2:3 Pulldown from 24P @ 23.976 to 29.97 DV NTSC

kosstheory wrote on 11/14/2002, 10:54 AM
I recently came accross a tutorial that can be viewed (Downloaded) from here:

porker.sonicfoundry.com
User: dude
Psw: sweet

Its in Sample Projects / intercutting film and video

I saw it in the following forum:

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=108854

After reviewing the tutorial, the clips, and doing some experimentation of my own, I have come to the coclusion that this method does not accurately depict the cadence of film. It causes far to much distortion in high motion scenes. In fact, it seemed that the best film look I was able to achieve came from simply rendering to a progressive DV file and then back to an interlaced DV file, even without adding any film effects to enhance the appearance.

I think that the progressive render softens the image just right...

Anyway, if you loop the tutorial clips, one can clearly see how distorted motions become when you export to 23.976 FPS to simulate film cadence and then back to 29.97 FPS NTSC. It ends up looking pretty crappy, whih really doesn't make sense. I mean, a 2:3 pulldown is just that, a 2:3 pulldown. It's not rocket science. Does anyone know why these or where these motion artifacts are introduced?

In the mean time, I think that I will continue to just export to progressive to achieve my film liik needs.

COuld someone else give this a try and see how it turns out as well, or explain why this is happpening?

Thanks

Comments

Paul_Holmes wrote on 11/14/2002, 11:04 AM
I agree. You're only real hope to get good-looking 24p is the new Panasonic DVX100. One program that's been talked a lot about in this forum is DVFilmMaker. I find it makes for a much better looking video then just exporting as progressive. In scenes where there is little motion it leaves the resolution intact, but makes it progressive where there is movement beyond a certain threshold. If you simply render to progressive and then render it with DVFilmMaker you'll see the latter is much sharper and yet still has that non-live, once-upon-a-time film look.

DV FilmMaker site
kosstheory wrote on 11/14/2002, 2:17 PM
In regards to DVfilm Maker, what settings have you used for doing a proper progressive render?

I have the demo, and I was unable to get satisfactory results. One thing that is notably different between a full progressive render and an interlaced/ partial progressive render would be relatively still shots, with glare. Unless the shot was rendered to progressive first and then back to dv ntsc, you'd still end up with that god awful afternoon soap opera look. I've found that a progressive render softens the light up enough to make this anomaly less obvious...

Does anyone understand how progressive rendering manages to cure the video ills?
Tyler.Durden wrote on 11/14/2002, 7:39 PM
Hi Koss,

I find the render to 30p DV and back gives a decent noise and cadence to the clips too.

I'm also not overwhelmed by DVfimmaker's look... I think is has to do with the retention of interlacing on elements not moving, or something like that. (I haven't totally picked it apart yet.) The render in Vegas can blend fields to soften the aliasing and interlace artifacts, depending on the settings.


MPH



Tips:
http://www.martyhedler.com/homepage/Vegas_Tutorials.html

Paul_Holmes wrote on 11/14/2002, 7:42 PM
I think the solution to that is to cut the stills, make those cuts progressive, then save the full movie as deinterlaced. The final result will be a deinterlaced movie with the stills rendered as progressive. Then process with DVFilmMaker.

DVFilmMaker will just ignore still shots anyways and it only creates a deinterlaced look in the portions of the video that are moving. Which is kind of cool. That means that sudden jerk of the head looks progressive, but the rest of the frame keeps the majority of it's resolution intact.
asafb wrote on 11/14/2002, 8:33 PM
well, as far as for me, i'll just stick with plan vanilla 29.97i ;)
asafb wrote on 11/14/2002, 8:33 PM
by the way, my pd150 does 15P and it looks like $$$$
kosstheory wrote on 11/18/2002, 10:12 AM
was that "big money" or an expletive?