-
30p in final cut pro: is it worth it?
-
[Dave LaRonde] “I’ve done it in After Effects, but I bet you can do it in Motion, too. Create an old Pong-style animation: a circle caroms off all four edges of the screen in a 2-second cycle…. you can loop it. Add motion blur if you like. Now here’s the trick: render two versions, one in the proper field order and one with NO fields… render the entire frame. Now bring the files into FCP, loop them several times and compare the motion. You won’t believe the difference.”
You’re mistaken. NTSC does not change 60 times per second. Only 30. Individual fields are impercievable. You might see them as artifacts on your FCP canvas. But that is just because it is not being deinterlaced properly. A consumer progressive-scan television will deinterlace it properly.
You are correct about the flicker. A CRT monitor will “flicker” 60 times per second. But you only see 30 images per second. And again, this only applies to CRT displays.
An LCD monitor (or DLP, plasma, LCoS) usually has a refresh rate of 60hz. But it’s inpercievable because it doesn’t flicker. Unlike CRTs which “draw” lines one at a time, LCDs display a constant, continuous light output. So whether the refresh rate is 35hz or 200hz – no matter what you will only see 30 images per second (or 24 if it was shot on film). And flicker doesn’t equate with this kind of display.
As far as your experiment in regards to the human perception of motion and frame rates. An animated Pong is not a valid method of comparison. In fact animated anything isn’t a useful way of demonstrating it. You need real people as subjects. You need depth. You need photography of real life. You need the ability to compare and contrast (subconsciously) the difference between what you see on screen and what you would see in real life. That is how the “film look” and “video look” is derived. When John MaClaine scratches his nose, it looks a lot different than when Al Bundy scratches his nose, and when your buddy does it in real life. Comparing ways Aladdin scratches his nose won’t give you a comparison to actual reality which is fundamental to the film vs. video look. Simple animation doesn’t mimic real life.
Sean
-
[Sean ONeil] “ndividual fields are impercievable.”
I do not agree with you about this Sean. Our eyes and brain can not tell one field from the next but you can catch even quite small differences.
My first job in a TV station (some 22 years ago) was to preview programs and movies before to be broadcasted. We used to watch with the 1’C or Betacam at double speed (other wise no way to watch everything) and belive me that we could catch an small drop in luma or a drop-line in a single field. Just training the eyes.
rafael -
It’s a 2:1 pulldown! But pleeez keep it way away from my interlaced TV.
:o) -
[rafalaos] “I do not agree with you about this Sean. Our eyes and brain can not tell one field from the next but you can catch even quite small differences.
My first job in a TV station (some 22 years ago) was to preview programs and movies before to be broadcasted. We used to watch with the 1’C or Betacam at double speed (other wise no way to watch everything) and belive me that we could catch an small drop in luma or a drop-line in a single field. Just training the eyes.”Ok first of all, you’re right there is noticeable difference which is normally called “interlace flicker”. I mentioned this in the paragraph below the one you quoted. But what you don’t understand is that the difference can only be seen on CRT monitors. Hence why you noticed it 22 years ago. LCD monitors do not work that way. Everything is progressive on those, regardless of what format the source is. When playing back 60i footage on an LCD computer monitor, if you see “scan lines”, it’s because the monitor is line-doubling each individual field and displaying them sequentially. Kind of like watching 1080i60 w/ Cinema Display mode in FCP. Digital Televsions don’t do that. They combine each field automatically, creating a 30p image. As does a progressive-scan DVD player.
Secondly, the interlaced flicker you can see on a CRT (but not any other type of display) is not what defines the “film look” vs. the “video look”.
Furthermore, it’s all irrelevant as far as we’re concerned. Whether you shoot, edit, and/or master 30p or 60i – it makes no difference WHATSOEVER to the consumer. The two formats are interchangeable, and the consumer is going to view one type of signal or the other depending on the TV and/or DVD player he or she has. Regardless of what format it was worked on in post.
The thing that throws a wrench into this is when 24fps is mastered at 60i using 3:2 pulldown (like any DVD movie) on a progressive-scan television. A consumer TV/DVD Player can deinterlace this properly by using reverse telecine and converting it to 30p – but it can only achieve this if the 3:2 cadence is consistent. That’s why shooting 24p but editing in 60/30 i/p is a bad idea.
Sean
-
“Furthermore, it’s all irrelevant as far as we’re concerned. Whether you shoot, edit, and/or master 30p or 60i – it makes no difference WHATSOEVER to the consumer.”
Assuming the consumer is watching your material on a television set, which is less and less often the case.
All the best,
Tom
Author: “Final Cut Pro 5 Editing Essentials” and “Final Cut Express 2 Editing Workshop” Class on Demand “Complete Training for FCP5” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy” DVDs
-
[Sean ONeil] “Furthermore, it’s all irrelevant as far as we’re concerned. Whether you shoot, edit, and/or master 30p or 60i – it makes no difference WHATSOEVER to the consumer. The two formats are interchangeable, and the consumer is going to view one type of signal or the other depending on the TV and/or DVD player he or she has. Regardless of what format it was worked on in post.”
Actually the two formats are NOT interchangeable and this is something I’ve had to talk to Varicam operators about. 30p does NOT equal 29.97 or 60i. 30p has very much a film style look while 60i has a “live video” or standard definition 29.97 type of look.
30p does not interchange with 60i at all. They look completely different.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
https://www.biscardicreative.com
HD Editorial & Animation for Broadcast and independent productions.All Things Apple Podcast! https://cowcast.creativecow.net/all_things_apple/index.html
Read my blog! https://blogs.creativecow.net/WalterBiscardi
-
[walter biscardi] “30p does not interchange with 60i at all. They look completely different.”
Yes it does. You are incorrect.
Certain cameras will give a different looking picture if you record in different modes.
After a piece is shot, and it exists on a computer or digital videotape, you can convert it back and forth between 30p and 60i ten million times and it will look identical.
Sean
-
[Tom Wolsky] “Assuming the consumer is watching your material on a television set, which is less and less often the case.”
What else are you talking about? I’m talking about delivering video on a tape for either broadcast, DVD, or HD-DVD/Blu-ray. I didn’t know we were talking about h264 encoding for ipod video or whatever. People who encode video for the web will always create a progressive scan image. Whether you deliver them an interlaced format or not. Nobody puts interlaced video on YouTube. So that’s a bit irrelevant.
Here’s a good article to read:
https://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.htmlKeep in mind this was written in 2000. Nowadays, every single new TV or DVD player can deinterlace either film or video properly.
Sean
-
[Sean ONeil] “Keep in mind this was written in 2000. Nowadays, every single new TV or DVD player can deinterlace either film or video properly.”
The plasma I use certainly does deinterlace quite well. But even modern day tube TVs are still interlaced. Correct?
-
[Tom Brooks] “But even modern day tube TVs are still interlaced. Correct?”
Correct. But most can also do 480p.
Sean
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up