Saturday, January 4, 2014

Re: [Avid-L2] Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

If you mix down first, the motion adapter will be correct. Source: Progressive, Output: Film with 2:3 Pulldown. Promoting that adapter into a time warp effect shouldn't make any difference.

On Saturday, January 4, 2014, namyrb wrote:

 

"Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one chunk of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter = perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in, ready for tape output or file output."

This is what we've been doing so far with the only difference being that we promote it.  Is this needed or can we just leave the green dot as it is?  I don't know if my eyes deceive me, but leaving it as it is seems to look a little better.  


On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com> wrote:
 

"Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just onlined in a 23.98 project."

That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your conscience, since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be the very last thing you do.


"Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots."

Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one chunk of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter = perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in, ready for tape output or file output.


"If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be accurate to the universal mastered tape"

I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing that precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described above is easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).


"I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."

That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98 sequence and export SAS.


"The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route"

I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94 project. MC stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is easier than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you open the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.



On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
 

Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested onlining in 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all the source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the show was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98 NTSC project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98 master but now I'm told the network need 59.94.

Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's no different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it be better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0 and 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down later but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.

If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right now to play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.



__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (12)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

"Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one chunk of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter = perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in, ready for tape output or file output."

This is what we've been doing so far with the only difference being that we promote it.  Is this needed or can we just leave the green dot as it is?  I don't know if my eyes deceive me, but leaving it as it is seems to look a little better.  


On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com> wrote:
 

"Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just onlined in a 23.98 project."

That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your conscience, since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be the very last thing you do.


"Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots."

Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one chunk of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter = perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in, ready for tape output or file output.


"If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be accurate to the universal mastered tape"

I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing that precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described above is easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).


"I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."

That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98 sequence and export SAS.


"The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route"

I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94 project. MC stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is easier than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you open the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.



On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
 

Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested onlining in 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all the source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the show was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98 NTSC project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98 master but now I'm told the network need 59.94.

Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's no different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it be better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0 and 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down later but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.

If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right now to play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.



__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (11)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Friday, January 3, 2014

[Avid-L2] Re: Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

No argument there I tell editors never edit on the last frame of a shot of something precut to avoid that issue but of course it's about as effective as telling Rubin not to stare at me when I eat am OKI Dog in front of him.

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that the next continuous field of the same shot isn't a problem.
> It's only a problem when the editor chooses to cut exactly where the source
> cuts to a different scene AND when the pulldown cadence for that section is
> such that the BC or CD frame contains a field from each shot. Sounds like a
> long shot, but I see this all the time. So much that I've had to enforce
> the rule.
>
> It doesn't condemn every edit, just 40% of edits where the cut is the same
> as the scene break in the source. The bigger problem is that MC in software
> and hardware only show field 1 while you're cutting, so the editors never
> see the field flash unless they're stepping through by fields (unlikely) or
> they catch it as it plays (a 1/60th flash which I've trained myself to spot
> is harder for a lot of editors to catch).
>
> On Saturday, January 4, 2014, johnrobmoore wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I get your point about the split frames at an edit point although in
> > practice unlike the typical trailer edit source where you pick up a
> > completeluyu different shot on the later split field when it's just the
> > next continuous field of the shot I don't find that too offensive. In
> > essesnce that would condem every edit in an interlace show because the last
> > field is different from the second to last field.
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> > 'Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com');>, Mark Spano <cutandcover@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and adding pull down on capture
> > is
> > > probably what I'm trying to emulate but there really isn't an equivalent
> > to
> > > this in the file based world or am I missing something obvious?"
> > >
> > > Actually, in most cases, I advise against doing it that way. Editors are
> > > often pressed for footage, and often the frames you need are right up
> > > against the next cut from the tape/episode/shot. If you have it loaded
> > with
> > > pulldown, and you're cutting in 59.94i, you may wind up leaving in
> > blended
> > > frames. For example:
> > >
> > > If shot A ends here (on a "B" frame):
> > >
> > > A B
> > >
> > > and shot B begins here (on a "C" frame):
> > >
> > > C D A B C D
> > >
> > > Then your pulldown added source has a blended frame at the cut point:
> > >
> > > AA BB BC CD DD
> > >
> > > If you use that, it's a one field flash in your sequence. Multiply that
> > > times a lot when cutting long form.
> > >
> > > That's why I advocate staying 23.98 all the way until finish, then add
> > the
> > > pulldown.
> > >
> > > "As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from
> > > protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame
> > > rates."
> > >
> > > I get it - so no, MC will not let you import this 23.98 AAF into anything
> > > but a 23.98 project. I was thinking you were getting WAVs. If this is the
> > > case, it should be a simple request to the mixer to also provide the same
> > > AAF delivery at 29.97, at the start timecode of your choice. Otherwise,
> > > you'll have to import 23.98 AAF into 23.98 project, then open that
> > sequence
> > > in the 59.94i project and have Avid "convert" the timecode.
> > >
> > > "Given it's just audio I guess that wouldn't really change the actual
> > > running time but I'm not sure on that end."
> > >
> > > Actual clock time will not change, but TC start and TC end will be
> > > different.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess at the root of my approach is the way we worked before file
> > based
> > > > sources were so prevalent. The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and
> > > > adding pull down on capture is probably what I'm trying to emulate but
> > > > there really isn't an equivalent to this in the file based world or am
> > I
> > > > missing something obvious? In my experience the closest thing has been
> > to
> > > > take 23.98 files and link to ama then transcode/convert them to full
> > res
> > > > 59.94 media and then take that media and transcode it to offline
> > > > resolution. But as the prompts say when transcoding/converting there
> > is no
> > > > way to link back to the original masters with this approach. Perhaps
> > there
> > > > might be a way with some addition of a tape name but I haven't had a
> > need
> > > > to try that specific step.
> > > >
> > > > On one project I was able to take a 23.98 radio cut and using an edl
> > make
> > > > it into a 59.94 timeline sequence. Once that was done I converted the
> > 23.98
> > > > clips to 59.94i as listed above. Then I added matching tape names to
> > the
> > > > original 23.98 clips tape names and it relinked after a little
> > tinkering. I
> > > > was rather pleased at that result but since that was several months
> > ago I
> > > > don't remember all the specific tweaks along the way.
> > > >
> > > > As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from
> > > > protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame
> > > > rates. I would imagine if I were just importing the audio stems Avid
> > really
> > > > just cares about samples and not frame rate. Not sure if the same holds
> > > > true for an aaf import given that is more like a sequence it may want
> > to
> > > > convert the sequence to the native frame rate. Given it's just audio I
> > > > guess that wouldn't really change the actual running time but I'm not
> > sure
> > > > on that end.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> > 'Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com');>, Mark Spano <cutandcover@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > > > > onlined in a 23.98 project."
> > > > >
> > > > > That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your
> > conscience,
> > > > > since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be
> > the
> > > > > very last thing you do.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a
> > 59.94
> > > > > sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the
> > sequence
> > > > will
> > > > > have a random cadence between shots."
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one
> > > > chunk
> > > > > of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter
> > =
> > > > > perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in,
> > > > ready
> > > > > for tape output or file output.
> > > > >
> > > > > "If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and
> > most
> > > > > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> > > > > accurate to the universal mastered tape"
> > > > >
> > > > > I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing
> > that
> > > > > precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described
> > above is
> > > > > easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).
> > > > >
> > > > > "I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."
> > > > >
> > > > > That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98
> > > > > sequence and export SAS.
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring
> > that
> > > > > into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94
> > > > > timeline if I go that route"
> > > > >
> > > > > I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94
> > project.
> > > > MC
> > > > > stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is
> > easier
> > > > > than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you
> > open
> > > > > the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many
> > > > > > different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested
> > > > onlining in
> > > > > > 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of
> > the
> > > > show
> > > > > > was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98
> > > > NTSC
> > > > > > project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a
> > 23.98
> > > > master
> > > > > > but now I'm told the network need 59.94.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > > > > > onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online
> > > > sequence
> > > > > > and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion
> > adapters
> > > > but I
> > > > > > realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots.
> > That's
> > > > no
> > > > > > different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material
> > on
> > > > > > capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would
> > it
> > > > be
> > > > > > better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame
> > on 0
> > > > and
> > > > > > 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down
> > > > later
> > > > > > but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and
> > most
> > > > > > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will
> > be
> > > > > > accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a
> > full
> > > > res
> > > > > > pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume
> > > > that I'd
> > > > > > have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the
> > > > sequence
> > > > > > into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system
> > right
> > > > now to
> > > > > > play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (10)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

Too easy Ash, too easy.

I do hold hope though, uhd (4k) has n interlaced varieties so its half way there..

Mike


On 1/4/14, 12:17 PM, Tim McLaughlin wrote:
 
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Mikeparsons.tv <mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com> wrote:

Hopefully UHD2 (8k) will come in just a single integer frame rate.


Yeah... And I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

(Name that reference!)
--
Tim McLaughlin
Final Cut, Avid and Premiere Pro Editor
http://vimeo.com/mcltim

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (9)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

I agree that the next continuous field of the same shot isn't a problem. It's only a problem when the editor chooses to cut exactly where the source cuts to a different scene AND when the pulldown cadence for that section is such that the BC or CD frame contains a field from each shot. Sounds like a long shot, but I see this all the time. So much that I've had to enforce the rule.


It doesn't condemn every edit, just 40% of edits where the cut is the same as the scene break in the source. The bigger problem is that MC in software and hardware only show field 1 while you're cutting, so the editors never see the field flash unless they're stepping through by fields (unlikely) or they catch it as it plays (a 1/60th flash which I've trained myself to spot is harder for a lot of editors to catch).

On Saturday, January 4, 2014, johnrobmoore wrote:
 

I get your point about the split frames at an edit point although in practice unlike the typical trailer edit source where you pick up a completeluyu different shot on the later split field when it's just the next continuous field of the shot I don't find that too offensive. In essesnce that would condem every edit in an interlace show because the last field is different from the second to last field.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> "The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and adding pull down on capture is
> probably what I'm trying to emulate but there really isn't an equivalent to
> this in the file based world or am I missing something obvious?"
>
> Actually, in most cases, I advise against doing it that way. Editors are
> often pressed for footage, and often the frames you need are right up
> against the next cut from the tape/episode/shot. If you have it loaded with
> pulldown, and you're cutting in 59.94i, you may wind up leaving in blended
> frames. For example:
>
> If shot A ends here (on a "B" frame):
>
> A B
>
> and shot B begins here (on a "C" frame):
>
> C D A B C D
>
> Then your pulldown added source has a blended frame at the cut point:
>
> AA BB BC CD DD
>
> If you use that, it's a one field flash in your sequence. Multiply that
> times a lot when cutting long form.
>
> That's why I advocate staying 23.98 all the way until finish, then add the
> pulldown.
>
> "As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from
> protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame
> rates."
>
> I get it - so no, MC will not let you import this 23.98 AAF into anything
> but a 23.98 project. I was thinking you were getting WAVs. If this is the
> case, it should be a simple request to the mixer to also provide the same
> AAF delivery at 29.97, at the start timecode of your choice. Otherwise,
> you'll have to import 23.98 AAF into 23.98 project, then open that sequence
> in the 59.94i project and have Avid "convert" the timecode.
>
> "Given it's just audio I guess that wouldn't really change the actual
> running time but I'm not sure on that end."
>
> Actual clock time will not change, but TC start and TC end will be
> different.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I guess at the root of my approach is the way we worked before file based
> > sources were so prevalent. The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and
> > adding pull down on capture is probably what I'm trying to emulate but
> > there really isn't an equivalent to this in the file based world or am I
> > missing something obvious? In my experience the closest thing has been to
> > take 23.98 files and link to ama then transcode/convert them to full res
> > 59.94 media and then take that media and transcode it to offline
> > resolution. But as the prompts say when transcoding/converting there is no
> > way to link back to the original masters with this approach. Perhaps there
> > might be a way with some addition of a tape name but I haven't had a need
> > to try that specific step.
> >
> > On one project I was able to take a 23.98 radio cut and using an edl make
> > it into a 59.94 timeline sequence. Once that was done I converted the 23.98
> > clips to 59.94i as listed above. Then I added matching tape names to the
> > original 23.98 clips tape names and it relinked after a little tinkering. I
> > was rather pleased at that result but since that was several months ago I
> > don't remember all the specific tweaks along the way.
> >
> > As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from
> > protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame
> > rates. I would imagine if I were just importing the audio stems Avid really
> > just cares about samples and not frame rate. Not sure if the same holds
> > true for an aaf import given that is more like a sequence it may want to
> > convert the sequence to the native frame rate. Given it's just audio I
> > guess that wouldn't really change the actual running time but I'm not sure
> > on that end.
> >
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > > onlined in a 23.98 project."
> > >
> > > That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your conscience,
> > > since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be the
> > > very last thing you do.
> > >
> > > "Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94
> > > sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence
> > will
> > > have a random cadence between shots."
> > >
> > > Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one
> > chunk
> > > of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter =
> > > perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in,
> > ready
> > > for tape output or file output.
> > >
> > > "If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> > > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> > > accurate to the universal mastered tape"
> > >
> > > I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing that
> > > precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described above is
> > > easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).
> > >
> > > "I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."
> > >
> > > That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98
> > > sequence and export SAS.
> > >
> > > "The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that
> > > into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94
> > > timeline if I go that route"
> > >
> > > I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94 project.
> > MC
> > > stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is easier
> > > than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you open
> > > the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many
> > > > different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested
> > onlining in
> > > > 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all
> > the
> > > > source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the
> > show
> > > > was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98
> > NTSC
> > > > project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98
> > master
> > > > but now I'm told the network need 59.94.
> > > >
> > > > Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > > > onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online
> > sequence
> > > > and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters
> > but I
> > > > realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's
> > no
> > > > different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on
> > > > capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it
> > be
> > > > better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0
> > and
> > > > 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down
> > later
> > > > but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.
> > > >
> > > > If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> > > > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> > > > accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full
> > res
> > > > pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume
> > that I'd
> > > > have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the
> > sequence
> > > > into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right
> > now to
> > > > play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (8)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[Avid-L2] Re: Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

I get your point about the split frames at an edit point although in practice unlike the typical trailer edit source where you pick up a completeluyu different shot on the later split field when it's just the next continuous field of the shot I don't find that too offensive. In essesnce that would condem every edit in an interlace show because the last field is different from the second to last field.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> "The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and adding pull down on capture is
> probably what I'm trying to emulate but there really isn't an equivalent to
> this in the file based world or am I missing something obvious?"
>
> Actually, in most cases, I advise against doing it that way. Editors are
> often pressed for footage, and often the frames you need are right up
> against the next cut from the tape/episode/shot. If you have it loaded with
> pulldown, and you're cutting in 59.94i, you may wind up leaving in blended
> frames. For example:
>
> If shot A ends here (on a "B" frame):
>
> A B
>
> and shot B begins here (on a "C" frame):
>
> C D A B C D
>
> Then your pulldown added source has a blended frame at the cut point:
>
> AA BB BC CD DD
>
> If you use that, it's a one field flash in your sequence. Multiply that
> times a lot when cutting long form.
>
> That's why I advocate staying 23.98 all the way until finish, then add the
> pulldown.
>
> "As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from
> protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame
> rates."
>
> I get it - so no, MC will not let you import this 23.98 AAF into anything
> but a 23.98 project. I was thinking you were getting WAVs. If this is the
> case, it should be a simple request to the mixer to also provide the same
> AAF delivery at 29.97, at the start timecode of your choice. Otherwise,
> you'll have to import 23.98 AAF into 23.98 project, then open that sequence
> in the 59.94i project and have Avid "convert" the timecode.
>
> "Given it's just audio I guess that wouldn't really change the actual
> running time but I'm not sure on that end."
>
> Actual clock time will not change, but TC start and TC end will be
> different.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I guess at the root of my approach is the way we worked before file based
> > sources were so prevalent. The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and
> > adding pull down on capture is probably what I'm trying to emulate but
> > there really isn't an equivalent to this in the file based world or am I
> > missing something obvious? In my experience the closest thing has been to
> > take 23.98 files and link to ama then transcode/convert them to full res
> > 59.94 media and then take that media and transcode it to offline
> > resolution. But as the prompts say when transcoding/converting there is no
> > way to link back to the original masters with this approach. Perhaps there
> > might be a way with some addition of a tape name but I haven't had a need
> > to try that specific step.
> >
> > On one project I was able to take a 23.98 radio cut and using an edl make
> > it into a 59.94 timeline sequence. Once that was done I converted the 23.98
> > clips to 59.94i as listed above. Then I added matching tape names to the
> > original 23.98 clips tape names and it relinked after a little tinkering. I
> > was rather pleased at that result but since that was several months ago I
> > don't remember all the specific tweaks along the way.
> >
> > As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from
> > protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame
> > rates. I would imagine if I were just importing the audio stems Avid really
> > just cares about samples and not frame rate. Not sure if the same holds
> > true for an aaf import given that is more like a sequence it may want to
> > convert the sequence to the native frame rate. Given it's just audio I
> > guess that wouldn't really change the actual running time but I'm not sure
> > on that end.
> >
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > > onlined in a 23.98 project."
> > >
> > > That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your conscience,
> > > since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be the
> > > very last thing you do.
> > >
> > > "Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94
> > > sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence
> > will
> > > have a random cadence between shots."
> > >
> > > Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one
> > chunk
> > > of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter =
> > > perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in,
> > ready
> > > for tape output or file output.
> > >
> > > "If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> > > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> > > accurate to the universal mastered tape"
> > >
> > > I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing that
> > > precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described above is
> > > easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).
> > >
> > > "I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."
> > >
> > > That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98
> > > sequence and export SAS.
> > >
> > > "The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that
> > > into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94
> > > timeline if I go that route"
> > >
> > > I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94 project.
> > MC
> > > stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is easier
> > > than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you open
> > > the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many
> > > > different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested
> > onlining in
> > > > 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all
> > the
> > > > source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the
> > show
> > > > was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98
> > NTSC
> > > > project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98
> > master
> > > > but now I'm told the network need 59.94.
> > > >
> > > > Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > > > onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online
> > sequence
> > > > and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters
> > but I
> > > > realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's
> > no
> > > > different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on
> > > > capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it
> > be
> > > > better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0
> > and
> > > > 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down
> > later
> > > > but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.
> > > >
> > > > If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> > > > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> > > > accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full
> > res
> > > > pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume
> > that I'd
> > > > have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the
> > sequence
> > > > into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right
> > now to
> > > > play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Mikeparsons.tv <mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com> wrote:

Hopefully UHD2 (8k) will come in just a single integer frame rate.


Yeah... And I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

(Name that reference!)
--
Tim McLaughlin
Final Cut, Avid and Premiere Pro Editor
http://vimeo.com/mcltim

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: Simplist 23.98 to 59.94i workflow?

 

Does anyone else remember when HD was going to fix all this with a single delivery format?

Hopefully UHD2 (8k) will come in just a single integer frame rate.

Mike

On 4 Jan, 2014, at 10:31 am, Mark Spano <cutandcover@gmail.com> wrote:

 

"The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and adding pull down on capture is probably what I'm trying to emulate but there really isn't an equivalent to this in the file based world or am I missing something obvious?"

Actually, in most cases, I advise against doing it that way. Editors are often pressed for footage, and often the frames you need are right up against the next cut from the tape/episode/shot. If you have it loaded with pulldown, and you're cutting in 59.94i, you may wind up leaving in blended frames. For example:

If shot A ends here (on a "B" frame):

A B

and shot B begins here (on a "C" frame):

C D A B C D

Then your pulldown added source has a blended frame at the cut point:

AA BB BC CD DD

If you use that, it's a one field flash in your sequence. Multiply that times a lot when cutting long form.

That's why I advocate staying 23.98 all the way until finish, then add the pulldown.

"As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame rates."

I get it - so no, MC will not let you import this 23.98 AAF into anything but a 23.98 project. I was thinking you were getting WAVs. If this is the case, it should be a simple request to the mixer to also provide the same AAF delivery at 29.97, at the start timecode of your choice. Otherwise, you'll have to import 23.98 AAF into 23.98 project, then open that sequence in the 59.94i project and have Avid "convert" the timecode.

"Given it's just audio I guess that wouldn't really change the actual running time but I'm not sure on that end."

Actual clock time will not change, but TC start and TC end will be different.


On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
 

I guess at the root of my approach is the way we worked before file based sources were so prevalent. The simplicity of taking the 23.98 tape and adding pull down on capture is probably what I'm trying to emulate but there really isn't an equivalent to this in the file based world or am I missing something obvious? In my experience the closest thing has been to take 23.98 files and link to ama then transcode/convert them to full res 59.94 media and then take that media and transcode it to offline resolution. But as the prompts say when transcoding/converting there is no way to link back to the original masters with this approach. Perhaps there might be a way with some addition of a tape name but I haven't had a need to try that specific step.

On one project I was able to take a 23.98 radio cut and using an edl make it into a 59.94 timeline sequence. Once that was done I converted the 23.98 clips to 59.94i as listed above. Then I added matching tape names to the original 23.98 clips tape names and it relinked after a little tinkering. I was rather pleased at that result but since that was several months ago I don't remember all the specific tweaks along the way.

As far as the pro tools audio goes we generally import an AAF from protools with embedded media. Will that also import and convert frame rates. I would imagine if I were just importing the audio stems Avid really just cares about samples and not frame rate. Not sure if the same holds true for an aaf import given that is more like a sequence it may want to convert the sequence to the native frame rate. Given it's just audio I guess that wouldn't really change the actual running time but I'm not sure on that end.



--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> "Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> onlined in a 23.98 project."
>
> That's exactly what I would have done. MUCH easier on your conscience,
> since everything's perfectly frame accurate. Pulldown add should be the
> very last thing you do.
>
> "Now my plan is to take their online sequence and cut that into a 59.94
> sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I realize the sequence will
> have a random cadence between shots."
>
> Right, so don't do that. Mixdown in the 23.98 project so you have one chunk
> of video, then bring that into the 59.94 project. One motion adapter =
> perfect cadence. Mix that down and you've got the pulldown baked in, ready
> for tape output or file output.
>
> "If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> accurate to the universal mastered tape"
>
> I never use Universal Mastering for pulldown adding. Stopped doing that
> precisely because of file-based delivery. Method I've described above is
> easier and you wind up with a very fast export (SAS).
>
> "I also have to deliver a full res pro res file for DvD's."
>
> That should be the 23.98 master. Make a ProRes mixdown of your 23.98
> sequence and export SAS.
>
> "The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd have to bring that
> into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence into. 59.94
> timeline if I go that route"
>
> I would import into the 23.98 project AND import into the 59.94 project. MC
> stamps audio on the way in at the desired frame rate, and this is easier
> than responding to whatever weird dialogs it will give you when you open
> the 23.98 sequence in the 59.94 project.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Originally I was told my current project would be a mixture of many
> > different cameras and frame ratea. Because of this I suggested onlining in
> > 1080i/59.94 our ultimate delivery format. I have now been informed all the
> > source material is 23.98 from the vaeious cameras. The majority of the show
> > was shot on a Sony F55 to XDCam and the offline project was a 23.98 NTSC
> > project. I was also originally tole the network would accept a 23.98 master
> > but now I'm told the network need 59.94.
> >
> > Even though I had requesed the online be done at 59.94 the AEs just
> > onlined in a 23.98 project. Now my plan is to take their online sequence
> > and cut that into a 59.94 sequence. This will add the motion adapters but I
> > realize the sequence will have a random cadence between shots. That's no
> > different than just having a deck add pull down to 23.98 material on
> > capture but given I have a true 23.98 sequence to start with would it be
> > better to use universal mastering to tape to get a proper A frame on 0 and
> > 05 frames on the final sequence. I doubt they will remove pull down later
> > but I'd hate to throw that out if possible.
> >
> > If I do go the universal mastering route what is the cleanest and most
> > reliable way to make a 29.97 file for closed captioning that will be
> > accurate to the universal mastered tape. I also have to deliver a full res
> > pro res file for DvD's. The Pro Tools session is 23.98 so I assume that I'd
> > have to bring that into the 23.98 project first before cutting the sequence
> > into. 59.94 timeline if I go that route. I'm not at the system right now to
> > play around but any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
>


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
There was an error in this gadget