Rolling Credits in 24p Not Smooth?

jcg wrote on 1/30/2004, 10:02 PM
I thought the slightly jerky playback of rolling credits in my 24p project was due to the fact that I was watching something less than a completely rendered product. However, I just burned the project to DVD with DVDA and everything is great except the rolling credits, which are that little bit jumpy/jerky. That won't do. Is there some special trick to this for 24p or should I revert to fade in-fade out credits? Thanks very much.

JCG

Comments

filmy wrote on 1/30/2004, 10:09 PM
That seems to be the nature of 24p overall and, at least for me, you notice it a bit more with roll credits. There are a few things you can try -

Make sure they are set for "no fields"
Add a wee bit of motion blur.
Surpersample.

jcg wrote on 1/30/2004, 10:22 PM
Thanks, Filmy. I'll try your suggestions.

I also gave up on reducing the velocity in one clip that I wanted to slow mo. It looked awful.

If your suggestions don't get me there with the credits, I'll revert to fades. Thanks again.

JCG
jcg wrote on 1/30/2004, 10:24 PM
By the way, is this the case with all other major NLE packages as well? Thanks.

JCG
farss wrote on 1/30/2004, 11:49 PM
Did you remove pulldown before rendering the credits?
Apart from that you'll also find that even in 60i credit rolls can be jerky depending on the crawl rate the edge of the text should be moving at an even number of lines per field for the best results.

Apart from that though there's quite a few more things that need to be taken care of at 24fps that aren't nearly so noticable at higher frame rates.
jcg wrote on 1/31/2004, 12:16 AM
Thanks, Farss.

Regarding the slow mo problem, I went back to the 24p project to see how many times I had slowed down a clip, and I had actually done it for 5 clips with no problem (as slow as 51%). It was only one clip that gave me problems. This was a close up of the actor sitting on a sofa, panning from his face down to his feet in 4 seconds. It was already a bit jerky-looking to begin with, so now I'm thinking maybe it was the camera work?

For the credits, I have given in and switched to fades for this project. Maybe I can learn how to do it better with 24p in the future. Thanks for your help.

JCG
PeterWright wrote on 1/31/2004, 3:09 AM
This raises a question I've wondered a few times.

Since 24P flashes a frame every 1/24th of a second rather than 50 or 60 fields in the same time, I would expect it to look more jerky, unless there is some TV playback mechanism to compensate, given that TV normally displays interlaced fields.

Could someone please explain - there must be some reason that so many people are going for 24P.
farss wrote on 1/31/2004, 4:13 AM
Sound technical reasons:

1) You can fit more on a DVD at 24p.

2) Progressive scan material can be converted to interlaced with no issues. Going the other way has all sorts of problems and scaling up to HD works reasonably well from progressive scan.

3) ???

Other reasons:
1) You want to stay in business, you've got to cater to what the client wants.

Personally I'm more interested in the idea of shooting at 60 fps, this was tried with film and produces a 'super realistic' experience. Problem is we're so conditioned to what film should look like we find it disconcerting at that frame rate. Back when it was tried the cost of film alone (they shot on 70mm) was enough to put most off the idea.

Despite my seeing no real benefit in shooting 24 or 25p I'm still looking to buy a DVX100, not so much for the 'film look' bit but because it's a damn fine camera regardless and I'll hopefully defray the cost by hiring it out, seeing as how this is such a hot fad at the moment.
24Peter wrote on 1/31/2004, 2:27 PM
I shoot a lot of 24pN with my DVX 100. The only way to get descent slow motion (and this may apply to your end title roll as well) is to select an event's properties and click the radio button for "disable resampling". I could be wrong but I don't think Vegas' resampling (or supersampling for that matter) has been optimized for progressive scan video (as opposed to interlaced). In any event, I get OK to good 24p slo mo that way (a lot of panning in the shot makes it worse). Another trick is to shoot 30p for stuff you know in advance you are going to slow down and import that into a 24p timeline.