VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32
Thread
  1. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Hi all,

    I got a Canon VIXIA HFS10 AVCHD camera, made some footage using the "Cinema 24 fps" mode, and now I want to import them into PP CS4, edit, and export the edited video for Blu-Ray authoring later in Encore CS4.

    Please, when starting the new project in Adobe, which settings may I use ?

    Also, when I ask for the "properties" of the mts files, CS4 tells me they are 29.97 fps (1920 X 1080), but how if I have chosen Cinema 24fps in the camera ?

    And please, the most important; which encode settings may I use in CS4 when exporting the video ?

    I click File-Export-Media, Format H.264-Blu-Ray, and after that which settings may I use please ? My guess is that I must choose "HDTV 1080p 24 High Quality", am I right ? I am confused though about the files fps, as Adobe says they are 29.97.....

    Thanks so much,
    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  2. This camera (as do most consumer level cameras) wrap the 24p stream into a 60i container. Premiere "sees" it as 29.97 frames per second or 59.94 fields per second, because that's how the video is "packaged". It's essentially telecine or 2:3 pulldown. To recover the 23.976 progressive frames /s you have to inverse telecine (or IVTC) . Premiere pro doesn't have that capability to IVTC, but After Effects does.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#2:3_pulldown



    You can use avisynth to do this, and encode to a digital intermediate for import. Uncompressed works the best, but takes up lots of HDD space. Another option is cineform neoscene but it's not free. (I think newer versions of neoscene even do the IVTC for you)

    An example of the code you could use in avisynth

    Code:
    DirectShowSource("video.mts")
    TFM()
    TDecimate()
    Quote Quote  
  3. It's hard telecined but there is no 3:2 pulldown because there are no TFF/RFF flags. Therefore I would also question calling it 'wrapped in a 60i container'. It's true 59.94 fields per second and not wrapped in anything. I don't believe the fact that it can be IVTC'd back to 23.976fps changes that. Although maybe I'm just arguing semantics.

    It does make one wonder, though, why these new-fangled Hi-Def cameras do these silly things. Is there some reason for trying to protect consumers from true progressive 23.976/24fps video? And how dare they call it Cinema 24 fps when it's not? 24fps is almost by definition progressive, and this isn't. And how many of the people with these cameras know AviSynth or other methods (if there are any) to restore the progressive frames properly (IVTC)?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Thanks for the correction about hard telecine and no pulldown flags ; I guess "it uses 2:3 pulldown cadence" be more appropriate.

    I'm still going to label it "packages the video into a 60i stream with 2:3 cadence." Eitherway, I see what you're saying that you cannot recover the original (unaltered) progressive frames because of the 2:3 pulldown cadence (unlike 24pA 2:3:3:2).

    The manufacturers charge more $ for 24pN native capable camcorders. They feel they can charge a premium for the feature. You don't see 24pN in very many consumer oriented camcorders. Some might argue that consumers aren't meant to shoot 24p, and usually won't use stabilization rigs , etc.. for proper shooting.

    I think the only consumer oriented camcorder <$2k with 24pN is the Canon HFS200 (with the exception of the DSLR type cameras, like the 7D or T2i)
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 5th Jun 2010 at 22:14.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Cineform Neoscene will extract 24p from AVCHD or HDV and convert to the Cineform digital intermediate for faster timeline performance in CS4.

    Quick and easy but at a $129 price.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    You can also use this nifty little tool that simplifies the process. It's free and uses Avisynth and ffdshow to get the job done. It works with HDV and AVCHD equally well: http://www.hv20.com/showpost.php?p=327033&postcount=35
    Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    I'm still going to label it "packages the video into a 60i stream with 2:3 cadence."
    Let's try it another way, then. In the post just after yours edDV refers to something we all understand, '24p', or 24 progressive frames per second. By the same token, what this camera produces is 30i, 24p hard telecined to 30i.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks to everybody that replied.

    Yes, I remeber having read something about Neoscene a while ago, but I thought it was necessary just for the means of speed when editing AVCHD files, I hadn`t realized it works with the file format/quality as well.

    I`ve done some reading, and if I understood it correctly, I have a "true" (?) 24fps file but wrapped in a 29.97i format, so as PPCS4 looks at this wrapper, it sees (and treats the file as !) 29.97i - am I right ?

    I bought Neoscene and ran it, but please which settings may I use now for the PROJECT SETTINGS in CS4 ? Are my files still AVCHD ? I don`t think so....as now they have been uncompressed and are in an AVI wrapper, right ?

    PPCS4 identifies the files as 24fps, good, so when encoding/exporting the timeline, which settings may I use please ? I want to have the so-called "Cinema look" 24 fps 16:9 Blu-ray....

    Thanks so much,
    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  9. Is it 23.976 or 24fps ? If it IVTCed correctly, I think it should be 23.976

    They are not uncompressed , but use a wavelet form of compression (it's near lossless but not quite0

    You won't have a cineform preset. Just use a custom desktop preset, matching your specs. IE. 1920x1080 progressive , square pixel, 23.976 fps . Same with the blu-ray export settings
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Is it 23.976 or 24fps ? If it IVTCed correctly, I think it should be 23.976

    They are not uncompressed , but use a wavelet form of compression (it's near lossless but not quite0

    You won't have a cineform preset. Just use a custom desktop preset, matching your specs. IE. 1920x1080 progressive , square pixel, 23.976 fps . Same with the blu-ray export settings
    Thanks, it`s 24 fps; well, the camera manual says it records at 24fps, Neoscene says it can "extract 24fps from the AVCHD files", and PPCS4 identifies the files Neoscene created as 24 fps. So it all makes sense, or am I losing a point please ?

    Thanks,
    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  11. if it's 24.0 fps , then that's what you have, and should use. blu-ray is compatible with both 23.976 and 24.0 fps

    Often people abbreviate "23.976p" as "24p" for simplicity. In fact, neither are precise. It should be 24000/1001 (23.976 is a 3 decimal rounding approximation)

    Summary: use the same settings as whatever cineform spit out. What does mediainfo say about the frame rate? (view=>text)
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    if it's 24.0 fps , then that's what you have, and should use. blu-ray is compatible with both 23.976 and 24.0 fps

    Often people abbreviate "23.976p" as "24p" for simplicity. In fact, neither are precise. It should be 24000/1001 (23.976 is a 3 decimal rounding approximation)

    Summary: use the same settings as whatever cineform spit out. What does mediainfo say about the frame rate? (view=>text)
    All the "NTSC" Canon AVCHD and HDV camcorders clock to 59.94/29.97 fps so extracted inverse telecine "24p" will be 23.976 fps.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    I'm still going to label it "packages the video into a 60i stream with 2:3 cadence." Eitherway, I see what you're saying that you cannot recover the original (unaltered) progressive frames because of the 2:3 pulldown cadence (unlike 24pA 2:3:3:2).
    You can rebuild the progressive frames just as well from 2:3 pulldown as you can from 2:3:3:2 pulldown. It's just a little harder. But any video encoded interlaced with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling will have chroma artifacts. This probably isn't a concern for most people shooting 1080i since the scale of the artifacts is very small.

    See the section entitled "4:2:0 Interlaced Fundamentally Broken"
    http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_8_2/dvd-benchmark-special-report-chroma-bug-4-2001.html
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    I'm still going to label it "packages the video into a 60i stream with 2:3 cadence." Eitherway, I see what you're saying that you cannot recover the original (unaltered) progressive frames because of the 2:3 pulldown cadence (unlike 24pA 2:3:3:2).
    You can rebuild the progressive frames just as well from 2:3 pulldown as you can from 2:3:3:2 pulldown. It's just a little harder. But any video encoded interlaced with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling will have chroma artifacts. This probably isn't a concern for most people shooting 1080i since the scale of the artifacts is very small.

    See the section entitled "4:2:0 Interlaced Fundamentally Broken"
    http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_8_2/dvd-benchmark-special-report-chroma-bug-4-2001.html
    2:3 pulldown has 2 frames out of 5 with split fields (i.e. field one and field two from different source frames). In that case IVTC requires reassembling fields.

    The advantage of 24pA 2:3:3:2 is a single frame in the sequence can be removed. Disadvantage is extreme juddlered
    playback at 1x.

    All well explained here.
    http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/#24pRecording
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by edDV View Post
    2:3 pulldown has 2 frames out of 5 with split fields (i.e. field one and field two from different source frames). In that case IVTC requires reassembling fields.
    I fully understand how it works. That's why I said the only difference was it's easier with 2:3:3:2 pulldown. The end result of IVTC with both is exactly the same. All frames in both are encoded interlaced with interlaced 4:2:0 chroma channels.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by edDV View Post
    2:3 pulldown has 2 frames out of 5 with split fields (i.e. field one and field two from different source frames). In that case IVTC requires reassembling fields.
    I fully understand how it works. That's why I said the only difference was it's easier with 2:3:3:2 pulldown. The end result of IVTC with both is exactly the same. All frames in both are encoded interlaced with interlaced 4:2:0 chroma channels.
    Agreed. I added the ref link for others to follow.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Hi all,

    I took a look at Adobe`s web site and it seems that PP CS5 DOES HAVE the capability of IVTC my "24p cinema wrapped in a 60i container" properly, does anyone have any experience with that ?

    Is it really an upgrade from PPCS4 to PPCS5 ? In case I use Media Browser to load my camera files into PPCS5, will it identify them as "24p Cinema", say recognizing the Canon codec, or will it still look at the wrapper and will identify the files as 29.97 fps ?

    In this case, how will I know that PPCS5 would be IN FACT editing/exporting a "true" (?) 24fps footage ?

    Neoscene takes a lot of space and makes things in my computer even messier, it`s my understanding that working "as native as possible" would give me the better picture, that`s what Adobe claims on their site as well, can anyone comment on that ?

    Any experienced PPCS5 users there please ?

    I have two kids and I`d like to make the best possible footage of them, burning on Blu-Ray media; I bought a fast computer only for that.

    Thank you very much,
    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Zetti View Post
    In this case, how will I know that PPCS5 would be IN FACT editing/exporting a "true" (?) 24fps footage ?
    I don't have CS5 but if I was testing it I'd spec a 24p project and import the AVCHD or HDV as 24p and see if the frames are true or interpolated. Use a scene with motion.


    Originally Posted by Zetti View Post
    Neoscene takes a lot of space and makes things in my computer even messier, it`s my understanding that working "as native as possible" would give me the better picture, that`s what Adobe claims on their site as well, can anyone comment on that ?
    Working "native" is lossless so long as you are just cutting on GOPS. Any decode to RGB for processing tosses quality advantage to Cineform.

    I'd also like to hear from CS5 users.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search PM
    if you've got kids or want to record in the real world I'd first switch that puppy over to 60i. 24p is just shackling yourself Instead of premiere for 1K I would recommend Edius neo 2.5 (neo 2 "booster") for $200. I'm quite sure it will do everything you want and more. native avchd editing..quick..not bloated...then you can use something like multiAVCHD to make bluray or AVCHD discs. I've used that with great results. Now if you want to downconvert that to SD then I can't help you..I'm still fighting that battle right now.

    Are you computer specs up to date? If you've got a nice quad core system you should be able to edit at least 2 native AVCHD files at once.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks edDV and everybody that replied, it`s very appreciated.

    Well, here is what Media Info says about my files:

    General
    ID : 0
    Complete name : D:\20091231210337.mts
    Format : BDAV
    Format/Info : Blu-ray Video
    File size : 961 MiB
    Duration : 5mn 35s
    Overall bit rate : 24.1 Mbps
    Maximum Overall bit rate : 24.0 Mbps

    Video
    ID : 4113 (0x1011)
    Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
    Format : AVC
    Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile : High@L4.0
    Format settings, CABAC : Yes
    Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
    Duration : 5mn 35s
    Bit rate mode : Variable
    Bit rate : 22.8 Mbps
    Maximum bit rate : 22.7 Mbps
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate : 29.970 fps
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : Interlaced
    Scan order : Top Field First
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.367
    Stream size : 912 MiB (95%)

    Audio
    ID : 4352 (0x1100)
    Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
    Format : AC-3
    Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
    Mode extension : CM (complete main)
    Duration : 5mn 35s
    Bit rate mode : Constant
    Bit rate : 256 Kbps
    Channel(s) : 2 channels
    Channel positions : Front: L R
    Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
    Video delay : -67ms
    Stream size : 10.2 MiB (1%)


    My understanding is that it looks at the "wrapper" as well as PP CS5, and as so identifies it as 29.97fps.

    Does it reveal any important info anyway ?

    Thanks,
    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Media info can't tell 23.976p from 29.97i unless it is looking at header info.

    Until inverse telecined, it is 29.97i.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  22. No, PP CS5 cannot, unless there was a new update recently. Where did you read that it could?
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Sometimes I want to scream.

    These consumer camcorder and digital camera manufacturers are laughing at us.

    Same goes for the edit software makers.

    They don't want us to inverse telecine and edit 24p. It would sink their tech support. It would cause product returns.

    They know less than 5% will actually try. So they force you to do it externally to sort the competent from the lost souls.

    In the consumer market, "24p" is only about selling product. It is not about wanting the home user to edit a 24p DVD or Blu-Ray.

    To get a basic understanding, see here
    http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/#24pRecording

    The manufacturers (hardware and software) would say most everything you see on TV is telecined. Most of the TV series were edited 29.97. So what are you trying to do?

    When did Sony, Canon or Panasonic say you can edit and encode 24p from their camcorders? Adobe says it will import 24p. Apple won't even talk to you about 24p unless you are using uncompressed Studio ($999).
    Last edited by edDV; 16th Jun 2010 at 20:51.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by edDV View Post
    ...(snip) It would sink their tech support....(snip)
    Very funny about tech support... what tech support? My turn to rant. Several BUGS have been reported to Adobe team many months ago and still aren't fixed.



    @Zetti - Here is some advice if you happen to be picky like me (If you are not, just ignore....): You shouldn't be using native AVCHD anyway. (And no, I don't hold stock in Cineform)

    You should be transcoding to a digital intermediate , like cineform, or v210 because the interlaced chroma bug isn't fixed yet, despite numerous people notifying Adobe months before the CS5 release

    What is the interlaced chroma bug? Native progressive AVCHD footage, (and even interlaced AVCHD footage) have chroma interpretation issues in both CS4 and CS5. See this old post with screenshots illustrating CS4 behaviour. Note both native progressive and interlaced footage is worse. And I appended a CS5 comparison below

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/317547-Need-Help-Encoding-Quality-Web-Vid?p=1965880...=1#post1965880

    Now will the "average joe" zoom in and pixel peep? I don't know, it might not be as noticable when you're setting 10 feet away from your HDTV, but you can definitely see it when you are doing VFX work in AE.

    Another reason to transcode is if you are grading or doing even a little color correction. When you grade native AVCHD footage, it's in 8-bit precision, and you will get more banding. If you interpret to 10-bit (like cineform does) , and work in 10-bit or higher workspace, you don't make the banding much worse than the original. The 4:2:2 interpreted/upscaled chroma is is much smoother and nicer to work with than the native 4:2:0 chroma for any VFX work like keying.
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	adobe cs5 interlaced chroma bug.jpg
Views:	913
Size:	93.6 KB
ID:	2329  

    Quote Quote  
  25. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Well, thanks to everybody that replied, I decided to spend two expensive Blu-Ray medias but I made some tests, I`ll explain:

    Test 1:

    I used Neoscene to create an intermediary (BIG) file, edited in PP using the project settings: 23.976fps progressive, 1920 X 1080. I used Encore`s "dynamic link" and burnt it onto the Blu-Ray media, using the same project settings: H.264, 23.976 fps progressive, 1920 X 1080.

    Results:

    The bad: lacks sharpness tremendously; and my video has been CROPPED , my daughter`s head has been cut and doesn`t appear on the TV !

    The good: no artifacts in fast scenes though, smooth transitions.

    Test 2:

    Forced PP`s project settings to 23.976fps progressive (a red line in PP`s sequence advised me that the project settings were not in accordance to the files properties), imported the MTS files directly into PP (no intermediary Neoscene);
    Opened Encore, using "Dynamic link" I opened the PP sequence, burned to Blu-Ray media using settings H.264, 23.976 fps progressive, 1920 X 1080.

    The good: very good sharpness, video was NOT cropped, I can see my daughter`s head on the TV as expected

    The bad: the video looks more like a fast sequence of photographs rather than a footage, of course there is something VERY wrong; all I can think is the progresive X interlaced issue...(??)

    edDV and friends: I thank you very much for all the information, but I really can`t understand that much in detail; I`ll take a look atthe links though.

    My conclusion: Neoscene is HORRIBLE, the final Blu-Ray disc doesn`t look at all like a High Definition video. I think I can achieve a better quality working directly on the MTS files, does anyone have a clue please ?

    I am tempted to spend a 3rd blank disc using the 29.97i for both PP and Encore, what do you think ? May this led me to better results ?

    Thanks so much,
    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by greymalkin View Post
    if you've got kids or want to record in the real world I'd first switch that puppy over to 60i. 24p is just shackling yourself Instead of premiere for 1K I would recommend Edius neo 2.5 (neo 2 "booster") for $200. I'm quite sure it will do everything you want and more. native avchd editing..quick..not bloated...then you can use something like multiAVCHD to make bluray or AVCHD discs. I've used that with great results. Now if you want to downconvert that to SD then I can't help you..I'm still fighting that battle right now.

    Are you computer specs up to date? If you've got a nice quad core system you should be able to edit at least 2 native AVCHD files at once.
    Thanks, I`ll make a test using 60i, but I have made so much footage using the so called "24p cinema" that now I need to know how to "save" it onto Blu-Ray media. My Computer specs are outdated, I have a fast one now, will update later (it`s 1 am now).

    Thanks,
    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    I can't answer the cropped issue with Neoscene. Mine doesn't do that. Some settings issue or improper capture.

    As for 24p as " fast sequence of photographs rather than a footage" this is the desired film look assuming it is 24 fps. 24fps has 40% the motion updates vs. 60i. So I still question why people want to shoot 24p unless a NTSC and PAL conversion is needed.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  28. Originally Posted by Zetti View Post
    Test 1:

    I used Neoscene to create an intermediary (BIG) file, edited in PP using the project settings: 23.976fps progressive, 1920 X 1080. I used Encore`s "dynamic link" and burnt it onto the Blu-Ray media, using the same project settings: H.264, 23.976 fps progressive, 1920 X 1080.

    Results:

    The bad: lacks sharpness tremendously; and my video has been CROPPED , my daughter`s head has been cut and doesn`t appear on the TV !

    The good: no artifacts in fast scenes though, smooth transitions.

    Something doesn't make sense. Are you sure your player and TV are setup properly? How does the BD look on the PC?

    Are you sure you setup encore correctly ? It sounds like you screwed up the render settings


    Test 2:

    Forced PP`s project settings to 23.976fps progressive (a red line in PP`s sequence advised me that the project settings were not in accordance to the files properties), imported the MTS files directly into PP (no intermediary Neoscene);
    Opened Encore, using "Dynamic link" I opened the PP sequence, burned to Blu-Ray media using settings H.264, 23.976 fps progressive, 1920 X 1080.

    The good: very good sharpness, video was NOT cropped, I can see my daughter`s head on the TV as expected

    The bad: the video looks more like a fast sequence of photographs rather than a footage, of course there is something VERY wrong; all I can think is the progresive X interlaced issue...(??)
    Probably a telecine issue , and PP failure to IVTC . Or it could be 24p judder as EdDV suggested


    My conclusion: Neoscene is HORRIBLE, the final Blu-Ray disc doesn`t look at all like a High Definition video. I think I can achieve a better quality working directly on the MTS files, does anyone have a clue please ?
    Very unlikely. See the problems in the links above with working with native AVCHD

    I am tempted to spend a 3rd blank disc using the 29.97i for both PP and Encore, what do you think ? May this led me to better results ?
    You will waste it. If you shot in 24p telecine mode, you have to remove telecine. You don't have to use neoscene. I use avisynth + v210. It's free and better quality, but even larger filesizes

    Hint: before burning to media, make a disc image (ISO) and mount & play with software to check everything is ok before making a "coaster". This way you don't waste discs.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member Zetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Hi edDV, poisonthearay and all friends,

    Well, it was 1am last night but even though I went ahead, spent the 3rd coaster and burned the 3rd test disc with these settings:

    PP in 29.97fps 1080i anamorphic, 1920 X 1080.
    Encore in 29.97 fps, H.264, 1920 X 1080i

    Results:

    The good: GOOD !! Excellent footage in my big LCD 40" (well, not so big, but big enough), smooth transitions even in very fast scenes (kids playing), I can say that it has kind of a "real cinema" look, I`ll try the camera`s default 60i setting sometime later though.

    The bad: nothing in particular that I and my wife could have noticed.

    Thanks for the suggestion on watching it first on the PC monitor, but it has happened to me many times that the film was good in the PC screen and bad in the real big TV, so thanks for the advice but for the real test I still think that unfortunately making some coasters is the "real deal", but thanks again, much appreciated. I remember having paid say $2 or $3 for each media, spent three in the tests, but that`s life.

    Now please look at this link:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/pdfs/cs5_premiere_pro_canon_wfg.pdf

    Look at the table in the second page, Adobe claims that they can SPECIFICALLY handle Canon`s "24p cinema" mode. Unfortunately I have already spent $129 or so in Neoscene, but the quality was horrible.

    A wrong setting ? Well, not that I can remember now, when loading the footage in PP, I adjusted the settings accordingly to the Cineform format: 23.976fps progressive, 1920 X 1080 anamorphic; same thing in Encore.

    Well, so far so good, I`ll go ahead and produce the final disc in Blu-Ray format,

    Thanks again,

    Zetti
    Quote Quote  
  30. Originally Posted by Zetti View Post
    I`ll try the camera`s default 60i setting sometime later though.
    Shoot a bright, high contrast, medium speed, smooth panning shot. The difference between 24p and 60i will be immediately obvious. If you can play the following video in this post smoothly you'll get an idea:
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/307004-Best-framerate-conversion-%28eg-23-97-to-30-...=1#post1888926
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads