The clipss field motion is interlace. I should check the clips in the 59.94 project they were captured in to see if they are truely interlaced or if they have 2:3 pull down. Good suggestion yhat would eliminate the 125 persent motion adapter.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> Your default motion adapter behavior would be happier if it was specified
> in the Field Motion column of the bin for each clip to be "Film with 2:3
> Pulldown". Then, dropping those clips into a 23.98 sequence would
> automatically remove the pulldown (source Film with 2:3 Pulldown, output
> Progressive, etc.). You can see why I advise always set the Field Motion on
> your clips…
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:18 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > As fate would have it today's video Sojourn was interlace material cut
> > into a ntsc 24 frame offline and now dealing with it in the online project.
> > Apparently they took HDV material and captured via an HVR 1500 deck into a
> > 59.94 project. Now when they open the offline sequence in the online
> > project it automatically modifies the sequence and now the clips that were
> > captured in the separate 59.94 project, so I'm told as I wasn't there to
> > witness this, seem to be modified to be 23.98 clips. This seem like the
> > typical behavior I would expect for tapes of telecine transfers but in our
> > case it is a pain in the arse. Now we want to decompose and capture the
> > clips in the 59.94 project at HD resolution.
> >
> > I'm coming in on the tale end of this project but can someone confirm that
> > if the offline sequence wasn't modified to HD 23.98 that the clips from the
> > HDV tape would remain as 29.97/59.94 clips and they could be recaptured? As
> > it is they have to ball park the time code and eye match the clips but I'm
> > thinking there might be a more elegant way to approach this in the future.
> > I find AEs are kind of trigger happy to just recapture and overcut after
> > all the issues that tend to crop up in these convoluted workflows involving
> > mixed Frame Rate timelines.
> >
> > Also to follow up on the motion adapter discussion what I have found in
> > this project when they over cut this 59.94 HDV footage into the 23.98
> > timeline the default motion adapter is set to interlaced source and
> > progressive output and the mode is blended interpolated. I've found that
> > leads to blurry split frames and it seems that switching to interpolated
> > field eliminates the blurred frames. I can do this without having to
> > promote the motion adapters. Fun stuff
> >
> > I also found that these clips had been slo mo'd in the offline at 50% so I
> > had to take the motion adapter that was automatically set to 125% and halve
> > it to 62.5% to achieve a similar motion. Man this stuff just get more and
> > more layered even with a simple motion effect.
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK People, from someone who does this practically every day, please can
> > the
> > > misleading information. Avid MC Motion Adapters function with a very
> > > specific set of defaults, and once you learn what these are and how they
> > > are triggered, they function without fail and flawlessly for you. The
> > > default motion adapter for 23.98 material in a 29.97i project is standard
> > > 2:3 pulldown (both fields, source progressive, output interlaced)
> > PROVIDED
> > > THAT your clip has "Progressive" set in the Field Motion column in the
> > bin.
> > > That said, since this is what you want almost always when doing this
> > frame
> > > rate conversion, you MUST WITHOUT EXCEPTION set any "Unknown" or
> > > "Interlaced" Field Motion column setting for any 23.98 clips to
> > > "Progressive" in order to get what you want. Since so many of 23.98 clips
> > > are incorrectly GUESSED by Avid's interpreter to be "Unknown", when left
> > > alone, these clips will have incorrect motion adapters applied (source
> > > interlaced (?!) output interlaced, blended interpolated).
> > >
> > > So, like I said, do one video mixdown of your 23.98 sequence in the 23.98
> > > project. A video mixdown in a 23.98 project will ALWAYS result in that
> > > video mixdown clip to have "Progressive" stamped in its Field Motion
> > > attribute in the bin. Then, you can take that clip into the 29.97i
> > project
> > > and have Avid automatically apply the proper motion adapter for 2:3
> > > pulldown. Mix that down again to bake in the pulldown and create a native
> > > 29.97i clip.
> > >
> > > There is no other in-the-box method in Avid MC that will guarantee the
> > > proper result. And good lord I see the shoddy handling of 23.98 material
> > > all over projects from other editors and all over television. Field
> > Motion
> > > should be in every one of your custom bin views if you're even thinking
> > > about using mixed frame rates in your 29.97i projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've never seen the default motion adapters in mixed rate material be
> > > > fluid motion. Perhaps I've never looked closely. IIRC the only way to
> > look
> > > > at what the automatic motion adapters are doing is to promote the
> > motion
> > > > effect and look at the settings in the box. From your post it sounds
> > like
> > > > they are coming up in fluid motion but that is not what I've
> > experienced in
> > > > the past. Has something changed about this behavior or is it tied to
> > the
> > > > motion effect render preferences? I would think fluid motion, as
> > powerful
> > > > as it is sometimes, would be a bad default given the chance for
> > artifacts
> > > > when all you want it 2:3 pulldown added. I'm surprised that would have
> > to
> > > > be manually changed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Agustin Goya <agustingoya@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And If I`m not mistaken, if you render it as interlaced (instead of
> > > > > default fluid motion) you will end with a prefect 3:2 pulldown.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Agustin Goya
> > > > > WANCAMP | POST
> > > > > +54-11-6545-2427
> > > > > http://www.wancamp.com.ar/
> > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/agustingoya/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Dom Q. Silverio <domqsilverio@
> > > > ...>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can open your sequence in a 59.94 project, mixdown and then
> > export.
> > > > > > The motion effect will be baked during the mixdown process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dom Q. Silverio
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:23 PM, <pepe.serventi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> II was wondering how people are doing file based delivery to the
> > > > > >> networks. I'm using XDCAM MXF OP1a out of the Avid. This has been
> > > > working
> > > > > >> fine, but now I have a show that's 23.98 and have to deliver
> > 59.94.
> > > > The
> > > > > >> only work around I can see is to do a cross convert out of the
> > > > symphony to
> > > > > >> HDCAM SR, then ingest that back into the Avid. Was wondering if
> > there
> > > > was
> > > > > >> another way.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (34) |
No comments:
Post a Comment