Thank you, John. Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by video adaptor? Regardless, I see that project is set to 60i/29.97 which would match the X900's file format. Do you have recommendation for if the X900 footage was being used in project with 24P Native video?

Your second screenshot I think may be what I was looking for (Frame Rate 23.976 [IVTC Film]) as that really smoothed out the jagged jitter of panning clip in my test. Thank you very much for your helpful reply!

@sonicvision

"I am not sure what you mean by video adaptor?"

In your signature, you show "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960". I'm uncertain how much Vegas 19 will use that vintage of video adapter even though it is able to use the video card for decoding source files, some fX and rendering (encoding) some types of video.

"Do you have recommendation for if the X900 footage was being used in project with 24P Native video?"

 If you have a different camera that you use to shoot a majority of your content at actual 24P, I'd consider nesting the X900 media in a project as I described and adding the nested project to the 24P Native video project.

Value Judgement

Having shot a large number of sporting events at 1920x1080-23.976p, I would (and I currently do) avoid the frame rate, if at all possible.

This mode is very similar to what's known as "soft telecine." The 24p frames are intact, living inside the 60i (29,97i) container, which is for the benefit of older teevees. Set your project properties to Progressive, 23.976 IVTC to view on your monitor and render it as it was shot.

Upload an original sample footage to Drive or Dropbox if you need further help. Most movie DVDs are done this way too.

@sonicvision

What @Musicvid said is true. It probably doesn't take a $2000 video card and Smart Adaptive(GPU Only) logic to extract that progressive video from the 60i (29,97i) container.

You can also do it in Handbrake by setting 23.976 Constant Frame Rate.

This mode is very similar to what's known as "soft telecine." The 24p frames are intact, living inside the 60i (29,97i) container, which is for the benefit of older teevees. Set your project properties to Progressive, 23.976 IVTC to view on your monitor and render it as it was shot.

@Musicvid are settings in my screenshot correct? When rendering would I still render using the IVTC Frame Rate per John_Dennis's 2nd screenshot earlier in discussion (seems redundant to need it in 2 places)?

I say give it a try; be sure to save your render as 23.976p.

Hi @sonicvision,

I believe you will have superior results removing pulldown using Handbrake as @Musicvid suggested.

 

I believe you will have superior results removing pulldown using Handbrake as @Musicvid suggested.

 

@Vdanny my preliminary test today was opposite to what you believe, the Handbrake result looked much worse to me, showing interlacing lines, was jittery etc. Now this may because I didn't make all settings needed correctly? I set Handbrake to 'Detelecine" at 23.976 Constant Frame Rate.

So far, I think the best result was doing as @john_dennis suggested, using HD 60i (1920x1080 29.97) project and rendering to IVTC 23.976.

@Vdanny Everything I see indicates that @sonicvision has footage that uses Soft Telecine, and not 3:2 Pulldown; I may be wrong though.

@Vdanny Everything I see indicates that @sonicvision has footage that uses Soft Telecine, and not 3:2 Pulldown; I may be wrong though.

@Musicvid I believe you are correct, but I am a newbie to this, but from things online I read it does appear this would be a case of 'de-telecine' or 'IVTC'. Just trying to find the best process. I see you mention "24P frames living in 60i container' and @john_dennis mentioning 'extracting' the 24P. I assume both these mean the software converting the frames of the 60i container and at no point would I actually see 24P file actually extracted, just the final 23.98 render?

Hi @sonicvision,

That is interesting. I wonder if Handbrake is getting the cadence wrong with X900 footage. That is great if Vegas Pro is giving you the quality you are looking for.

@sonicvision No, your footage is actual, absolutely honest 24p. It gets "called" 29.97i (60i) so it can be played on older teevees, that is all.

There is a fundamental difference between that and the older method of displaying film on television sets, which is called Telecine, or Hard Telecine, where the frames are actually photographically interlaced and the fields are played back at a 3 to 2 cadence. That is a much older process, I believe it does not apply to your camera footage. Post that sample if you would like it looked at, thanks.

Here is Soft Telecine 24p extracted and played back at the proper framerate (Note: no "pulldown" has been applied!):

And here is the same 24P wrapped as 29.97i. See the rough playback?

Hi @Musicvid, if I understand you correctly, then this file that shows as 60i 29.97 can just be dropped in a 24P project since, as you say it is "actual, absolutely honest 24p"?

Yes, that was my suggestion for you to try.

Hi @sonicvision,

I am not sure who is right but I have used the Panasonic HDC-SD800 and the HD Digital Cinema Mode footage is 24P in a 60i wrapper. You have to remove pulldown to generate the progressive file. I use the commercial program Neoscene to do this and it works perfectly. If your file was simply progressive 24P then MediaInfo or Vegas would report it as such and there wouldn't be any interlace artifacts. I am curious what is correct and it would be great to have a clip to experiment with. I am sure this will end well. 😁

Sorry for the quick and dirty, shaky poor examples. The left one is 60i 29.97 Digital Cinema Mode straight from camera while one on right same file dropped onto 24P timeline and rendered at 24P. No Pulldown (I don't even know where that is in VP), no Deinterlacing, No IVTC. They look close to me, but I suspect you all have better awareness of this than I and I will be interested to know what you see.

@sonicvision Your examples confirm my thoughts. One on the right is the real 24p, although it would be better to set your project and render properties at 23.976 IVTC and not 24.000, since you are in NTSC land.

Put your footage on the Vegas timeline with the project matching each footage and step through with ALT+Right Arrow. You will see instantly what I mean and no further discussion would be beneficial.

The one on the right you accidentally rendered in in a 29.97p project, but it clearly shows the interlacing artifacts and 3:2 cadence from SOFT telecine.

Danny, the examples prove that his footage is SOFT telecine (which means "wrapped"). It does not need pulldown because it is not HARD telecined (which means "field interpolated"). I don't know of any cameras that shoot telecine. Welcome to the forum, and you have a little homework.

Hi @Musicvid,

I was able to get the original MTS clip from the camera and I can confirm that this is a 24P file contained in a 60i (upper field first, interlaced) stream. The cadence is WWWSS. Neoscene interpreted and rendered it to 24P (23.976) perfectly. While you can simply drop the original MTS file in a 23.976 timeline I don't believe Vegas can perform proper pulldown removal so there will be cadence errors as there are no flags. If you don't mind the odd frame with interlace or other artifacts this is fine but it will become worse as you edit. This is the same kind of file as generated by the Canon HV20 and Panasonic GH1. While this is soft telecine there are still 60 fields with temporal and chroma information which must be reconstituted into 23.976.

While this is soft telecine there are still 60 fields with temporal and chroma information which must be reconstituted into 23.976.

No. It is 23.976p.

Danny, last time. There is no pulldown. You would benefit from learning the difference between hard telecine and soft telecine. His camera does not shoot hard telecine. Done here, best of luck.

@Vdanny @sonicvision

"I was able to get the original MTS clip from the camera"

I would like to be able to have an authentic sample of the video that we're discussing directly from the camera rather than the re-encoded file from the forum server.

Hi @john_dennis,

@sonicvision may be able to provide you a copy of the original clip since he is the owner. You can't see the nature of the footage after it has been re-encoded from the forum server. Thank you for you assistance.