shooting slo-mo, editing 24

[Kerry Mcdowall]

Alright. So our assistant editor followed your tutorial and unfortunately I was unavailable during this process and only saw the end product. They said the followed your tutorial properly, the only difference is that our footage originally was DVCPro HD 1280×1080. Interesting note after the process, under “format,” the specs still show 1280×1080, not 720, but under “compressor” it states 720p60.

The slo-mo was unfortunately extremely steppy. When advancing frame by frame it looks like the added frames were not the right ones. One frame will advance, then next will regress, then next advances farther than the first, but then it’ll regress back slighty. Very bizarre. The entire shot has that back and forth effect. Have you ever seen this before?

[Captain Mench]

I haven’t.

If you want to send me 5 frames… email me at captmench AT mac DOT com and I’ll be happy to take a look. I’m also on iChat with that same name … just not the @mac.com part — unless you are using AIM then you’d have to put it in… if that makes sense.

It might be part of the adaptive frame option in Compressor… you used compressor to do this all?

Cause the tutorial uses Shake and refers to the fact that you can do it IN compressor… it’s just a few hidden steps.

If I can get it — it would be as simple (I think) as creating a droplet and emailing you back a 250k program and you drag and drop your footage into that.

Let me know.

BTW — I’m getting some feedback that this might actually not be possible with the material you have… but I’d sure love to see for myself.

CaptM

[Gary Adcock]

[kerrymcd] “They said the followed your tutorial properly, the only difference is that our footage originally was DVCPro HD 1280×1080. Interesting note after the process, under “format,” the specs still show 1280×1080, not 720, but under “compressor” it states 720p60″

Mike
one problem is I think they missed a step – you talk about 720p60 in the tutorial and they did not compensate that they were working in DVCPROHD 1080i60.

gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows

[Captain Mench]

Yeah… my thoughts.

But I don’t have any 1080 stuff myself, so I have no idea what MIGHT be the correct compensation. (Not even sure why it worked the way it did with my (Alex’s) technique.)

Mike

[Captain Mench]

I guess MY question would be Um… hey — is i60 the same as 60 interlaced fields flying by at 30 fames per second? Or is i60 actually 60 interlaced frames flyin by at 60 frames per second?

Because if it IS — then we’ve got a mess.

I’d deinterlace the sucker and then just conform to 24. See if that works. Not sure there’s a setting for 1080p120. Maybe I can force it in Shake??

The water is up to my forehead — and my ignorance is starting to show!!!

CaptM

[Gary Adcock]

[CaptainMench] “I guess MY question would be Um… hey — is i60 the same as 60 interlaced fields flying by at 30 fames per second? Or is i60 actually 60 interlaced frames flyin by at 60 frames per second?”

60i is 30fps (also known as 29.97)

[CaptainMench] “Not sure there’s a setting for 1080p120”

nope does not exist. 1080p60 is as high as it goes ( with a data rate over 500 MBps, not many can use it)

gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows

[Captain Mench]

Thanks – that’s what I thought. Variable frame rate in camera conversion all got me wondering if this thing of a camera actually shot 60 frames!

Ok — well, we should be able to make this work then. Don’t see why not anymore.

CaptM