if film is so great why are we all cutting video ??

tompearson:

 if film is so great why are we all cutting video ??

Ummm excuse me...? I'm afraid I'm not following you...

we are cutting on an avid  a video editor yet so many want "that film look "you all have been barking about. so just go cut film and really be the purist you strive to achive

and really personal attacks are not productive

BLKDOG:

I do have to strongly disagree with your assertion that the pulldown inserted in 24p material even closely approximates the pulldown look of film. Even the Avid's fluid film insertion is better that the pulldown from 24p.

First, thanks for your time and effort on the forums. I don't post much but follow everyday and from the discussion I continue to learn. 

I should explain that my point is from material edited in 24 not 30. Material shot in 24 and edited in 30 provides a cadence that is not consistent. Something that I believe visually effects your perception of the content.

Editing 24 in 30 also creates problems for compression. A recent example was two programs shot on film both on Digital Betacam masters. Converting it for computer playback. The first was edited 24 very easy to remove the consistent pulldown with no loss of quality, The second edited 30 even with smart de-telecine  still created problems removing the pulldown frames. Usually we end up de-interlacing with options of blend, choose a field or interpolate never as good as the original whole frames.

I'll need to experiment with the fluid film but prefer to edit 24 and insert pulldown on output but maybe if we are mixing material this would be a good option. 

All this said I wished everything was progressive (24,30,60) because so much of the content we create is also played on computer screens and it makes my life easier in the conversion. I understand the temporal resolution of interlaced material but I like the look of the motion blur.

I agree with all that you said there. That's kind of our point in this thread, that, if you are delivering in 30i on a regular basis (As we do here) then shooting in 24p is kind of a waste. 

Something you said intrigues me though. I always worked under the assumption that the pulldown inserted on output is the exact same cadence as that inserted on ingest. Do you find that to be not the  case?

if you are delivering in 30i on a regular basis (As we do here) then shooting in 24p is kind of a waste.

Huh? If one feels it looks nicer than 30i, what's wrong with that? How can it be a waste?

Personally, I cannot watch any fictional footage that has been shot interlaced. It just looks wrong. That would be a reason to shoot 24p (at least in the NTSC world).

I always worked under the assumption that the pulldown inserted on output is the exact same cadence as that inserted on ingest. Do you find that to be not the  case?

He meant that if you pulldown 24p to 30i, then edit and master, you end up with lots of broken cadences in a 30i master. If you edit 24p and master to 30i, you add a consistent pulldown. The latter is much easier to remove when deinterlacing afterwards. That was my point earlier as well.

A lot of people that I've seen shooting 24p are doing it because they have a pipe dream that their going to get have it transfered to film at the end as if it was that simple.  Most of those people don't have any idea what the process or the cost of such a venture is.  And of course if most of them had the means to transfer to film they'd probably have the means to shoot film or HD Cam.  Most stuff I've seen that was shot 24p dv or hdv looks like garbage projected on a 50 or 60" plasma so I can't imagine how good it would look projected as film

Most stuff I've seen that was shot 24p dv or hdv looks like garbage projected on a 50 or 60" plasma so I can't imagine how good it would look projected as film

I've seen excellent film transfers from DV sources. The quality of that is depending on so many factors.

Job ter Burg:

Huh? If one feels it looks nicer than 30i, what's wrong with that? How can it be a waste?

Good Point Job. I guess I was proceeding from the biased of view that the look is not what I would prefer.

Job ter Burg:

He meant that if you pulldown 24p to 30i, then edit and master, you end up with lots of broken cadences. If you edit 24p and master to 30i, you add a consistent pulldown.

Ah...got it.

So other than that I disagree with the topic title (Q.E.D.), I also feel this thread is in the wrong forum. Why would this be specific to XpressPro on a PC? Especially since there is a 24p forum.

As the arrogant and (apparently dumb?) person who started this thread I am pleased so many people spoke up. I certainly think the thread belongs here since the 24p forum is not where a lot of us would be, and by us, well, we know who we are.

I am cutting a few projects now -- all shot in 24p over 30i, editing in 30i. If we decide to go to film we can convert to 24 later and if we go to tv as planned we can stay at 30. I am still baffled as to why anyone would shoot 24, lay down to tape in 30, pulldown to 24 to edit, then reverse to 30 for output. I know people say they would rather edit native 24.. but honestly (and dont be offended) I truly believe that only about 1% of the people who do this have any idea what they are talking about. (Given how many folks are editing 24p suggests there is good chance many of them are a wannabee according to my preposterous and made-up-on-the-spot calculations!)

Anyway, if editing  24 really gives you better road feel thats fine, but again, I think most of the people who shoot 24/30 then pulldown to 24 for edit are fundamentally missing the point of what this is all about and why any of this matters at all. I also think progressive is the larger part of the improved picture as opposed to frame rate. But of course, this is ALL just conjecture and since I am arrogant and dumb as someone hinted about 15 posts earlier, I may not know what I am talking about. I often don't. But my cats like me and the GF has not left me yet.

Anyway I am off to eat some pasta and after a few drinks "i hope to p". (and if you dont get that you are as dumb as "i")

cheers

I am still baffled as to why anyone would shoot 24, lay down to tape in 30, pulldown to 24 to edit, then reverse to 30 for output.

The answer has been given several times, though: because of easier (better) pulldown removal if the road does not end at the 30i output. That is web delivery, DVD presentation, filmout, system conversion, etc. Now, or at any time in the future. You do understand the fundamental difference between keeping the cadence consistent (in 24p) and breaking it (in 30i with nearly every cut), and that inversing pulldown from a consistent pulldown is easier (therefore often better quality) than deinterlacing inconsistent pulldown, right? Because that is the de facto argument for 24p post. And do take into account moving effects & graphics, that will all be animated at a different motion rate when cutting in 30i, 60Hz.

You also seem to suppose that 24p is difficult. It is not. It has been common practice for decades, it's nothing new.

I think most of the people who shoot 24/30 then pulldown to 24 for edit are fundamentally missing the point of what this is all about and why any of this matters at all

What point do you feel they are missing?

I truly believe that only about 1% of the people who do this have any idea what they are talking about.

If so, the same might apply to editing, color correction, or effects work, Photoshop, sound mixing, etc.

I certainly think the thread belongs here

What is specifically XpressPro about this and what is so specifically PC about it?

I am pleased so many people spoke up

I am disappointed that you did not respond to a single argument or question, you just stick to being "baffled". Not my idea of a constructive thread.

Guywithcat:

I certainly think the thread belongs here

Guywithcat:

I am cutting a few projects now -- all shot in 24p over 30i, editing in 30i. If we decide to go to film we can convert to 24 later and if we go to tv as planned we can stay at 30. I am still baffled as to why anyone would shoot 24, lay down to tape in 30, pulldown to 24 to edit, then reverse to 30 for output.

Maybe you like to use more disk storage, take longer to render material, struggle to remove a inconsistent cadence when converting to progressive, or (less sarcastic) do not understand the capture into a 24p from  a 30i tape (we capture everything except HDV through SDI). I say this last capture item because honestly this is the only process in the Avid editing that I can think of that changes.

Yes you need to render material in other programs like After Effects in 24p but again you use less disk space and render quicker.

Now if you are using mixed material 24p 30i the choices get harder but we can deal with that when you understand the advantages of editing 24p material in 24p.

Thanks for starting the great thread I agree with you I think many people don't understand the concept and I learned from the forums when we started editing in 24p.

Most of our material goes for TV. Most of the people that I know who shoot 24p over 30i (which I consider to be a very nice acquisition format since you get the 24 look and the progressive which is better than interlace obviously) are also going to TV yet so many want to edit 24. If you shoot for TV it is not productive to take a 30i tape and pulldown to edit in 24p only to then kick out to 30i again. If you want to save spave -- compress the video to a codec. And I suspect most of the 24p editors dont cut at 24 to save space.

Also when you cut for TV there are many other issues to deal with such importing video from other sources that are native 30i. If you are outputting to film then to edit in 24 makes sense. But if you look at the fact that there are over 500 channels in the US alone, many of which air 24 hours a day, it is easy to see that the amount of editing for TV (with no expected film output) is many thousands of times larger than the amount of editing for film output. Yet if you read the XPRO forum here you might think it was 50-50. Same for corporate video. Most of these are on tape or basic DVD outputs and most show on NTSC monitors. If someone wants to edit these in 24, be my guest but that person is missing the point.

Our editors know all about editing 24, 30 etc. This has nothing to do with our capabilities. It also has nothing to do with the people on here --such as you-- who know EXACTLY how the process works, and also know when and why to do it. I am, again, talking about the countless posts here (and endless discussions at parties) where people think they need to edit 24p when in fact they dont. Thei raw tapes are 30 and their ouput is 30. You say it;s easy to convert -- but it is not so easy because if it was we would not be reading so many posts about people who do not understand what they are doing! this is the issue. Zillions of posts from people who dont get this at all. Thry get lost in format conversions. They post here all day long. Yet they seem to "think" 24 is the way to do. I am obviously not articulate enough to make my point. But plenty of people did who wrote before me.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your thoughts and motivations. Seriously.

I'll agree to the notion that 24p post doesn't always make sense, nor is it a silver bullet.