-
first really commercial/corporate job with FCPX
-
Exactly. X is superb at mixing frame rates. 7 is a dog. Drop the 24 and the 60 in a 1080i sequence. Perfect. The 24 gets interlaced pulldown and the 60p becomes 60fields.
One of my main reasons for moving on from 7. If you’re still using 7 it might be time to move to something that can at least add pulldown and handle different codecs.
-
…seems like the editor didn’t sleep.
Never love a filmmaker…
-
[Bret Williams] “In 7 your only option would be to conform the 25 to 24 in cinema tools …”
[Bret Williams] “X is superb at mixing frame rates. 7 is a dog.”
Bret,
As I am currently dealing with frame rate conversions for a project cut on X, I will just say that while X seems to have some improvements there is no way I would recommend anything but external frame rate conversions (we’ll be using Teranex). I was actually surprised at how poor the quality was in X.
(X may be better at 24 to 60i interlace cadence, I can’t speak to that, but 30p to 23.98p is about equal to what you get in 7.)
Also, you forget that 7 can be used in conjunction with Compressor (as well as Cinema Tools). So there are “options” other than Cinema Tools (again, with various caveats.)
Franz.
-
I haven’t mentioned “conversions” have I? Neither app can do that. And either app can use compressor of course. I was pointing out the options the editor had. Running all your footage through compressor on an overnight edit isn’t usually one of them.
Conforming is not converting. The best thing for him to do is conform the 25 to 24 and use it in a sequence e that can mix (not convert) the frame rates of 24 and 60. That’s 2 things that FCP X can do that 7 cannot. Conform frame rates in the app with a click and properly mix frame rates ( by adding interlaced pulldown).
Truth is, even if the editor had worked in a 30p timeline (where neither rate would have proper cadence) it should have looked ok in either app. I’m not sure what he did to have “interlacing issues.”
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “there is no way I would recommend anything but external frame rate conversions (we’ll be using Teranex)”
You might want to compare Teranex output with Alchemist output. It has been a long time since I’ve done format conversion, but Alchemist was superior a few years ago and I’m not sure that BMD has actually changed Teranex.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “Alchemist was superior a few years ago and I’m not sure that BMD has actually changed Teranex”
Walter,
I would agree, but it does depend on the material. For-A also has hardware units that do a good job. And there are budget considerations.
Franz.
-
[Bret Williams] “Conforming is not converting.”
[Bret Williams] “Drop the 24 and the 60 in a 1080i sequence. Perfect. The 24 gets interlaced pulldown and the 60p becomes 60fields.”
Bret,
I’m understanding from your second statement 24 frames playing as 1 second in a 1080i60 sequence. If that is correct, it is frame-rate conversion, not conforming. If not, then I have misunderstood you.
Franz.
-
Adding pulldown, to me at least, is neither converting nor conforming. You aren’t adding frames. You aren’t interpolating the image. It plays and looks like the 24p it was shot at. It’s just a pattern of repeating the necessary frames in a smooth pattern across 60 fieds. I’ve never heard that called a conversion because it doesn’t require any fancy software or a terranex to do it. Every modern NLE has been able to so this for years. Except FCP legacy of course, which would just repeat every 4th frame. Which even that doesn’t look all bad. But there’s no common denominator for 25 in a 30 or 60. So a simple answer would be to slow it down ( conform) it to 24. Then the proper pulldown could be applied.
-
[Bret Williams] “Adding pulldown, to me at least, is neither converting nor conforming.”
Bret,
Ah, I see.
I call this frame-rate conversion because it is representing one frame rate inside another, but I see your point. Strictly speaking, however, it can misleading to call this “adding pull-down” since, for example, if you represent 24p inside of 60i you haven’t changed the speed at all, you’ve just added a specific interlace cadence. (The issue would become apparent if you tried to explain to your sound team that you “pulled down” the footage, but they don’t have to).
I’d say that neither “conversion” nor “pull-down” is a precise way to refer to this process, and I lament the state of the language.
[Bret Williams] “Every modern NLE has been able to so this for years. Except FCP legacy of course, which would just repeat every 4th frame.”
Actually FCP will add proper interlace cadence to 23.98 sequences on playout to hardware (ie realtime). It has always been a frustration to me that the software would do this properly in playback but could not do it properly via timelines. I always took it as another instance of lazy engineering …
Franz.
-
Look, this is your basic “candids” video done for millions of corporate events. It’s a quick-turnaround gig, which typically involves getting footage late and editing overnight (if needed) to have a piece ready for the next morning. Something like Teranex is never an option. From the sounds of the issues, I would have to fault the circumstances, as I don’t see much here that would be demonstrably better with any particular NLE. FCP 7, X, PPro, MC and Vegas could all have done the job successfully. X most likely would have been faster in organizing the clips, but that’s probably about it.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up