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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
