Subclips w/ different FPS than timeline

muchrockness wrote on 7/4/2016, 3:33 AM
I have a large number of 59.94fps files from a wedding in my explorer. With the trimmer, I created subclips of all the best moments, and dragged these onto a 23.976fps timeline with the intent to have the option to slow them down to .4x.

Once on the timeline, all of the clips have a visible gap between them. Some of the gaps result in one black frame in the video preview. It shouldn't be a big deal in the long run- I'll just clean up the gaps once I'm happy with the final edit.

I'm guessing that, since each frame in a 59.94fps clip is 1.67ms long, and each frame on a 23.976 timelines is 4.17ms, the 59.94fps subclips are always going to have slight variations in their length.

Worth noting: if I drag 59.94fps clips (not subclips, but rather original source files) onto the timeline, they don't have gaps between them.

This is only a minor issue/annoyance, but if anyone has an easier solution than manually inspecting each clip, I'd appreciate it. Time is money :)


musicvid10 wrote on 7/4/2016, 6:06 AM
Are your 59.94 files progressive, or interlaced? Makes a big difference, but slomo in Vegas is simple and well documented here and on the internet.

I can promise you that the results at .400 event playback will not be pleasing. You need .500 for it to be right with resampling disabled.

Chienworks wrote on 7/4/2016, 12:20 PM
Note that he's going to 23.976, not 29.97, so 0.4 should be an exactly right match.
musicvid10 wrote on 7/4/2016, 6:18 PM
Slowing to something other than .500, .250, etc. will cause stutter or blurring, depending on the resampling state. The cadence introduced by .400 in Vegas is simply unacceptable if there is panning or smooth motion.

Also, 24*(1000/1001) is a repeater; the decimal doesn't terminate after the first "6."
Chienworks wrote on 7/4/2016, 10:29 PM
60*(1000/1001) is a repeater too, exactly in proportion of 1.0 : 0.4 to 24*(1000/1001). 60i has 1/0.4 fields for each frame of 24p. I maintain, if slowing 60i down to 30p then 0.5 is the correct factor, but slowing it down to 24p requires 0.4 to make the source fields match the output frames exactly, resulting in smooth cadence.

If you slow 59.94i down by 0.5 and put that in a 23.976p project then you'll end up with fields being dropped. There's nothing magical about 0.5 or 0.25. The magic is making the source fields match the output frames. In this particular case 0.4 makes that match.