I do realize I am baking in with the conversion but as far as quality of the results when I am set to 1080i/59.94 I get a traditional 2:3 pulldown. That to me would be no conversion artifact because it's just adding the pulldown field/Psf like would happen in a traditional telecine transfer. Am I missing something? Part of the reason I like baking in for this project is then I won't have to fight any mixed frame rate quirks and it's not an issue that I can't link back to the original ama clips. Also I'm going to try taking the original radio cut done in 23.98 and edl it to 29.97 and relink to my new baked in clips. I've done the 30 to 24 edl route in the past so I assume I can do the reverse.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>
> It only matters what your "Field Motion" is set to per clip in the bin. If
> you're in a 29.97i project, and you AMA link to a 23.98 clip, and Field
> Motion is set to Progressive, the motion adapter will be correct (2:3
> pulldown). If the Field Motion is set to Interlaced, or Unknown, the motion
> adapter makes a guess and the guess is wrong (usually blended something).
>
> John, if you were in a 29.97p project, the motion adapter would see
> source:progressive, output:progressive, and most likely set to blended
> interpolated. In other words, creating progressive frames that did not
> exist in the source.
>
> Always check Field Motion before transcoding. It is usually guessed
> correctly with Avid-native codec stuff like P2 / XDCAM, and usually guessed
> wrong with everything else.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM, electropura212 <electropura212@...>wrote:
>
> > Had issues with this last year.
> >
> > Noted that doing the AMA link/transcode in a 23.98 project, then moving the
> > bins into the 1080i 29.97 project achieved noticeably better looking
> > results. The motion adapter applied in the 29.97 project handled the
> > pulldown differently (and better!). Better still, it's not baked in...you
> > can adjust it by promoting to Timewarp if it gets the cadence wrong.
> >
> > I think transcoding while converting frame rate is using Advanced Pulldown,
> > which is really not so nice.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, johnrobmoore wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Well in 1080i the transcodes generate 2:3 pulldown like I would expect.
> > So
> > > what methodology is Avid using when I did the transcodes in 1080P/29.97?
> > Is
> > > it a fluid motion algorithm? If so does it lead to some of the potential
> > > artifacts that fluid motion can generate? Just how is Avid making 5
> > > seemingly unique psf frames from the original 24 frames of the ama clip?
> > > Hmmmmm.
> > >
> > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> > > 'Avid-L2%40yahoogroups.com');>, John Moore <bigfish@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So in my P2 extravaganza tonight I see something that I think I only
> > > partially understand. When I look at ama linked DVCPro HD (720P/60)
> > 23.98
> > > clips and set my project to 1080i/59.94 I see a cadence of 2,2,2,4 but
> > when
> > > I look at the transcoded clips that are
> > > >
> > > > p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }
> > > >
> > > > DNxHD 220 (HD1080p) and step field by field I see a 2,2,2,2,2 cadence
> > > not 2:3. Is this some magic happening in the transcode because all 5 psf
> > > frames are unique. Could I be getting fooled by the fact that I did the
> > > transcodes while having the project set to 1080P/29.97. It's late but I
> > > don't see any split frames as I step through field by field. I'm going to
> > > redo the transcode while in 1080i/59.94 mode and see what happens then.
> > > >
> > > > John Moore
> > > >
> > > > Barking Trout Productions
> > > >
> > > > Studio City, CA
> > > >
> > > > bigfish@
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (6) |
No comments:
Post a Comment