[Gerrit Van dyke]

I changed mine in the keyboard layout back to CTRL V…

[Gerrit Van dyke]

I’m a FCP user, but what I’ve always done is make my edits chronologically with the changes listed but instead of ripple deleting, I just select all tracks backwards and move my clipsforward to fill the gap. So you’re basically doing a reverse ripple – by the end your first clip will no longer be at the 1 hour mark, but everything beyond the edits you make will stay at the same timecode mark. When you’re done, just select everything and move it back to the 1 hour mark. I’ve done this a million times and never lost sync….

[Gerrit Van dyke]

Got it. I’m noticing that changing the levels in the timeline is not as bad as I thought. It’s much less sensitive than FCP.

Thanks.

[Gerrit Van dyke]

Curious about this as well.

What I’ve noticed so far is that when I’ve opened an XML file from FCP in Premiere, it opens great but I can’t seem to match frame back to my original files.

When I import a file, and make a new timeline, it works pretty good.

[Gerrit Van dyke]

“Would they let a piece of print go out without a proof? I doubt it. ”

Great point Jeremy.

Just to confirm, the difference between previewing on my second computer LCD monitor with the FInal Cut Pro canvas @ 100% and using an actual broadcast monitor is:

• A computer monitor won’t show interlacing
• A computer monitor can’t be properly calibrated for broadcast
• A computer monitor may not show an accurate representation of the framerate of what will play on air.(For instance if I’m playing a 24p sequence in FCP), I can see properly what the picture will look like at 29.97 on my broadcast monitor.
• Without a broadcast monitor, you can’t accurately gauge quality. (so for instance, if I were to scale up an image, I may enlarge it too much (or not enough) because I’ve inaccurately assessed the quality.

Are those four points correct?

To be honest, when I originally proposed the idea of purchasing broadcast monitors, I thought they’d be much more expensive than these.

Thanks for your help everyone. I really appreciate it.

[Gerrit Van dyke]

Thanks Dave, I appreciate the help.

[Gerrit Van dyke]

I see.
So, just to clarify (and so I can use this as ammunition to the bosses in order to get proper broadcast monitors), the Kona really only accurately adds the 3:2 pulldown to be viewed on a real broadcast monitor as opposed to what you may see through the component HD to a consumer TV. Dave, can you confirm for me that’s what you’re saying?

This is good to know. Obviously having a broadcast monitor is a more accurate representation of what the final output is, but it’s good to know that the pulldowns could be an issue. I do have a broadcast monitor FYI, it’s just not HD (so it’s useless in this case).

A few things I wanted to note (again just to make sure it’s not user error on my part):
• I have tried in in another suite, that outputs to another type of consumer TV. Same result.
• 95% of the material in this Doc so far do not have this issue. I suspect it is partially a result of the camera man as well – the pans are too fast for 24p and I also wonder if the shutter is set too slow.

[Gerrit Van dyke]

I see. So should I just ignore the pulldowns being added to my broadcast (consumer) television? Although I’m working in 23.98psf on my computer, the output from FCP/Kona still converts the signal to 29.97 to the television monitor by adding the pulldowns.

I’m more concerned about if this does go to air at 29.97, that this pulldown issue will return.

[Gerrit Van dyke]

My mistake, I am editing in 1080p. I hadn’t realized that in the sequence setting, the aspect ratio says 1080i even though the sequence is progressive.

My original solution (converting to 29.97) appears to be flawed as some shots will have that weird pixel motion noise in areas of the shot. It just happened to work well for my problem shot. Changing my pulldown pattern in the sequence to 2:3:3:2 seems to have helped quite a bit, although it’s still not perfect.

[Gerrit Van dyke]

Okay! I think I may have figured it out. I’ve imported the footage into After Effects into a 29:97 composition and changed the frame blending on the clip to pixel motion. It looks way better. I had tried converting to 29.97 in compressor, mpeg streamclip, and final cut but the frameblending always looked awful.

Now, I wonder if I’m better off editing at 23.98 then rendering my entire movie in after effects (I guess in segments) in 29.97? Does that make sense or should I convert each file individually first?

Any ideas?