about to transfer film to DV/Digibeta for 1st FCP project- NEED HELP & ADVICE!!

[Samuel Frazier]

Well, here are the reasons I originally wanted to work from a 24p (really 23.98) timeline:
1- My understanding is that progressive is better for rendering to mpeg2 for dvds, ie yields better looking results. Apparently mpeg2 was designed for this purpose and with use on Hollywood films.
2- A 24p dvd would have more room than a 29.97 interlaced dvd.
3- A 24p dvd could be shown in its true progressive form on non-CRT monitors, such as LCD and DLP big screen TVs. As these types of TVs are becoming more popular and CRT is phased out, This might be a nice benefit to have. I have a friend who just made a feature on super 16mm and he claims his dvd (made from a 24p timeline) looks much better on his progressive TV than dvds from interlaced timelines.

For me, I thought I’d like to edit on a 24p timeline so I can make 24p dvds to send to festivals. If I actually got accepted into one, I would add the pulldown for the print to tape. So the workflow would be to use CT on both the DVCAM and digibeta tapes, edit from the DVCAM, then online directing the project towards the digibeta files.
Now obviously I’m nowhere near the understanding of you guys, but it seems to me that this route adds a couple steps (running CT on both sets of tapes), but also adds possibilites as far as DVDs are concerned.
Again, I could be wrong about any number of things here, so please tell me if I am. But thank you for all the discussion. It’s been very educational.

[Curt Morgan]

you shoy in 24 p no need to go to a 24p time line because it was transfered at 29.97. ya herd!

[Guy]

What do you gain by doing things your way?

mus man pointed out the benifits of 24p DVD above. Most hollywood movies are actually encoded 24p on DVD. It’s fine to edit the 24p material as 29.97 and it will retain the film look of 24p but you don’t get the benifits of being able to encode a 24p DVD. It makes sense for shows that are primarily going to broadcast to edit @ 29.97 because it’s easier and they might be mixing with 29.97 elements. But for films it usually makes more sense to edit at 24/23.98 fps.

The question I have is what the workflow would be for onlining the 29.97 digibetas from tape as 23.98 using reverse telecine and CT databases and all that.

Here’s a workflow that would be easy but use a lot of drive space:

1- digitize all the footage uncompressed from digibeta
2- do all the cinema tools stuff, reverse telecine the uncompressed footage.
3- once you have all the footage in the bin as uncompressed 23.98 clips use media manger to recompress as new seperate DV files.
4- edit with the 23.98 DV files in a 23.98 DV timeline.
5- for the online just reconnect the DV timeline to the original uncompressed footage on the drive. All timecode would match perfectly and you’d have an instant uncompressed 23.98 online for color correction and graphics.

No redigitizing and no DVCAM clones would need to be made with this workflow but it could use up too much space depending on how much footage was shot.

mus man- You should also telecine the footage anamorpic if it makes sense for the aspect ratio of the footage. You could then encode the DVD anamorphic.

[Guy]

5- for the online just reconnect the DV timeline to the original uncompressed footage on the drive. All timecode would match perfectly and you’d have an instant uncompressed 23.98 online for color correction and graphic

I forgot to add that the sequence settings should also be changed to uncompressed for the online.

[Shane Ross]

OK…if your final output is going to be DVD, then yes, editing in a 24 frame sequence would be fine.

My only point was that if the final output was going to tape…that digibeta was going to be the master, then going to a 23.98 timeline wasn’t the answer, since digibeta cannot run at 23.98 fps.

Mus didn’t answer my original question about the ultimate format that it was ending up on, which is why I kept pounding my point.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Samuel Frazier]

Shane,
Don’t feel like you were pounding your point. I thought you were very curteous and what you wrote was very educational for me. I appreciate it. Sorry if I didn’t make it clear, but I was looking to send this short to festivals. So I would send out DVD screeners and probably send out some form of Beta tapes or HD tapes for viewing at the festival (if it ever gets accepted somewhere). So I was looking for a workflow that would yield the best results for both Digibeta tapes and DVDs.

Guy,
Thank you so much for your help. I’ll try that workflow. About the anamorpic options, that’s damn good advice, but here too I get a bit confused. We’re shooting super 16mm, but my DP (who does a lot more than just DP work) suggests cropping it further to 1:1.85. Not sure if I’ll go that far, maybe just 16:9. But, and please correct me if I’m wrong, there’s no reason not to telecine the footage anamorpic, right? Otherwise, you’d just be losing resolution I’d think. If it’s telecined anamorpic, can’t I always just go back and make a letterboxed version? My friend who made the feature on super 16 did it this way I believe. So I’ll get it anamorpic unless I’m wrong about something here, and please tell me if I am.
Thanks again for the help! The time and advice of people like y’all is invaluable to me.

[Guy]

We’re shooting super 16mm, but my DP (who does a lot more than just DP work) suggests cropping it further to 1:1.85. Not sure if I’ll go that far, maybe just 16:9. But, and please correct me if I’m wrong, there’s no reason not to telecine the footage anamorpic, right? Otherwise, you’d just be losing resolution I’d think.

I would talk to your DP more about that, I think doing the telecine anamorphic will crop out a little bit of the top and bottom-maybe giving you less options for reframing later. It would be the best way to keep the maximum resolution. If you wanted to then crop to 1.85:1 after the telecine it would be easy.

If it’s telecined anamorpic, can’t I always just go back and make a letterboxed version?

Yep, and if you encode the DVD as anamorphic on playback the DVD player will fill up the screen on 16:9 TVs and letter box for 4:3 TVs

[Samuel Frazier]

Thank you so much for responding while the whole NAB craziness is taking place!

Anyway, I spoke with the colorist at the lab today who promised me that anamorphic transfers do not crop any part of the image. It just squeezes it in and I can unsqueeze it later in post. So, I should have the same options as far as repositioning framing when I crop to 1:1.85. Also, I would think I could still make those widescreen DVDs you mentioned that would come close to filling a 16×9 screen (only a tiny bit of letterboxing as I’d be 1:1.85). They would still automatically add letterboxing on 4×3 screens, right? If so, and if I could just render out a letterboxed version from FCP if I ever needed a letterboxed version for Digibeta or Beta SP, then is there really no reason not to transfer S16 footage anamorphic?

Thanks again for all your time and help! Man, I sure do appreciate it.

[Guy]

They would still automatically add letterboxing on 4×3 screens, right? If so, and if I could just render out a letterboxed version from FCP if I ever needed a letterboxed version for Digibeta or Beta SP, then is there really no reason not to transfer S16 footage anamorphic?

Yep.

Good luck with the film. Here’s my email if any more questions come up: guy (at) guywagner.com