David J, nice tutorial, but I have what's probably a really dumb question.

When I look at the media properites of the video I capture with my camcorder, it's always NTSC - 29.970 fps.

In your tutorial the properties showed 23.976 fps.

Did I miss something, or how do I convert my 29.970 video to 23.976 fps? I changed my project properties but that didn't do it.

And what is pulldown? Sorry if these questions are too basic..

Are you shooting with a 24p camera?

If so, is the box I indicated checked (allow pulldown removal)?

If not, you're not capturing 24p footage, so the properties are right.

Pulldown is a method to allow 24 frames-per-second footage to be displayed on a 60 fields-per-second (NTSC) display. Also, it allows 24p footage to be recorded to tape as 60i. It can be removed in order to edit in native 24p, and no NLE does it better than Vegas.

I'm shooting with a Sony TRV140 NTSC camcorder, which I'm assuming is 60i, I've never really paid attention to it before.

The box you indicated in your tutorial is checked.

I watched the tutorial twice, but maybe I think it just hasn't "clicked" with me yet...

Is what you're showing, is it how to "convert" 60i video to 24p so that it looks more film-like?

No, I'm showing how to capture 24p footage from 24p cameras. In this instance, SD cameras like the DVX100 or XL2. No consumer cams shoot 24p.

Conversion from 60i will be handled coming up soon.

I deal only in NTSC 60i DV, and I occasionally render to 24p avi for a film-cadence. I'll choose NTSC DV 24p (inserting 2-3-3-2 pulldown) and it creates an organic feel that works for some things.

DJ, I look forward to your next installment!

Thanks, David.

If you're planning to edit further, the 2-3-3-2 pulldown is the correct scheme to choose.

However, if you're converting it for final render (to watch, deliver, etc.), use 2-3 pulldown. 2-3-3-2 pulldown isn't ideal for display and is really only meant for efficient 24p editing.

<<for whatever reason. If you use 24p effectively, you can fool people into thinking you shot 24 fps film.

David, good work in providing the tutorial. However it's hard to let your statement above go without comment. This seems to me to be the crux of what most people mean about achieving the "film look". Trying to fake it by adding artifacts that deceive viewers into assuming "film" -- 24fps, grain, scratches, gate joggle. Same idea as painting a wooden bracelet with gold paint. Here I'm talking about your comment, not about your videos.

I've said elsewhere on this site that nothing is more misunderstood in the video world than the "film look". It's actually about the characteristics of real film. Not telecined film. Not cadence, not lighting, not DOF, and not film damage. Film is just a far superior in dynamic range, subtlety of tonal gradients, freedom from edge enhancement artifacts, and so on. The difference is immediately obvious when you're familiar with the original; it doesn't need to move -- look at a slide transparency from your parent's collection.

This is probably an ignorant statement, but I'll ask anyway.

Is film "better" than digital in the way that some folks think that LP's are "better" than DVD's?

Is that a good analogy, or does film really beat digital hands-down as far as quality goes?

I know some people like the imperfectness of analog, prefering an old LP record to a "perfect" DVD.

Film has a signficantly wider dynamic range even today.

This shows up primarily as blown highlights in video.

(Film loses detail in the shadows, video in the highlights.)

A particular filmstock can have an emotionally attractive look that can be difficult to reproduce with video.

I used to have a $5,000 turntable for LPs, and I got small pressings directly from the recorded master in a few cases, and early pressings on virgin vinyl (you know, vinyl that's never been squeezed) for much of the rest. When hooked up to a $3,000 RIAA preamp feeding a regular preamp and power amp, etc., the sound could bring tears to your eyes.

That was after you had used a small nuclear device to zap the static electricity from the LP, used high grade air cleaners, adjusted the tracking and needle pressure etc. regularly, and didn't play those records too much.

Etc., etc. In the end it was too much even for me.

I think most nostalgics just remember the first decade of CDs, when they were all mastered with the Sony 1630 (PCM), which was not wonderful compared to the best analog stuff of that era.

Today, I would argue that LPs aren't worth it. High expense and high hassle.

Current A/D and D/A converters are unbelievably good, there is just no reason to stick your head in the sand anymore.

And shooting film is a vastly different ball game compared to video.

You have to do regular gate checks to look for hair and dust, if the air is dry enough you may lose all your footage anyway because the movement of the celluloid generated static electricity that made nice sparks inside the camera, these were of course nicely exposed over your scene.

Then you have shorter scene lengths, the need for film changers, dailies, and more.

A royal PITB.

But it sure can look maahvelous in good hands.

That was when you had used a small nuclear device to zap the static electricity from the LP
Of course, those static guns were/are always fun to zap your friends with around the studio, or if the coffee isn't quite picking you up on those late night sessions....there was always the little red Astatic gun. ;-)

"David, good work in providing the tutorial. However it's hard to let your statement above go without comment. This seems to me to be the crux of what most people mean about achieving the "film look". Trying to fake it by adding artifacts that deceive viewers into assuming "film" -- 24fps, grain, scratches, gate joggle. Same idea as painting a wooden bracelet with gold paint. Here I'm talking about your comment, not about your videos.

I've said elsewhere on this site that nothing is more misunderstood in the video world than the "film look". It's actually about the characteristics of real film. Not telecined film. Not cadence, not lighting, not DOF, and not film damage. Film is just a far superior in dynamic range, subtlety of tonal gradients, freedom from edge enhancement artifacts, and so on. The difference is immediately obvious when you're familiar with the original; it doesn't need to move -- look at a slide transparency from your parent's collection. "

Hi, Serena --

Thanks for the compliments. I'm glad you appreciated it.

However, I think you might be reading a little too much into what I said. I think gimmicks like scratches, artificial jitter, flicker, etc., are largely gimmicks. They can be used effectively when appropriate, of course, to have a particular "look." But they're just add-ons in post.

But I would submit that 24p is no gimmick, and the reason is this -- video is acquired fundamentally differently than film is; it's acquired in half-frames instead of full frames, and at a much higher frame rate. You can add jitter, flicker, grain, whatever, and you're never really going to do more than paint by numbers. The only way to make video look more like film is to is make video shoot more like film.

And 24p does. It's no trick. It's no effect. It doesn't shoot half-frames. It takes 24 whole pictures per second, just like film. And because it does, it behaves remarkably like film and that is apparent onscreen.

Yes, it's still video, and in the case of DV, it's still trapped in a 4:1:1 color space at a resolution of 720x480, with the same dynamic range -- and film is much better, particularly compared to a 1/3" Mini-DV cam.

But it IS acquired, physically, much more like film is. And that's why its motion characteristic is identical to 24p film. Yes, film is about the characteristics of film, and 24p has some of those characteristics, unlike 60i.

So, it's not fake, and the point I was making above is that you can add all the color-correction, lighting, etc., what have you, to 60i video, and you'll still have something looking like video. But 24p looks remarkably like film. Exactly? Of course not; as I also said above, only film looks exactly like film. And not all film looks alike. I stipulated to all of that.

But I sure as heck agree with you on DoF. I've never really understood that particular obsession.

There is no argument that video is cheaper and more convenient to use than film. True also that film requires expertise to get the best out of it, although I argue that applies to everything (even video). However this isn't a matter of comparative religion and I'm not sure why the mention of "film look" sends every debate off into emotional territory. I've worked a long time with film and it's strengths compared to video are a matter of fact. So are its weaknesses, and because of those digital has largely replaced it. That's why I've crossed to video. That's why I'm using HDV; gets me adequate quality but there's no way it matches film. I love video for its convenience. Working around its limitations HDV gives pleasing images. I bought a FX1E instead of the Z1 to minimise the cost if video didn't stack up for me. I'm not going to argue that the FX was a better buy -- it wasn't. However there'll soon be better models.
Mostly, unless you're Bill Gates, compromise is necessary and if we're talking image quality then most of us here have compromised in favour of convenience and affordability. To say anything else is to do the ostrich trick.

Was that in response to me? I don't see where I got "religious" or "emotional" at all, and I don't think anyone was debating until now.

Unless I'm misreading you here -- am I? If so, it's all good. I don't disagree with anything you said here.

Hi David,
No, that was triggered by CourseDesign going on about the problems that can be encountered in shooting film (all true), who in turn was answering a question re "is film actually better or is it all a fable?". In fact I can't see anything of yours in the thread my post would relate to! Of course I use the term "religious" in the sense of argument based on faith rather than fact, and the term is probably peculiar to my way of arguing.
I guess I'll have to accept that 24fps progressive cadence really does have meaning for some people and that is all the look of film that they desire. I've always been hung up on image quality, so for me that is embodied in the "look" of film. I don't care much about frame rate (gee, I grew up shooting 18fps on 9.5mm), but I'm enclined to "faster is better". Obviously I don't like interlace and presently convert all my HDV to 25fps progressive, but that's not for film cadence.
Very likely I express my views either too softly (so nobody notices) or too strongly (so it sounds like I'm starting an argument). I'll have to cultivate the Grazie light touch.

Serena

Aw, sucks, Serena, that's the nicest thing ANYBODY has EVER said about me . . EVER! Was that "Light" enough? - Hope that doesn't imply "lightweight" - as in my arguments are of little or no substance or importance - or am I somehow bereft of depth? - LOL!!!

Just joshing yah . . .

Getting down and serious here .. for a bit . .

It wasn't until I delved into the realms of video that I could start expressing myself - cheaply=attainable enough - thru' video and Vegas/ACID et al that I realised that I could, in the short time I have on this planet (I should've started earlier, but then the clobber=kit wasn't around!) create and produce short run moving images and good enough sound that I am now obsessed by the craft; my clients love what I do and kinda appreciate my obsession with that which is THEIR video - period!

I like the WHOLE and revel in the ways I can express and create new stuff and wrap myself in the "process".

Sometimes - this past week - it is punishing. I've been starting at 3:00am and running thru' to when my partner says that food is on the table about 7:00pm in the evening. I love it all. Sometimes I crash about the house, talking, shouting to myself 'cos I can't appear to get from "A" to "B" to "C" - the ideas don't come . . sounds familiar? I've got exactly this at the moment. How do I "bring" together 2 celebrations of 2 separate buildings that are 2 miles apart? That kinda thing. Clue here is that when I DO find the inkling of an idea, and start hacking it out in Vegas, I really do get excited.

Sorry to wander off thread, David, but I guess WHAT I'm saying is that my "present" technologies are great, great enough enough to service this 'umble videographer. AND I'm still learning and squeezing out more from this remarkable, attainable, affordable, exciting and effective and effecting medium. There are many "other" ways to raise that bar. And in no way have you said any different. I'm just further, wanting to make the point about creativity & content being paramount; the ability to conjure up stuff from WHAT we do have and to explore and navigate even, for me, presently with my XM2, is a pathway still being explored.

Sometimes if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck .. ? There again, without being "duck-ist" - you could very well be a Swan!

. .and sometimes we can all get too wrapped up in the tech stuff. I love the new and obtaining more quality. Great! I come to this forum mostly/often purely 'cos of this - plus you lot ARE my chums - but. but, but . . it is ALL, and I mean all, about the outcome and impact. It is about the story and the way a cut is made; the twinkle in a person's eye; a chuckle and look you've captured; the sound that evokes an emotional response; the enticing colours and dramatic catharsis created and so on and so on . . . hey, talking about it doesn't make it less so! I would LOVE to have been in the salon around the gang of impressionist - Monet, Manet, Cezanne - ah Cezanne! - and raised a glass to expression and creativity.

So let's raise that glass a bit more often than we appear to do so? Forget the "bit"-bit . . lol . .

And I still say, that your tutorial, DAvid, this week, knocked home some yet further understandings about the nutz and boltz of this craft, which I kinda knew, but needed that extra bit of underlining to understand.

Grazie


[ . . . how was that Serena? . . (chuckles off!) ]




<< .. spilling and syntax editing gone on!!>>

Good stuff Grazie. And I'm in complete agreement that it's what you do with it that matters. And the great thing here is that so many people are contributing both questions and answers to help everyone do it better. Audio visual stuff, of course!

Hiyah! - Yeah, now and again it does need to be resurrected . . I'm up for that though.

gRazie

I just realized that there is quasi-exception to one of the things I typed in my earlier post.

I wrote:
"...no two corresponding fields are ever captured by the camera AT THE SAME TIME...You end up with two halves, each from a different moment in time."

This is true for shooting 60i or any other interlaced format. However, when shooting 24p and then CONVERTING IT TO 60i BY ADDING PULL-DOWN, the upper and lower fields in the 60i format are created from THE SAME PROGRESSIVE FRAME. So, while it's only a result of conversion to an interlaced format from video ORIGINALLY SHOT IN PROGRESSIVE, it is a legitimate case in which the upper and lower fields are BOTH from the same moment in time.

...just a thought.

P.S. Dave, I just watched the video (finally found time).....NICE work, great info, very clear and a fantastic reference for those of us with sketchy memories. :-]

"This is true for shooting 60i or any other interlaced format. However, when shooting 24p and then CONVERTING IT TO 60i BY ADDING PULL-DOWN, the upper and lower fields in the 60i format are created from THE SAME PROGRESSIVE FRAME. So, while it's only a result of conversion to an interlaced format from video ORIGINALLY SHOT IN PROGRESSIVE, it is a legitimate case in which the upper and lower fields are BOTH from the same moment in time."

You are correct . . . but pulldown removal isn't really "deinterlacing" in the sense we've been using it. It's extracting the original progressive frames from the 60i stream. There's a distinction.

You wouldn't want to run 24p footage through any kind of "deinterlacing," you'd end up with a mess. Either remove the pulldown, or edit it as 60i.

Also, I should note, if you've got 30p footage, don't try to deinterlace it, either. Edit on a 60i timeline, then change the project to progressive with "none" for the deinterlace method.

Glad you enjoyed the video!

Exactly! I think this is one of the most confusing things I've had to figure out so far. There just isn't a GOOD explaination of all of these fine details in any one spot. I had to dig up about 4 different websites (out of countless useless ones) including some stuff from Panasonic & Wikipedia to get this straightened out in my head. ...all this just so we can see PROGRESSIVE original footage on TVs. :-]

Once you figure out Fields vs. Frames and Pull-down vs. Interlacing , it's pretty easy stuff. And the fact the Vegas handles it all so smoothly actually makes the concepts MORE confusing at first. ...one would almost think that 60i and 24p+pull-down were the same thing in Vegas, because it's so easy to capture, import, edit, etc. both -- and all on the same timeline.
--
Mike
www.i5pmusic.com

I had to correct some info on Wikipedia. God knows what they've done with it since.

You're right. Wiki is a great place to get lots of facts in one spot that don't get posted anywhere else. For absolute accuracy -- well let's just say "by the mouth of 2 or three witnesses..." :-p

--
Mike
www.i5pmusic.com