so that would be the easiest for me to work with)-

a) which deck should I use

B) should I downconvert and work with the image squeezed (anamorphic) or letterboxed

c) when should I introduce the 3:2-as soon as possible In hoping-

d)are we shooting 24P or 24PA-

e) Am I missing something

thanks

bbfilmsguy
  • 0

#2 John Ealer

John Ealer
  • Sustaining Members
  • 187 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 28 April 2006 - 10:54 PM

1. Invest in a DVCPRO 50 deck like the AJ-93 or 930 with SDI. Capture via SDI, then you can offline in DV or DV50, then online your timeline to uncompressed and lay off to Digibeta.

2. Personally, I'd work in an anamorphic timeline as long as you have a monitor that can unsqueeze. Only letterbox when you deliver.

3. The SDX-900 pulls down 3:2 in 24P Mode, or 2:3:3:2 in 24PA, what you have on tape is already pulled down to 29.97. There's no reason to shoot 24PA unless you want to edit in a 24P timeline.
  • 0

#3 Chris Million

Chris Million

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 April 2006 - 12:58 AM

There's no reason to shoot 24PA unless you want to edit in a 24P timeline.


I was intrigued by this last comment due to my experience on a documentary project I am working on. The director is aiming for a film out, and I had read here and on other forums that shooting in 24PA would be best for film out, because the pulldown is more realistic-looking and results in less frame-doubling upon transfer to film. So I shot the first few hours of tape on 24PA. Then the editor was brought into the project, and he freaked out upon learning that I shot on 24PA. (He has an older Avid system that has trouble with the 2:3:3:2 pulldown.) I have since shot the rest of the project on 24P at his insistence. Then the other day I read another post that said the 24PA is the way to go for film out.

I guess my question is, are these just FCP editors who are talking up 24PA, and is there really any discernable quality difference? Your comment would seem to say no- can you elaborate? Thanks.
  • 0

#4 John Ealer

John Ealer
  • Sustaining Members
  • 187 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 29 April 2006 - 06:30 AM

24PA is designed to make it easier for NLE's to remove the pulldown in the 29.97 signal when capturing the footage. So, if you want to edit in a 24p timeline (which is generally what you do when you plan to film out or up-res to HD 24p), and your NLE supports it, then 24 PA is the way to go. Once advantage of this workflow is that with pulldown removal, you reduce the number of frames you're recording, reducing file sizes by 20%.

Another workflow for filmout is to shoot 24P, edit in a 29.97 timeline, then remove the pulldown at the end when you're done cutting when you convert your timeline to 24P. In general, this is a more cumbersome than the workflow stated above, but it is certainly doable.

If you intend to edit in and finish for NTSC, then 24P is generally a better choice since the 2:3 pulldown cadence is a bit more visually familiar to the audience.

In terms of the image structure itself (pixel count, data rate, color space, etc.) there's so difference between 24P and PA.
  • 0

#5 Chris Million

Chris Million

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:25 AM

Thanks for the clear explanation. I suspect the editor I mentioned is going for the second scenario you describe, since he has an older Avid that doesn't support 24PA. As a FCP guy myself, I couldn't understand why he wasn't going for 24PA, since the workflow does indeed seem more direct that way.

Thanks again,
Chris
  • 0

#6 John Ealer

John Ealer
  • Sustaining Members
  • 187 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 30 April 2006 - 10:23 AM

Thanks for the clear explanation. I suspect the editor I mentioned is going for the second scenario you describe, since he has an older Avid that doesn't support 24PA. As a FCP guy myself, I couldn't understand why he wasn't going for 24PA, since the workflow does indeed seem more direct that way.

Thanks again,
Chris


Well, if you're finishing for 29.97, shooting 24p with the 2:3 pulldown and cutting / finishing in a 29.97 timeline makes sense, too. If you shoot 24PA, remove the pulldown on capture to edit in a 24P timeline, then you'll have to re-introduce the pulldown at online / finish time so you can deliver 29.97 Digibeta to your client.

J
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Glidecam

The Slider

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Opal

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

CineTape

Willys Widgets

The Slider

FJS International, LLC