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) |
No comments:
Post a Comment