Comments

David Jimerson wrote on 6/1/2006, 8:24 AM
Not sure what you mean? What is your desired output?

You shouldn't have to render the project more than once. If you ultimately want a 24p AVI, and you have the project edited the way you want, then just render as a 24p AVI. You don't need to prep sections or anything.
jrazz wrote on 6/1/2006, 8:42 AM
What I am doing is rendering individual veg files to avi's and then compiling those in another veg which I will ultimately render out to 24p mpg-2 for DVD output.

Do I need to render the avi's to 24p with a 2-3 pulldown and then place them in the compilation which will be rendered to the 24p mpg2 with a 2-3 pulldown? The reason I ask is I don't want to duplicate the pullodown and I don't know enough about it to know if this will occur or if it will see that a 2-3 pulldown has already been instituted in the avi and it will just encode to mpg2.
I hope that clarifies things and makes a little more since. The reason I am rendering to avi is that when I use nested veg's it crashes on me.

j razz
apit34356 wrote on 6/1/2006, 8:52 AM
david has put together a nice tutorial on 24p. What David was saying, just render each veg at 24p avi, then with the master veg, render 24p mpg2.
Now, if you have already render your small vegs as AVI 30p or.. , just render the master veg as 24p mpg2.
David Jimerson wrote on 6/1/2006, 9:02 AM
Best is to render the sub-projects with 2-3-3-2 pulldown, because you're going to bringing them back into a 24p timeline for further work. You won't duplicate the pulldown because Vegas will remove it automatically.

But Vegas will remove either type of pulldown when you bring it into the 24p project.
David Jimerson wrote on 6/1/2006, 9:04 AM
"Now, if you have already render your small vegs as AVI 30p or.. , just render the master veg as 24p mpg2."

No reason to ever render 24p as 30p. And if you want to convert to 24p, 30p is your worst choice -- the conversion will be terrible.
apit34356 wrote on 6/1/2006, 9:20 AM
David, yes, 30p to 24p is a waste of time, but I think Jrazz has a lot number of small vegs already rendered out in dv avi. Sometimes, working with 24p for the first time, people think 60i is 30p, so the comment " AVI 30p 0r ...." was a catchall statement for standard dv avi. I believe that Jrazz source material is HDV that was convert to SD.
David Jimerson wrote on 6/1/2006, 9:44 AM
It's all cool; just wanted to be clear.
jrazz wrote on 6/1/2006, 9:53 AM
Yeah, it is all cool :) Thanks for al the information on this. Apit is right, I am going from HDV 1080i to Cineform then I will be going to 24p 2-3-3-2 pulldown widescreen avi then to mpg2 24p 2-3 pulldown from what I gathered here.
Thanks again for the help and Apit, I feel that you know me so well :)

j razz
Coursedesign wrote on 6/1/2006, 10:19 AM
Best is to render the sub-projects with 2-3-3-2 pulldown, because you're going to bringing them back into a 24p timeline for further work. You won't duplicate the pulldown because Vegas will remove it automatically.

Why is it best to have Vegas first add pulldown and then remove it? Isn't this just adding render time and disk space?

David Jimerson wrote on 6/1/2006, 11:59 AM
He can render uncompressed at 23.976p, I suppose, but it's a longer render than DV with pulldown, and the filesize is *much* bigger.

Or did you have something else in mind?
Coursedesign wrote on 6/1/2006, 12:27 PM
I only work in uncompressed, so I wasn't thinking of any alternatives.

I don't use HDV, so I wasn't aware you couldn't render subclips to 23.98 and use them straight.

Just baffled that it would help to add 25% more frames, and then remove them on ingest later.

For video tape, I understand, because of limitations in the tape format. But on disk, we shouldn't have to worry about those old limitations.

Just a thought.
MH_Stevens wrote on 6/1/2006, 3:07 PM
Now in an other post Spot told me to just bring the Cineform HDV avi intermediaries into a 24p project, edit and render to 24p mpeg then use DVD Architect to put onto a 24p DVD. Why all this add 2332 and remove 23 stuff? Is there some increased quality with this complex method or just confusion?

Michael
David Jimerson wrote on 6/1/2006, 4:52 PM
When I initially answered the question, I didn't know he was working in HDV.

Course, you can't render a straight 24p file using DV. It's not in the DV spec, so pulldown is necessary to render the smaller DV files. That being the case, the better choice would be 2-3-3-2.

But since this IS HDV we're talking about, Michael, you're right; you could probably use the HDV-25p intermdiate preset and change the frame rate to 23.976, then render the sub-projects. Quality of the results? Never tried; don't know.

epirb wrote on 6/1/2006, 5:02 PM
It may not be right but it looks good to me, though I am definately not trying to achieve a film look. But I do the same with my HDV render all asCFDI 60i then final output render for DVD as DVDA 24p template (sometimes w 2 pass) Helps conserve some space on the DVD and looks great to me. Thats what I gleened from Spot once, I may have misunderstood but the end result looks great.
Again not going for a film look here.
MH_Stevens wrote on 6/1/2006, 6:19 PM
Epirb: Yes this is what Spot told me.

He said just make sure you bring the CDFI 60i into a ***24P Project*****, I guess so the transitions, generated media, FX etc are handled right in 24p. ****DO NOT *****DO NOT**** bring into a 60i project and then render to a 24p format!

I took some footage last night with the FX1 at 60i using the "film gamma" setting (and slightly under-exposing) and followed this work-flow and the results were superb without any further processing.

Michael
David Jimerson wrote on 6/1/2006, 7:05 PM
"He said just make sure you bring the CDFI 60i into a ***24P Project*****, I guess so the transitions, generated media, FX etc are handled right in 24p. ****DO NOT *****DO NOT**** bring into a 60i project and then render to a 24p format!"

Absolutely. No question.