-
pulldown problem
Hi all…
I created graphics in AE 6.5 at 24fps and rendered them out as quicktimes at 29.97fps with lower field dominance and pulldown for a tv promo I’m working on. When I import them in avid, it looks really bad. There are thick horizontal lines every few frames, like interlacing that didn’t quite work. Even before importing into avid, the quicktime doesn’t look right. I’ve checked my avid import settings, and all checks out there. I’m sure it’s something I’m not doing right in AE. I’m not really sure what to tweak to get a good render. Should I try a different pulldown setting? Should my comps be a different frame rate? Should I render out at a different frame rate?
Any suggestions? Thanks in advance…
mac g5
ae 6.5
using graphics completely created in after effects/photoshopDan
PrEditors.net
-
15 Replies
-
dave’s 24p ae workflow is good, but i honestly think you need to adjust your 24p workflow.
it sounds like you are editing 24p footage with the pulldown in place… i don’t think it is good practice to be working with a pulldown. if you have 24p footage, you should remove the pulldown and do your editing & effecting in 24p. it is usually easy to capture and remove the puldown at the same time. when your all finished with your 24p project, render or export the final piece in 29.97 with a pulldown.
if you edit footage that has a pulldown, you will end up screwing up the pulldown cadence, and that can be very problematic…
Kevin Camp
Designer – KCPQ, KMYQ & KRCW -
Actually I’m not working with any imported footage. I’m building graphics from scratch in After Effects at 24fps (using photoshop shapes/files and particle effects), and trying to render out the graphic elements as stand alone elements for use in a 29.97 avid sequence.
Dan
PrEditors.net
-
yes, i agree… i think the sound of the term ‘film-like’ is what is so appealing to video guys, but i bet cinema guys would love to get the kind of frame rates video is getting. 30fps…60 fps… sharper cleaner, better detail… why wouldn’t they.
24p has been a real pain, if you can stay 24p throughout, you’re ok. but if you don’t get started out that way, or someone wants to through in some 30i footage from a previous shoot or old b-roll… then it falls appart, and you wish everything was 30 fps.
Kevin Camp
Designer – KCPQ, KMYQ & KRCW -
Thanks for the help! I appreciate the guidance.
I’ve been testing on a different system and I think it’s an avid codec problem with my mac. Here at work we’re on pc and I’ve been rendering out test comps with much better results using the guidelines you suggested.
Dan
PrEditors.net
-
Problem solved… I found the cause…
I was doing something that was taught to me a few years ago. I was building my comps at 720×540 square pix at 24fps. When rendering my quicktime, I was adding pulldown, changing to 29.97fps, and then stretching to 720×486 in the render queue. That’s the problem.
With comps that start out at 720×486, I had no problem. But with my 720×540 comps rendered out at 720×486 the pulldown problem occurred (see original post). I don’t know why, but at least I know how to avoid it.
And I’m not quite sure why an instructor told me to build comps for tv at 720×540 and render out 720×486 when I was done. Maybe it was before the pixel aspect ratio correction feature of AE? But I know that’s what he told me.
Oh well, mystery solved.
Dan
PrEditors.net
-
yeah, that’s a pretty unusual workflow… but it kind of fits what you were describing with unusual horizontal lines. ae must have been interlacing the render first then scaling it to fit the ntsc pixel. scaling interlaced footage will create issues with the fields similar to what you described.
-
Yep and yep.
The way AE works, it first renders a frame based on the Render Settings, then alters that frame according to the settings in the Output Module.
So if the RS is set to render fields, then the OM is set to scale the movie size, you end up scaling interlaced material. And we all know that to be bad, and unrecoverable, actually. There’s no fix for the uneven interlacing that results — only a return to the original non-interlaced material.
Your instructor’s advice doesn’t cover interlaced material. He should have told you to drag the 540 into a 486 comp, scale it there, then render with fields but no scaling in the OM.
Also, your instructor’s advice must have been given before Pixel Aspect Ratio correction allowed you to work in a non-square pixel 486 comp that looks “right” on a computer monitor. -
[Dave LaRonde] “They didn’t adopt 24fps because of “filmic impact”… they didn’t adopt it because “the slightly surreal motion lends itself to more effective visual storytelling”… they didn’t even CONSIDER all that modern-day, phoney-baloney, film-school crap.
They adopted if because it was the cheapest stinkin’ frame rate they could get away with! Less film goes through the camera… more money goes into your pocket. It was all about ECONOMICS. Or cheaping out, take your pick.
Louis F.B. Mayer and Jack Warner and Mr. Paramount COULD have dictated, “We’ll shoot at 48fps because of the improved, smoother motion,” and the rest of the world would have followed suit. They didn’t, they thought with their wallets. But if they had, the film guys would be looking down their noses at the TV guys saying, “Well, you know that 30fps gives television that herky-jerky motion….””
The adopted 24fps, as I learned, because 12fps is the bare minimum to achieve persistence of motion (the point where you brain connects the sequential images as a consistent motion picture) so they simply doubled that for higher quality. In the hand cranked days guys would try to crank at 12fps. Since that flicker would put you to sleep, maybe it was somehow more compatible with equipment to double the film speeds. Probably easier to cut anothe notch in the projector shutter and change sprocket holes or something to get 24fps.
I used to watch the old films in history of cinema class and they were hipnotic with the 12fps flickering. I don’t think I ever saw the endings. Just put me right to sleep.
-
“And when I write such things on those forums, all those people who are sooooo in love with 24p react like I just fed ’em a hot fundge sundae topped with sauerkraut.
It’s nice to know that someone else gets it.”
I’m with you. Higher frame rate is better, and I don’t understand, at all, the choice to go 24 over 30 (or higher).
I like showscan. Blew me away, and had me leaning in my seat. 70mm film, 60fps. Eyeballs to brain: this is reality…
-
you guys are so funny. 24 fps may have originated as a cost-cutting measure, but at this point it’s become part of the language of cinema. it’s all about context, all about what signals you want to send to your viewer. want to send the signal that what they are viewing is to be read as cinema? use 24 fps (film or digital). want to let them know to shift into the tv-show/documentary/reality-show watching gear? use higher frame rates. it’s kind of like choosing what music to use; it just sets the mood/stage for the content.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up