[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Charlie Austin] “Honestly, one of the reasons I posted this article was to see how quickly someone would come up with a reason that it didn’t mean anything.”

Charlie,

You get the forum that you make.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bret Williams] “What footage frame rate and what device are you using?”

Bret,

I just pulled in some H264 from a Canon DSLR (1080p2398).

If I use the mixer during playback, it stutters and breaks up sound (and it seems to be updating the waveforms in the timeline).

(Also, the mixer doesn’t add keyframes to the audio unless you first add one keyframe manually, but that’s a different bug.)

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[David Mathis] “Game changer? Could be …”

David,

This is beta software, and from my little bit of testing it seems we can’t even begin to discuss “game changing” until they get playback sorted. Many people view playback to be a core feature in an NLE.

Still, an interesting experiment so far; strides since V10, but some ways to go.

[David Mathis] ” I agree that working in FCP X is faster since there are no tracks.”

You’re agreeing with yourself here, but thanks for including us.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Dennis Radeke] “… there must still be a time where we turn the number …”

Dennis,

I still haven’t really heard the thinking behind this, or any coherent statement on how this is different from the CS iterations.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bret Williams] ” The moment consumers are sporting $2500 24hz monitors …”

… or paying a few dollars for a movie ticket.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bret Williams] “… any where else you want to view your 24p is going to be a 60hz system and that 24p image will have to have some 3:2 (whatever you want to call it) added to it. … My point, is if you’re working with 24p it’s going to get displayed as some form of 3:2 pulldown/field interpolation/whatever to be shown anywhere but the web. … The display devices at our disposal, and the broadcast standards are 60hz based.”

Bret, these statements are not true.

(Even if I assume that you mean “computer monitor” when you say “web”.)

I understand if you’re trying to express that most options that you personally encounter are 60Hz based. There are many other options out there. In fact, you yourself have one:

[Bret Williams] “My flanders monitor has a 24hz mode, but not many consumer TVs do.”

Also, you make it sound as if no one uses 50i and Europe doesn’t exist.

[Bret Williams] “The rest of the planet calls it pulldown, but you can call it what you want.”

Well, that’s certainly something like the way things are. But, for example, how do you explain pull-up using your definitions? Does it mean de-interlacing to you?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bret Williams] “Where are you going to view material that’s shot 24p in 24p except the web?”

Bret,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package#Picture_MXF_files

(Note that 23.976 is deprecated in that standard.)

[Bret Williams] “Everything else is 60hz based and has to have some sort of pulldown (interlaced or otherwise) applied to it by the time it hits your screen.”

I don’t know what you mean by this. If you’re referring to 59.94 Hz broadcast, then yes that is a standard. So is 50 Hz. So is 24p and 25p (and more if you look at that DCP link).

So “everything besides the web” is not “60Hz based”.

I’m also confused by your conception of pulldown here – what do you mean that “everything .. has to have some sort of pulldown .. applied to it”? This is not true.

Examples:
– cam orig at 59.94i displayed on a 59.94i screen requires no pulldown.
– cam orig at 59.94i displayed on an NTSC screen requires no pulldown.
– cam orig at 50i displayed on a 50i screen requires no pulldown.
– cam orig at 25p displayed on a 50i screen requires field interpolation with no pulldown
– cam orig at 23.976 displayed on a 59.94 screen requires 3:2 field interpolation (commonly referred to as “3:2 pulldown” which I say is a misnomer)
– cam orig at 24 displayed on a 59.94 screen reuqires 3:2 pulldown (which I am arguing is a more precise application of the term)

How do you differentiate between those last two examples?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Well that’s rather serendipitous.”

I actually question one of his statements:

“I am the first to admit that even numbers like 23.976 and 29.97 are not exact either. They are actually simplifications of a more complex number, which would be the result of 30 ÷ 1/1.001 or 24 ÷ 1/1.001, whose results are very long and not feasible to be used in common speech or even writing.”

I actually think that 23.976 and 29.97 are precise representations of whole number frame rates slowed down by 1/1000 – that is, I think 1/1000 is the correct fraction, not 1/1001 as he states.

?

Franz.

Edit: Wiki tells me this:

… designers adjusted the original 60 Hz field rate down by a factor of 1.001 (0.1%), to approximately 59.94 fields per second. (which still seems contradictory to me)

… and then this:

Dividing (4,500,000 / 286) lines per second by 262.5 lines per field gives approximately 59.94 fields per second.

… which seems more precise and yields 59.94005994005994

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Lines_and_refresh_rate

Question answered, doubt relieved, carry on.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] “Where are the vagaries originating?”

Richard,

I think much is to be blamed on the ad hoc development of video tape in the first instance, and film to video in the second. In essence, it seems to me it was kind of an oral culture in spite of the highly technical engineering challenges.

And 24p in 29.97 comes to us from a very specific use case (film in NTSC video) – so principals that were developed there were never really thought of in broader terms of frame rate conversions until recently.

[Richard Herd] ” I don’t know if they are calculating 23.976 and rounding up on the browser display, …”

Allan Tepper just posted an excellent (if somewhat wordy) listing of such issues on PVC:

https://provideocoalition.com/atepper/story/video-framerates-and-the-tower-of-babel-a-translation-guide

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] “These are cool website”

Richard,

Thanks – I think I’ve visited those sites before.

Thing is, they are perpetuating vagaries in the “3:2 pulldown” language – they discuss in good detail the 3:2 field cadences and why it is necessary and it’s implications, but they don’t discuss the speed difference (slow-down) part of the process.

“The lurkers guess that it’s called 3:2 pulldown because the pattern of fields you get contains sequences of 3 fields followed by 2. Or perhaps it’s called that because 3 of the 5 video frames do not end up coinciding with the start of a film frame and 2 do.”

Franz.