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 (33) |
No comments:
Post a Comment