[Dan Freshman]

They look perfect on video monitors, anything that plays back interlaced footage. But on computer screens, anything w/ pulldown added looks bad. You see the split frames.

[Dan Freshman]

You have my attention. Although i’m still trying to figure out exactly what being hosed means….

I am indeed in a crappy predicament. I have a library of spots that my marketing department wants to look good on tvs and on progressive monitors. The whole library is at 29.97, with most of those existing on digibeta 10 bit uncompressed also at 29.97. The library is a few thousand spots from a huge variety of formats, many of those originally film. Anything with pulldown added, from my understanding, looks bad on progressive monitors, and that is the riddle in which the hosing is occuring.

[Dan Freshman]

thanks for the reply Dave,

If I am encountering dissolves and fades, what’s the best point to make a cut?

[Dan Freshman]

that makes sense. After I add markers manually, is there any way to get self contained quicktimes from that timeline?

[Dan Freshman]

Hello,

I’m working with 10 bit uncompressed quicktimes. I have recently discovered marking DV footage and creating subclips. If I compress to DV will this work?

Also down the line, I think i’ll need self contained quicktimes of the subclips. Is this possible? Part of the problem is i’m not sure of the future workflow of this media.

thanks for the help,
dan

[Dan Freshman]

Yes….telecine is the wrong word, I was thinking from 24p video not film…that all makes more sense now. Guess I was missing something obvious.

[Dan Freshman]

That makes sense. But the footage I have I think was edited at 24p after it was shot before it was telecined. If this is the case, then removing pulldown with one phase *should be successful?

I guess I don’t understand why any footage could/would have pulldown added before the edit is made. I may be missing something obvious.

thanks for the help,
dan

[Dan Freshman]

brian,

Thanks for doing that. After reading, I feel guilty for not doing it myself…my friend has been using it to replace adding pulldown and he is a guy who has fallin in love w/ mpeg streamclip. I think that I kind of agree; that for adding pulldown to 24p footage (as his media library as well as mine has to be conformed to 29.97) that duplicating frames seems better than a telecine process if material is going to be viewed on progressive monitors. would you disagree?

thanks again for you help,
dan

[Dan Freshman]

Hello Michael,

I think the main confusion may be the photo jpegs. That is the quicktime codec that all of our uncompressed media was conformed to for our library, which is a few thousand clips. I’m not sure why that was/is the standard used here where I work but that decision was made before I came. The original sources of this material is all over the place; pal, ntsc etc.. and is saved on 10bit uncompressed digibetas then brought in to the library through blackmagic ntsc capture cards at 29.97fps. The photo jpegs are for DVDs and for archiving, as our web stuff is all h.264s at small resolutions that look pretty good. Making DVDs, we are realizing that people are usually watching them on computer monitors and we have a ton of interlacing problems whereby all our library media is 29.97 no matter what the source material. So I am testing methods to get rid of the interlacing without going through every cut of 2000 pieces of media in after effects…etc…And was hoping converting them back to h264, however lossy, might maintain enough quality while solving the interlace problems.

[Dan Freshman]

Sorry for lack of clarity. My workflow is that I have a library full of photo jpegs and am making DVDs out of different selections. I have been told by other editors that going to h.264 will introduce sufficient frame blending that will (partially) solve the interlacing issues that we have by these DVDs being shown on progressive monitors (and most of the library is 29.97fps with pulldown added). So i’m wondering about advice as to if h.264 quality can approach photo jpegs.

thanks again for the help
dan