I don't see how this would happen if the files were linked from an XDCAM
volume. However, if the files were XDCAM QuickTimes, there could
potentially be an issue.
If XDCAM QT, when you link to file via AMA, you have several places to set
field motion. One is the bin column "Field Motion" which must be set to
Progressive for these clips to have the proper pulldown added. If it says
"Unknown", Avid will default to adding motion adapters so that
Source=Interlaced, even with 23.98 material. I have a bug report/feature
request in with them about this, because Avid's detection algorithm should
be smart enough to say "hmm - I know fps = 23.98, so my default guess to
Field Motion should = Progressive". But "Unknown" is ALWAYS Interlaced. And
that's, well, dumb.
The second is the right-click command "Set Source Settings". If you can
open up the source settings, you need to check them. Most of the time if it
is a native Avid codec (which XDCAM is) you will not be able to open Set
Source Settings (and that is a good thing). If you can't open Set Source
Settings it means that Avid has derived enough information about the source
file (Field Motion, Color Space, Levels, etc.) that you would not need to
change them. If you can open the dialog, that means it's ambiguous, and you
have to make sure these are set correctly (just like above, forcing
"Unknown"s to knowns).
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM, John Moore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
> **
>
>
> On a self contained project at home I opted to take the interviews that
> were shot 23.98 XDcam 35 Mbits according to the ama link video discription
> and transcode to the project frame rate 1080i/59.94. This seems to work
> and creates 3:2 pulldown which is reflected in the Avid bin column motion
> or whatever it's called. As I went to online I noticed one hour plus clip
> that had been trranscoded has motion artifacts. It goes by fields forward
> for two frames and then shows to fields that look like wrong field order
> followed by two fields like wrong field order. It's an interview so there
> is not much motion but I do see it. The other interview with the same
> specs works perfectly. I thought I might have transcoded in 29.97P so I
> redid in 1080i/59.95 but I still see the artifacts. I thought this worked
> as it has on other clips in the project. I'm going back and opening the
> ama clips in a 23.98 project and then opening that bin in the main 59.94
> project and redoing the transcode just to see if that might make a
> difference. Kinda weird and I thought I was being so hip to avoid a mixed
> frame rate timeline and it's annoyances. ;-(
>
> John Moore
>
> Barking Trout Productions
>
> Studio City, CA
>
> bigfish@pacbell.net
>
> [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
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment