29.97 frames to 24 frames convertion

[Chris Wright]

if you want smooth 24 fps and not jerky 24fps then try this

29.97 interlaced to 23.976 progressive

1.Put 29.97i video in new 59.94 “start” comp so that timewarp can access both fields.
2. add effect->time->timewarp speed at 60.545403%, filtering extreme,vector detail 20
3. make new “output” comp 99 fps and drop “start” comp inside it with timestretch 60.545403%
4. output “output” comp with separate audio layer from original video at 23.976 fps fields off. add motion 180 shutter blur if desired.

tested and works well

[Adeeb Oberoi]

Hi Thnx very much for the responce, I am new to convertion so the question I have is what do u meqan with 59.94 “start” comp.

And what do u mean with “Out comp”.

Is this a better convertion then Andrew does in the Tut:

https://www.videocopilot.net/tutorial/frame_rate_converter/

The idea is to acomplish a film look motion. We shot on HD 1080p. I will also need to scale down to NTSC as the TV station that will broadcast the spot is NTSC. When I finish editing this, can I just give them the 24 frames Quicktime? i know they broadcast on Mpg2 so they will convert it again.

Best regards,

Adeeb

[Adeeb Oberoi]

Thanks, great tut, I downloaded the Kramer converter too.

Is it better to just film at 24 frames? We filmed at 1080 HD.

Is the poutcome of kramers technique real 24 frames or does it have down sides?

The client really wants this film look.

This footage is for standard ntsc broadcast purpose later on.

Any tips are welcome,

Best regards,

Adeeb Oberoi

[Chris Wright]

the “start” and “output” comp are just names I give 2 new compositions you create so you can follow the directions.

I have tried Andrew’s and my personal opinion is that mine is much smoother/cleaner and his does not interpolate enough. Simply render out 10 seconds of heavy motion and compare them yourself. You won’t hurt my feelings if you choose his 🙂

I recommend this post read which is true for timewarp as twixtor.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/69/855438#855438

You render out a 23.976 progressive because then for NTSC signal, you transform width and height to NTSC size/par and render lowerfield with pulldown wwssw cadence to get a 29.97 interlaced legal video. That’s how films are sent over the air and still look like film.

Ask them if they do the pulldown themselves or if they would like you to do it. They might use a realtime converter box.

[Adeeb Oberoi]

Thanks Sir, this is good information.

But I am still a little bit confused.

We filmed HD 1080 (60). Do I still need to convert to 24 frames in one of the ways explained in this thread?

I plan to edit in ntsc so I will scale all footage down. We use Final cut. Then when we choose all the final footage for the project I plan to convert these in AE in one of the ways explained in thi thread.

Am I on the right track?

By the way, its great getting these tips. I am an AE graphic animator and do very little filmimg etc.

thanks again,

Adeeb Oberoi

[Adeeb Oberoi]

I remember it was a Z1- HD, I think Sony. and the camera man put it on 60. Hope this inf helps a bit.

I can get more info from the Cameraman. I am picking up the footahe later today then I can see in AE interpate footage what its exactly.

Thanks for the help, much appreciated.

Adeeb

[Adeeb Oberoi]

Thanks, Whow… thats disapointing.

I am in charge of the whole project which is a 30 sec TV spot.

Then why will none of the previous two methods mentioned in this thread will work for me?

Answer #2 makes a lot of sence to me, as that is exactly what the cameraman and director said… OOOhhh no problem we will fix that later in post.

Regards,

Adeeb

[Adeeb Oberoi]

Well I feel responsible somehow so I gues I will put in the extra work.

Gues I will edit it at the normal frame rate first and then convert the final 30 sec spot. Or just convirt the selected footage instead of the whole 30 min ruff footage.

but if the final 24 frames look is realy worth it I will do it, it was one of the clients whishes.

The scenes are very stable, shot with tripod and only two guys sitti ng having a converstation. filmed from different angles.

Any other tips are welcome.

Adeeb

[Jeremy Allen]

Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong (probably Dave!), but if this whole spot is just 30 seconds of 2 guys sitting mostly still, having a conversation, I don’t think you would really notice the diffrence in frame rate anyway. The client wants this “Film Look” because it’s a buzz word, I doubt he even knows why film looks like film.

And to me, all this extra work just doesn’t make sense. You’re taking footage that was shot 60i, converting it to 23.98, then converting it back to 29.97 for broadcast.. I just don’t think you’ll see the difference, but some people might.

———————————————
8core MacPro, 3.0 GHZ, 10GB RAM, OSX 10.5.2

AE CS3

[Chris Wright]

Dave is right, 30p = 60 de-interlaced would be faster, easier, and most professionals that shoot interviews use 30p for Barbara Walter etc. to cut the harshness down. But if you have spare time, hehe, test and compare, it’s only 30 seconds.