Hi @john_dennis,

Perhaps @sonicvision is looking for the 24P "film" cadence rather than the ultrasharp, but video looking, 60P mode. Since I have a copy of the original MTS file I am 100% certain that this is the same consumer 24P in a 60i stream mode as produced by many cameras of that vintage. These include the Canon HV20 and Vixia M40 and the Panasonic GH1 plus many others. Pulldown removal for files produced by these cameras is what the program Neoscene does specifically. As you can see from the original file if you place on the timeline, it is 29.97 frames (60i). I can add a screen grab of the interlacing and or the rendered 23.976 Cineform file with @sonicvision 's permission.

Correct, @Vdanny​​​​​​, for many things I prefer the 'film cadence' as you call it though for some things, I will be OK with the sharp video look of 60P. The old camera ticks a lot of boxes I want in a camcorder other than having native 24P. The main thing I want now is to know best how to use 'Digital Cinema Mode' in Vegas. I am much closer now than I was in the beginning but can't deny finding some comments a bit confusing, but I am appreciative of all the input.

I am also curious how you all can pin point the source file as 'true 24p'? I looked in media info in my media players, Vegas, and MediInfo app but couldn't see that clearly.

I am also curious how you all can pin point the source file as 'true 24p'?

So sorry you missed it.

Put your footage on the Vegas timeline with the project matching each footage and step through with ALT+Right Arrow.

Then you will know instantly if it is 23.976p, or not.

This is absolutely my last post on this thread. You see, I am in the middle of a big project using soft-telecined 23.976p wrapped as 29.97i(60i) footage and a 23.976p render. If by chance you are wondering if I am using deinterlace, pulldown, or any other rendering gimmicks, the answer is no, and yes, It looks wonderful.

Exactly as you suggest @Musicvid as I have a copy of the original camcorder file I can place it on the timeline and see that it is hard telecined. Good luck with your project.

This is where my head hurts a bit as it seems one of you says it's hard, the other soft. Me, know clue how to tell. Will see what I can find online. I just try to see how it works in timeline and how a render compares to the original.

I am not sure how @Musicvid went from being unsure to vehemently saying it was soft when he didn't have a copy of the actual video file to test. It is hard telecined as was common with Panasonic and Canon camcorders of this time. If you look online there will be other forums to confirm this. It is too bad that the PF24 format exists because it has created editing issues since it was created. Have a good evening and best wishes.

I can add a screen grab of the interlacing and or the rendered 23.976 Cineform file with @sonicvision 's permission.

@Vdanny you most certainly may post.

Hi @sonicvision,

Be sure to check your messages sent from another member with instructions on how to extract the progressive video from the interlaced container using Handbrake. It shows the workflow and how to render a high quality file.

I am not sure how @Musicvid went from being unsure to vehemently saying it was soft when he didn't have a copy of the actual video file to test. It is hard telecined as was common with Panasonic and Canon camcorders of this time.

@Vdanny I've adjudicated that you are correct and @Musicvid is wrong. This shows one of these camera files plopped on a 23.976 timeline in both Vegas and Resolve. Resolve is smooth, but Vegas is not due to duplicated frame.

Why the difference in playback?

Resolve has an option in file attributes called "Remove 3:2 pulldown"

So now that we know the truth, how do we do the same in Vegas without transcoding first?

This is the test file I used https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/FULLRES/zvid_AVCHD_1920x1080_00008.MTS

 

Resolve has an option in file attributes called "Remove 3:2 pulldown"

how do we do the same in Vegas without transcoding first?

 

I would like to know this too.

Hi @sonicvision,

Be sure to check your messages sent from another member with instructions on how to extract the progressive video from the interlaced container using Handbrake. It shows the workflow and how to render a high quality file.

@Vdanny I have looked at the example files. To my eye, they look similar, and fine, though I think the Shutter Encoder one might be better looking.

Something I noticed about the 'How to Do It's' was that for the 23.976 Handbrake, when Vegas Project matched to file, the project was true 24P FILM even though the file shows as 23.976.

The Shutter Encoder one shows 23.976 and the project matches as 23.976 IVTC in Vegas.

I loaded both into MediaInfo and differences can be seen there (I highlighted some). There are time duration differences, both being different from source which is 8 s 534 ms.

@sonicvision 

• I encourage you to continue your inquiry, as learning is such an important collateral to these discussions, and one in which I am heavily invested.
• Note to self: Life is way too short to engage in debates in which the answer has no bearing whatsoever on the solution.
• Your footage renders identically in Vegas 19 whether it is placed in a 23.976p project and rendered as such, or left as its reported 29.97i, and rendered at 23.976p with 2/3 pulldown removal (yes, @Vdanny, it's always been an option with MTS / M2T in Vegas).
• I'll repeat that: There are no observed differences in the renders, so you are free to pick the simple solution, or to explore the more involved solutions being proposed, as doing so will also benefit your learning curve.
• I think that you should give new user @Vdanny The Solution for one of his posts in this thread, as he is observant and shows eventual promise as a forum contributor (I already have plenty of "attaboys," having started on the Sonic Foundry Vegas forum in 2002).
• 
• Best of luck, and keep asking the good questions!

An OT note to (newer) users: Only "attaboys" were possible during the earlier era(s) of this forum. "Tag as solution" was implemented late August 2016 when the current owner took over.

😄

 

• Your footage renders identically in Vegas 19 whether it is placed in a 23.976p project and rendered as such, or left as its reported 29.97i, and rendered at 23.976p with 2/3 pulldown removal (yes, @Vdanny, it's always been an option with MTS / M2T in Vegas).

@Musicvid The quote above is what my rookie (but bad old) eyes seemed to sense. Now I just want to know how does one do the 2/3 pulldown removal in Vegas? Is that done when rendering as 23.976 IVTC (option in Vegas)? If yes to this, then actually @john_dennis answer, the first answer in the whole thread, did solve this.

Thanks again to you and all for the input.

Your source is MTS (AVCHD), one of the original BluRay formats along with HDV (MPEG-2), known collectively as the BDAV / BDMV standard.

The MPEG-2 render templates in Vegas still specify a 23.976 with 2-3 pulldown option; the descriptions in the AVCHD / BluRay render templates have apparently changed, but I believe the 23.976 IVTC option still does pulldown, as when they were licensed by Mainconcept and Sony prior to the 2016 Magix acquisition. For my last test, I used the .mpg format just to be sure.

If yes to this, then actually @john_dennis answer, the first answer in the whole thread, did solve this.

Little known fact: @john_dennis has played "Name that Tune" for decades, and is often able to name the song after hearing only two notes.

@Former user as pointed out by @Musicvid, "The MPEG-2 render templates in Vegas still specify a 23.976 with 2-3 pulldown option."

@sonicvision My concern would be a timeline that doesn't represent reality, you're having to pretend the duplicate frames aren't really there and where do you put the edit point? after a duplicate frame or before, also certain effects won't work correctly, an obvious one being optical flow. It sounds like you're happy with the @john_dennis solution and it will work mostly

"I am in the middle of a big project using soft-telecined 23.976p wrapped as 29.97i(60i) footage and a 23.976p render. If by chance you are wondering if I am using deinterlace, pulldown, or any other rendering gimmicks, the answer is no, and yes, It looks wonderful."

@Former user you raise good points that I hadn't yet considered. I've been under the weather so have only taken a few inititial test shots and done no actual editing yet so things you mention maybe be issues of concern though quote above from @Musicvid doesn't appear to be encountering issue with similar files/scenario.

Hi​ ​​​​​​@sonicvision,

@Former user raises the issue I mentioned before. I don't believe that Vegas has a provision for figuring out the cadence of different frames which can be different between cameras and manufacturers. The video through Vegas may look OK but may become progressively more problematic with additional cuts and effects added. The reason @Musicvid may not be experiencing any issues are that his files are soft-telecined as he said. The cadence of your footage with the additional frames appears to be WWWSS. Neoscene can figure out the proper cadence as can AfterEffects. It also appears using a quick test that so can the new on-the-fly pulldown removal in Resolve. I think that Handbrake might be able to do with some tweaking but I will test further. I wish Neoscene was still available (for free😀). It used a chroma algorithm to produce a 4:2:2 10bit Cineform file from this kind of footage. Subject to the limitations of the camera, of course. The Resolve method would be a nice new feature for Vegas but hopefully someone has another method.

@Vdanny I assume you don't think setting the project to 23.976 "IVTC" does the pulldown then? Again, all this is quite above me. I did google "WWWSS" and got nothing but search '3:2 pulldown' I did find a video that showed that option in AfterEffects (that I don't have).

Hi @sonicvision,

I think it does the best it can to reconstitute the file but since it may not understand the cadence it can't do so perfectly. I would be thrilled if this isn't the case. The big question is how much impact does it have visually and on your edits. I would love to hear your experience once you begin editing if you would like to share them.