Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Forums Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy Conforming Frame Rates

  • Conforming Frame Rates

  • Matt Silverman

    June 6, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    Anyone know of a tool that can conform a 23.98 QT into 59.94? Cinema Tools can not conform to 59.94. I can use AE to do this, but I have to re-render. I was hoping to just hack a 23.98 QT into thinking it is 59.94 quickly…

    Thanks,
    Matt

  • gary adcock

    June 6, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    [Matt Silverman] “Anyone know of a tool that can conform a 23.98 QT into 59.94? Cinema Tools can not conform to 59.94. I can use AE to do this, but I have to re-render. I was hoping to just hack a 23.98 QT into thinking it is 59.94 quickly…”

    nest the 24p project into a 720p60 project and render it out.

    but why?
    most playout devices will add the pulldown back in, and do a better job than QT will.
    the 24p file will play on your computer easier than a 60p file will.

    gary adcock
    Studio37
    HD & Film Consultation
    Post and Production Workflows
    Chicago, IL
    gary@studio37.com

  • Matt Silverman

    June 6, 2006 at 9:25 pm

    Thanks… I am trying to avoid rendering. I’m checking into Dumpster.

    I am doing this to try to figure out a pipeline between FCP 720p 23.98 to smoke which can only deal with 59.94 or 60. We want to use smoke to color correct. I initially came up with this pipeline…

    Export QT ref from FCP.
    Bring into After Effects and render BlackMagic10bit with pulldown added to 29.97.
    Put this into a FCP and feed it live into Smoke capturing 59.94
    Smoke duplicates every frame when captured, but plays back smooth.
    After CC in smoke we feed back into FCP 59.94.
    I put this clip into AE and conform frame rate to 47.952fps and remove pulldown.
    I put this into a 23.976fps comp and render to BM 10bit. Works like a champ.
    The problem is cuts that happen in the 3:2 pulldown can cause problems with the CC. So I decided to just conform to 59.94. and have everything play twice as fast… I think that the smoke can play it back correctly (next test).

    That being said, this whole 23.98 DVCProHD format is a mess. The next version of smoke is supposed to be able to deal with it, but who knows. We even have issues live feeding it from FCP to FCP… take a 23.98 sequence and feed it to another FCP box with a 23.98fps capture preset and the picture plays 2x slow. The second box needs to be set to 59.94 capture. Argh.

  • Jeremy Garchow

    June 6, 2006 at 10:08 pm

    Hmm, sounds to me like Smoke doesn’t support DVCPRO HD @23.98. That’s not Panasonic’s or Apple’s fault. DVCPRO HD is actually a sweet system, if your NLE supports it. In order to feed FCP to FCP, you need to setup the capture station @59.94, but you have to tell FCP to remove the pulldown to get you back to 23.98, this is of course dependent on if your capture card passes the RP-188 timecode to your other FCP system, and that FCP system reads it correctly. This is normal as the video you are feeding it is 59.94 not 23.98. FCP automatically adds pulldown to conform to the 720p60 spec for monitoring. i will admit, that this workflow is not for the timid. It takes some getting used to, and some investigating. It would help if Smoke had actual support for DVCPRO HD 23.98. An alternative is to capture your footage at 59.94 in FCP and work in 59.94 there, go to smoke in 59.94 and master in 59.94. If you are making a DVCPRO HD master, then your master will be 59.94 anyway but it will retain the ‘film look’. What’s your final destination?

    Jeremy

  • Matt Silverman

    June 6, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    Final destination is a DVCProHD Quicktime… client will encode for the web. In this case, the edit is already done 23.98, and we just need to CC in smoke. FWIW, Discreet is adding 23.98 support to the next version. We are currently one version behind the current, so to get the beta we would need to upgrade first to v7, then add more RAM since the beta is 64bit. Not a cheap expense to run buggy beta software.

    However, I am doing another project which I just hit an issue… I am posting a new message. Please check it out.\

    -Matt

Viewing 1 - 5 of 5 posts

Log in to reply.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy