How to add old camcorder "Cinema" mode on 23.976P

sonicvision wrote on 5/30/2022, 12:54 AM

I recently got an older Panasonic X900 camcorder that has what they call "Digital Cinema Mode" that has very little specific information in the manual or online. I do see some mentions that this Digital Cinema mode is "24p-in-60i container". The MTS file shows in Vegas as 29.970 Upper Field First. I am wondering how I should work with this in Vegas Pro (not using for slo mo, and want to keep any attached audio in sync). Do I just add to the 23.976P timeline and render as 24P (I have also read some things about doing 'IVTC' , 3:2 pull down but not sure how to those in Vegas or if I actually need to.

I am on VP 19.

UPDATE 2023-08-05: I did some more tests, 24P project and render vs 23.967 IVTC project and 23.967 IVTC render of the X900 Cinema mode footage (that if project set to match footage will show 29.97). My current verdict is that 23.967 IVTC project and 23.967 IVTC render of the X900 Cinema mode footage looks good when rendered. 24P yielded poor results in pans, fast movement of people etc.

Thanks.

Back to post

Comments

Vdanny wrote on 6/3/2022, 5:19 PM

Hi @john_dennis , @sonicvision , @Musicvid ,

The reason the files from the Panasonic and @Music are rendering properly is because they are hard telecined to properly arrange the interlaced frames to be sitting next to each other and therefore can be easily be frame blended. The problem starts when you begin editing. When you edit, for example for the sake of argument a WSSWW cadence, you have progressive and interlace files sitting in this pattern. If you make a cut between the two W's and they are progressive frames there won't be any issue. If, however, you make a cut between the two S's which are interlaced frames and move them then they can no longer be blended to make a full frame and you will get artifacts. You can try to go through your edits hoping only to cut progressive files but I don't know anyone who would want to edit this way. Does this make sense?

john_dennis wrote on 6/3/2022, 5:30 PM

@sonicvision

If you want to conform your video to 24p certain, use this method in Shutter Encoder.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dZXP-YGgN_xjqRj1H7k65TAVCfca7uEk/view?usp=sharing

Use a high quality intermediate like ProRes or Magic YUV.

Note that Shutter Encoder will produce a file that is marked "24P" in Mediainfo, but, the Pro Res render templates in Vegas will have to be customized.

My interest in cadence is waning. If the picture doesn't have any artifacts, I don't care what field or fields were used to create it.

Musicvid wrote on 6/3/2022, 5:35 PM

@Vdanny Thanks again for your question; John, who is a career mainframe engineer, and I, who cut my teeth at Technicolor Film Laboratories starting in 1970, have both learned long ago to detelecine our program material before cutting or re-editing. Sound simple enough? We both also own VideoRedo to catch and bake any red herrings.

Rather than speculate further in this thread, may you feel encouraged to ask questions in your own thread? That way, our discussions can still remain fresh and gracious, and unburdened by the tendency to ruminate over a single, now apparently moot, point. Excellent sleuthing, @sonicvision!

Vdanny wrote on 6/3/2022, 6:05 PM

Hi @Musicvid and @john_dennis

My query was directed at @sonicvision who was asking about what the cadence letters refer to with the effect on editing and if I was explaining it clearly. I have at no time questioned the formidable knowledge or experience you both bring to the table. I have previously sent a private message to Mr. Dennis thanking him for the Shutter Encoder option which will generate the desired progressive frames.

sonicvision wrote on 6/3/2022, 6:15 PM

@Vdanny yes, it made sense, though not sure how I would Identify the different frames. Obviously I'm no adept at this as when I have scrolled frames they look OK to me but I haven't done editing with this type of file yet.

Musicvid wrote on 6/3/2022, 6:56 PM

My query was directed at @sonicvision

No. You just twice addressed all three of us, and all three of us received both of your nearly identical missives via our private emails, not exactly a benign act, nor were they news to any of us. I find this all to be just a bit disingenuous and mildly disrespectful, and for that reason I am done. I'll contact you if I find myself in need of advice about field and frame cadence.

sonicvision wrote on 6/3/2022, 9:18 PM

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

@Former user just thought I attach screenshot of what same 29.97 60i file frame looks like on both Resolve 24F timeline with 3:2 Pulldown and Vegas (23.976 IVTC) timeline. Perhaps I'm not doing something right in Resolve but the Resolve (top) frame looks worse to me.

Regardless, if I can't get satisfactory results when editing (though so far things seem ok) then I think I would use Shutter Encoder that @john_dennis informed us of. It appears to do the job and seems to me to be more straight forward and clear in options/process than Handbrake for this specific task.

Former user wrote on 6/4/2022, 5:44 PM

It's not de interlacing correctly . For me after ticking the 3:2 pulldown removal option it just worked. This is the help file, there's an option that can be changed, but really if you're not going to be using Resolve for editing, you've already found a couple of methods of creating a 23.976P file either via transcode for Vegas Timeline or as a end render from Vegas. Resolve was to show how it deals with the problem and what Vegas could implement in the future

Btw the file I used is not from your camera, it's from Panasonic GH1 which I had read from this thread uses same technique as your camera but could be slightly different