No, don't do it. If you shot in 60i, render to 60i. If you shot in 24p, edit and render to 24p, and use the 24p template when rendering for DVD Architect.
///d@

Sonic Dennis,

What if I shoot in frame mode on my Canon GL2?

-Cesar

Not the same thing. To use the 24P mode in Vegas you need to
import footage either Tel-Cined at 24P or from footage shot
with the DVX-100 at 24PA. Thats what 24P mode is for.
If you shoot 24P then edit with 24P mode.
If you shoot with any other camera then edit at 29.97.

"What if I shoot in frame mode on my Canon GL2?"

Then create a 30p project template and AVI render template by starting with the standard DV templates and changing the field order to "none (progressive)".

If you are trying to create 24p footage from 30p or 60i, converting 30p to 24p has very visible motion judder. You might be better off converting 60i to 24p; the motion will be smoother with some loss of vertical resolution. But either are only an approximation for shooting in 24p to start with.

///d@

What do I do if I want to render a mpg for DVD architect. I don't see a 2-2 pulldown. does this mean I shouldn't do this if I want to burn a DVD?

cdruiz, if you shot the footage in 30p you might as well render it to a progressive MPEG at 29.97 fps. You should only have to change one setting in the MPEG encoder. (lower field first --> progressive if I'm not mistaken)

"24p video uses less space on a DVD, allowing you to add more video or use a higher bit rate than you could with 60i video."......
"What exactly does this statement mean? Does it pertain only to certain types of camcorder video?"......
In other words, if I use video from a DV camcorder, can I render using the "24p" mode in order to gain more space on a DVD?....

Maybe this will help, FWIW & all that... (apologies if some of this is too basic)

The premise behind film &/or video is to show as many pictures as possible, rapidly, so that we're tricked when watching into thinking it's one continuous motion. So more is better, as with the gamers trying to get frame rates of well over 80. There's nothing wrong with a high frame per second count, and it will make things look better, smoother.

While for the viewer more is more, for compression less is less, meaning an hour of 24 fps video takes up less room then the same video at 30 fps, and 15 fps, a staple of web video, takes less room still. For flash animations 12 or less isn't unusual. DVDs are a hybrid if you will, where the player will take 24 fps progressive video and expand it to the higher 29.97 fps interlaced video NTSC TVs desire, so you get benefits from both smaller size and smoother motion.

With all the talk about deinterlacing, IVT, and pulldown etc., it's easy for folks to start thinking of 24p as some holy grail, that this is something that everyone should strive for all the time. If you're outputting to DVD it can be cool, but please remember that most commercial DVDs originated as movies, were 24p to begin with, so you're really not losing data.

Going from an originally higher frame rate to 24 fps gives the video a bit of a film look, but it won't be as smooth, particularly with hi-motion or panning scenes, in part because you've got less individual pictures, so some of the data gets tossed out. Regardless how it's done, there are frames missing, and, you have less motion recorded in each "original" frame compared to film. Many folks trying to get a film look shoot PAL because at it's 25 fps, they get much closer to the amount of time captured in each frame of 24 fps film.

DVD players help quite a bit, so the data loss converting 29.97i to 24p fps might not be visible, especially on a TV. And software re-rendering or resampling helps. Similar in a way to converting mpg2 or wmv video, the software renders the video the way you would see it if you were watching it play, takes the picture data from each frame, then creates new frames from these pictures. But the result not as good as the original, not as accurate in this case as something shot 24p & left that way.

A lot of the buzz regarding converting video from 29.97i to 24p comes from folks capturing TV broadcast movies or shows. In order to broadcast what was originally film at 24p, a conversion is done to match the movie to the requirements of viewers' TVs. Extra frames are inserted, and partly because they're interlaced at the same time, you get some ugly frames that are visible editing & sometimes on a progressive scan display.

Getting rid of these extra frames usually looks better on a progressive scan monitor, & *may* look better playing on your PC [graphics cards and player software can compensate for TV video & you might not notice a difference]. If you play this converted video on your PC and display it on a TV, it *may* look better, with whatever output hardware and software you use adding the extra frames and interlacing in a different manner then was done before broadcast, but this is equipment dependant. If you're creating a DVD from a captured program or movie, going back to the original film without anything added helps.

Some cameras will shoot true 24 fps &/or progressive video, with many others supporting either or both to some extent. May or may not benefit from shooting progressive or at 24 fps, or doing whatever conversions, depending on your camera, the content of the video, and current and "future" destinations or distribution. Some facilities are trying to archive close to HD specs but distributing at 29.97i & 4:3, and they may like certain formats to upconvert, so it wouldn't hurt I'd imagine for some to explore options now.

If you haven't seen it, this new whitepaper covers some of the issues in this thread- worth looking at:

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/support/productinfo/24p.pdf

Thanks SonicEPM.

One Question though. Would the mpeg renderer similarly take a 30p mpg file and use flags to make it interlaced compatible for the DVD player?

As cheesehole stated, all I need to do is create a new template that specifies progressive. I just wonder whether that would be enough to burn with DVD-A a compliant DVD that can then be played on a progressive scan DVD player with 2-2 pulldown.

24p MPEG-2 for DVD uses the "Repeat First Field" flag as needed for the 2 fields that get repeated in every 4 frame (@24fps).

There are no repeated fields for 30p, so you wouldn't need these flags. 30p for DVD looks just like 60i for DVD, since DVD doesn't allow MPEG frames marked as "progressive".

In other words, if you're working in 30p, just render 60i for DVD using the standard (not 24p) template.

///d@

>>>DVD doesn't allow MPEG frames marked as "progressive".

Is this not true then?
There is a flag on each image stored in the MPEG-2 stream called “picture_structure” that can be either “frame” for a full 720x480 pixel frame, or “top field” or “bottom field” for a single 720x240 field. And it is allowed, but again not required, to set a flag called “progressive_frame” as a hint to the decoder that the fields in that frame were taken from the same frame of film. This allows for better pause and slow motion modes, and better down-conversion of 16x9 images for 4x3 displays. But this is again, purely optional. The content will play fine whether the data is structured as fields or frames, and whether the flag is present or not.

From this web site:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

It's my belief that that statement is false (the part about the "progressive_frame" flag, in particular). However, I don't have all my MPEG-2 and DVD documents in front of me.
///d@

okay, thanks. I guess it really doesn't matter anyway because, as it says later in the article, the flags are set wrong so often on commercial DVDs that they are untrustworthy and mostly ignored by the DVD decoders. Progressive DVD players (or TV's) have to analyze the fields on the fly and decide how to display them based on the video data instead of the meta data. It's an interesting article.

So rendering 30p video to the "DVD architect" preset will work. The video will play progressively on any decent DVD player or TV including software players.

"The video will play progressively on any decent DVD player or TV including software players. "

Should, assuming a progressive stand alone player and a progressive monitor - progressive will still play interlaced to an interlaced TV.

FWIW, the DVD specs are pretty far reaching, and not all specs are supported in the majority of non-software players according to test results I've read.

Question: If the DVD spec doesn't allow for progressive video, what happens with SIF 352x240 NTSC, 352x288 PAL? Not being a smarta__, really am curious.

sorry I meant "The video will play progressively on any decent progressive DVD player or TV including software players. "

Then using the regular NTSC DVD A template should be fine right?
Leaving the field order to lower field and all that.

And if the DVD player is smart enough to do 2-2 pulldown it will do it...correct?

I saw a progressive scan in Best Buy on Saturday that specifically mentioned that it
did 2-2 as well as 3-2....cool.

I need a new TV and DVD player.