You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Software that will convert 30fps to 24fps

Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 3:51am

Post 1 of 35

JUIDAR

Force: 1525 | Joined: 10th Feb 2006 | Posts: 502

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I have been told here and there that footage can look a lot more like film if it's 24fps then 30fps.

Well does anyone know of a free program out there that can convert footage into 24fps with out it coming out all crappy.

I have tried using Adobe Premiere Pro and it doesn't do it right at all.

Any ideas I would appreciate the help.

thanks
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 4:30am

Post 2 of 35

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

The different frame rate is just one of the many differences between video and film.

I very much doubt that if you convert your video from 30fps to 24fps that you will suddenly think that it looks more like film.

Further, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt you will find a free utility that produces the results you want, mainly because it's very difficult to lose frames and yet still retain quality. That's why software like Magic Bullet costs quite a bit of money.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 4:36am

Post 3 of 35

Xel

Force: 350 | Joined: 6th Feb 2003 | Posts: 152

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

The process is known as 3:2 pulldown, or 2:3 pulldown if you are going in the other direction.. There are very few good ways to do this process.. To get good 24fps film look, you need to *shoot* in 24 fps.. Post-production will not solve all problems.

The reason why 24 looks better when you shoot it that way is the slight and yet almost completely imperceptible "flicker" that is introduced from your shutter being open longer than when you shoot 30. As you might know, DV cameras don't have shutters, just CCD's.. so... yeah.

However there are some apps that do a reasonable job of the pulldown... It's almost always a bit of reduction in quality any way you do it though, short of shooting in 24 from the start.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 6:37am

Post 4 of 35

destron

Force: 100 | Joined: 20th Apr 2006 | Posts: 500

Windows User

Member

i'm no expert (my all time classic line lol) but you could try FadeToBlack by Thoughtman... i think they have a change frame-rate filter. can't promise it'll be any good...
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 10:38am

Post 5 of 35

90hitpoints

Force: 40 | Joined: 26th Oct 2005 | Posts: 65

Windows User

Member

I'm not sure if you can really change it in post. But I hear there are some DV cameras that have kind of a Fake 24fps. But I can't be sure (I think I read something about it in a book)
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 10:46am

Post 6 of 35

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I have been told here and there that footage can look a lot more like film if it's 24fps then 30fps.
The people who have told you that have pretty much misunderstood the concept. smile

Don't bother with it.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 11:42am

Post 7 of 35

alpha54

Force: 830 | Joined: 26th Jan 2006 | Posts: 323

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I usually just use Magic Bullet's deinterlacer to convert 50i PAL to 25p PAL; which usually ends up looking great! smile

EDIT: Btw, Sollthar's right! wink
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 4:13pm

Post 8 of 35

JUIDAR

Force: 1525 | Joined: 10th Feb 2006 | Posts: 502

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Okay I guess I should have stated more in my beginning question. I'm aware that changing the footage from 30 to 24 is NOT going to make it all of the sudden change to film look.

I have done grading and other things as well to the footage to optain that movie look.

I was simply wanting to do EVERYTHING that I possibly can to the footage to give it the FILM per say look if there is such a thing which there is it just depends on the movie.

Now someone brought up something that I haven't tried yet and that is something that Premiere can do well I believe is convert footage to PAL format. Which is 25fps..... that's pretty darn close.

If I converted it to PAL though will it play on my US DVD player though?
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 4:15pm

Post 9 of 35

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

No, probably not.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 6:07pm

Post 10 of 35

alpha54

Force: 830 | Joined: 26th Jan 2006 | Posts: 323

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

That's just one of those things - all DVD players produced in Europe within the last five years or so can play NTSC fine, but DVD players from the US still can't play PAL...
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 7:27pm

Post 11 of 35

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Most NLE's will do this conversion for you with good results:
HOWEVER YOU MUST KEEP THIS IN MIND:

You really cannot convert a "finished" piece into 24p without having odd frame blends and problems during transitions and disolves-

If you are intent on getting the "look" of 24p you should convert your individual clips to 24p and then open a new project AS A 24p PROJECT in your NLE and edit it with already converted footage.

Vegas is resolution independent and can edit in any frame rate or size you want to including "native 24p"

But usually you want to export in a standard DV format to go to DVD anyway. The cool thing about cameras such as the Panasonic DVX100's (A or B) is that they capture with a shutter speed of 24p but do the conversion to standard 29.97 drop frame DV IN THE CAMERA so your footageon tape and coming into your NLE has the regular DV frame rate, yet it already has the "24p look" to it.

B
Posted: Sun, 23rd Apr 2006, 9:30pm

Post 12 of 35

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yes, he is absolutely right.

You will make your footage look worse! Nothing more.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 12:44am

Post 13 of 35

sk8npirate

Force: 590 | Joined: 28th Feb 2004 | Posts: 757

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well I do believe that changing to 24 fps in post can help a bit and give a better feel sometime. I do it with vegas.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:00am

Post 14 of 35

JUIDAR

Force: 1525 | Joined: 10th Feb 2006 | Posts: 502

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

What about converting to PAL then converting it back to NTSC mpeg2 for the DVD.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:08am

Post 15 of 35

Xel

Force: 350 | Joined: 6th Feb 2003 | Posts: 152

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

You are missing the point.

Any converting you do is not going to help. The more converting you do, the *worse* your footage will look. You will *not* see any benefit. No, it won't even look more 'film-ic.'

The only reason 3:2 / 2:3 pulldowns exist are for post-production compatibility. E.g. If you need to combine projects of the two different framerates, and do effects between the two. Your NLE wouldn't like you trying that on it very much.

If you want the Film look, film on *film*. Yeah, I know, not really a good option, is it.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 4:48am

Post 16 of 35

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Xel wrote:

You are missing the point.

Any converting you do is not going to help. The more converting you do, the *worse* your footage will look. You will *not* see any benefit. No, it won't even look more 'film-ic.'

The only reason 3:2 / 2:3 pulldowns exist are for post-production compatibility. E.g. If you need to combine projects of the two different framerates, and do effects between the two. Your NLE wouldn't like you trying that on it very much.

If you want the Film look, film on *film*. Yeah, I know, not really a good option, is it.
I disagree entirely with Xel.
Doing conversion in post can provide excellent results, it just depends on what you are going for.
There is no "magic bullet" in the literal sense that will take video and make it look like film, but proper framing, lighting, grading and saturation curves, etc......and then conversion to various formats (24p, de-interlacing, PAL, etc...) will provide "different" results that are sometimes more pleasing to the eye that is used to looking at film.
B
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 5:59am

Post 17 of 35

Xel

Force: 350 | Joined: 6th Feb 2003 | Posts: 152

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Bryan M Block wrote:

I disagree entirely with Xel.
Doing conversion in post can provide excellent results, it just depends on what you are going for.
There is no "magic bullet" in the literal sense that will take video and make it look like film, but proper framing, lighting, grading and saturation curves, etc......and then conversion to various formats (24p, de-interlacing, PAL, etc...) will provide "different" results that are sometimes more pleasing to the eye that is used to looking at film.
B
When all you are doing is playing with how the frame-by-frame data is encoded/decoded/read/displayed, you are guaranteed to make a drop in quality, no matter the compression, frame rate, whatever. Whether it is noticable is up for debate. As for "proper framing, lighting, grading, saturation", those are not part of the conversion process, that is simply direct manipulation of data, into whatever codec you were already in. So of course you can influence your data to be "different" and potentially better depending on what you were going for.

Deinterlacing is a tough one to categorize. I will think about that. It isn't quite a codec change, although it is merely bringing 2 parts of 1 image into a whole. I think I would liken it to being simply another of two ways to view the data?

Regardless, I would love to see proof that converting from 30 to 24 in post makes anything look different aesthetically, apart from the obvious quality discrepancies, and vice versa.. What I have seen from these kinds of conversions isn't pretty. I have to echo whoever it was who said that you should do it all the source material, before it is applied to effects/dissolves/etc.

Maybe I will do some conversion tests next weekend, to find out what app has a good pulldown between the 3 or 4 I have access to.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 9:04am

Post 18 of 35

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Xel is absolutely right.

There IS stuff you can do in post, grading, contrast-change, Deinterlacing (which is highly recommended!).

But changing the framerate to 24P is absolutely pointless. Your eye won't even see the difference, except for the loss of quality you inevidably have on your footage which gives it a different feel. If you believe that's what film looks like, you're wrong though.


24P is used by film cameras and projectors. So to convert video to that format makes sense if you want to make a film blowup and have it shown on a filmprojector, because they'll always play 24 frames a second. So if you have a 30 frame video blow up played on a projector, it will play with 24 frames, resulting your film to play slower and be 1/5 longer. So you need to correct that and convert to 24P. That is the ONLY situation, were this conversion makes sense.


In every other situation, you have the following problems:

As your video has 30 frames per second and you want it to have 24 frames per second, there's only 3 techniques to achieve that:

- You simply drop 5 frames somewhere in every second, which will result in an ugly stobo type visual - which doesn't look like film, it looks just ugly.

- You blend frames together. This will result in some of your frames having 2 frames at the same time, which will make your film blurrier and lose quality of your playback. (And look ugly)

- There's morphing filters which actually morph your frames into 24 full frames. This might be the best solution, then again, at least 20 of your 24 frames will be "morphed" and therefore jiggery. (And... look ugly)



In the end, it's obviously your decision. smile
I've made my point clear why I advise you to leave your framerate as it is.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 9:13am

Post 19 of 35

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

There was recently an in-depth discussion on this topics in another thread: http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=225447#225447

In fact, this seems to come up every few days. smile
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 1:06pm

Post 20 of 35

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Xel wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

I disagree entirely with Xel.
Doing conversion in post can provide excellent results, it just depends on what you are going for.
There is no "magic bullet" in the literal sense that will take video and make it look like film, but proper framing, lighting, grading and saturation curves, etc......and then conversion to various formats (24p, de-interlacing, PAL, etc...) will provide "different" results that are sometimes more pleasing to the eye that is used to looking at film.
B
When all you are doing is playing with how the frame-by-frame data is encoded/decoded/read/displayed, you are guaranteed to make a drop in quality, no matter the compression, frame rate, whatever. Whether it is noticable is up for debate. As for "proper framing, lighting, grading, saturation", those are not part of the conversion process, that is simply direct manipulation of data, into whatever codec you were already in. So of course you can influence your data to be "different" and potentially better depending on what you were going for.

Deinterlacing is a tough one to categorize. I will think about that. It isn't quite a codec change, although it is merely bringing 2 parts of 1 image into a whole. I think I would liken it to being simply another of two ways to view the data?

Regardless, I would love to see proof that converting from 30 to 24 in post makes anything look different aesthetically, apart from the obvious quality discrepancies, and vice versa.. What I have seen from these kinds of conversions isn't pretty. I have to echo whoever it was who said that you should do it all the source material, before it is applied to effects/dissolves/etc.

Maybe I will do some conversion tests next weekend, to find out what app has a good pulldown between the 3 or 4 I have access to.
Well, you are echoing ME as I was the one that stated you should do it before hand. biggrin

If you guys were right, that there is only quality LOSS in doing these types of conversions, then things like the MAGIC BULLET plug-ins and software like DV filmmaker would not exist!!

The reason that they exist is because they DO change the way footage looks and feels in a big way.

Mostly by deinterlacing and frame rate conversion. (along with color shift, etc...) but yeah, I know that framing and lighting aren't part of 24p conversion, in fact I stated earlier that unless you have framed your shots and lit properly, the 24p conversion isn't going to do much for you in the way of achieving a "film" look.

Go download the magic bullet demo and see for yourself:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mb4editorscross.html

NOW _AGAIN- remember that you do NOT want to apply this to an already finished, editied piece!! Your disolves and edits will be all messed up. If that is what you have done in the past, then that could be your problem!
you want to apply this to your raw footage and save the resulting effected footage as a seperate "Treated" file. You also then have to have an NLE that supports a PROJECT in your new frame rate (like Vegas) to be able to properly edit the footage with proper results.

There also used to be demo clips of "before" and "after"
at:
http://www.dvfilm.com/maker/

using DV filmmaker software. I have downloaded the demo and used it before and it DOES make a big difference in look and feel- the same with going through all of the deinterlacing and frame rate conversions within Vegas- Now, whether or not they look more "film like" is very subjective, but they do look very, very different.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 1:22pm

Post 21 of 35

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

If you guys were right, that there is only quality LOSS in doing these types of conversions, then things like the MAGIC BULLET plug-ins and software like DV filmmaker would not exist!!
That's a pretty simplistic statement, isn't it? smile


In the professional world, there is a demand for such software, since even big budget projects shoot some stuff digitally (for another load of various reasons) with variable framerates, so they have to convert it to the film stock so they match.
So as stated before, there are REASONS for a production to convert something to 24P. Therefore, professional software exists.

And now you have the independent filmmakers, who jump at every number just to make their video look like film. So you have a ton of "OMG, FILM IS 24P MY VIDEO ISN'T HOW CAN I CHANGE IT!!??11" requests, even by people who never will do a film bowup and therefore have no sane reason to do so (except maybe just because the personally feel the loss of quality looks better).
So there's a demand for software like that in the independend filmmakers world.


As for the quality... As I stated above, there are only 3 techniques to do that, and all lower the quality of your footage - technically, not subjectively (I'm talking about "quality" in the sense if pixel information, sharpness etc, not in the sense of "aesthetic feel")

Cause sure. If you like jerky frameblended video, then be my guest to convert anything to anything else.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 1:36pm

Post 22 of 35

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Technically speaking deinterlacing always means you drop information - up to 50%. The re-encoding of the new image produced from deinterlacing will also drop the quality of the information left (depending on your codec). Reduction in framerate will also always drop information.

TVs work best with interlaced footage (unless they are modern and can take a progressive source) at either 30fps or 25fps. If you convert to 24fps progressive for the internet you'll have to then use pulldown to get it to run correctly on a TV or go back to your original source.

Or you could just record at 25fps progressive (like many films do now anyway) and then slightly slow down the footage and sound for conversion to film and have a perfect PAL as well without any reduction in quality.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:18pm

Post 23 of 35

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

If you guys were right, that there is only quality LOSS in doing these types of conversions, then things like the MAGIC BULLET plug-ins and software like DV filmmaker would not exist!!
That's a pretty simplistic statement, isn't it? smile


In the professional world, there is a demand for such software, since even big budget projects shoot some stuff digitally (for another load of various reasons) with variable framerates, so they have to convert it to the film stock so they match.
So as stated before, there are REASONS for a production to convert something to 24P. Therefore, professional software exists.

And now you have the independent filmmakers, who jump at every number just to make their video look like film. So you have a ton of "OMG, FILM IS 24P MY VIDEO ISN'T HOW CAN I CHANGE IT!!??11" requests, even by people who never will do a film bowup and therefore have no sane reason to do so (except maybe just because the personally feel the loss of quality looks better).
So there's a demand for software like that in the independend filmmakers world.


As for the quality... As I stated above, there are only 3 techniques to do that, and all lower the quality of your footage - technically, not subjectively (I'm talking about "quality" in the sense if pixel information, sharpness etc, not in the sense of "aesthetic feel")

Cause sure. If you like jerky frameblended video, then be my guest to convert anything to anything else.
The statement I made was in response to the assertions that conversion is "not really noticable"- I assert that it IS noticable in a big way and changes the look and feel of the footage.

Of COURSE deinterlacing drops 50% of the data! But take a still from a video and drop it into photoshop- then apply a "de-interlace" filter. the 50% that you drop doesn't necessarilly mean it's making it LOOK better.

My argument is NOT that one should go about converting to 24p, but that if one DOES- it WILL provide different, and often pleasing results- Now getting that finished product back down to tape or DVD is up to you- and the software plugins mentioned ARE made for things like the direct to video DV film maket- I mean, one of the software packages is actually CALLED DVfilmmaker! So the uses are not limited to "pro" use- although I probably see the lines between the two a little differently than you do- no worries.

My personal opinion is that a camera such as the Panasonic DVX100B that can CAPTURE at the 24p frame rate and yet convert to 30 progressive or various other formats for editing in a standard DV mode is the way to go.

Of course, I have downloaded the demos of Magic Bullet and DV filmmaker and played with them- I (and I guess everyone else considering their wide user base) don't seem to think that using them creates jerky, bad video in their conversions as has been asserted by Solthair.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:27pm

Post 24 of 35

Xel

Force: 350 | Joined: 6th Feb 2003 | Posts: 152

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:


If you guys were right, that there is only quality LOSS in doing these types of conversions, then things like the MAGIC BULLET plug-ins and software like DV filmmaker would not exist!!
<snip>
Go download the magic bullet demo and see for yourself:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mb4editorscross.html
You seem to think that I haven't used Magic Bullet before, which I have. Ah, wait, I own it, and make good use of it frequently. smile

And yes, there almost always *is* a quality loss, even when doing simple things like some color correction. Take some saturation for example: What if you saturated a few pixels beyond 100%? They would get clipped at 100, and you have no way to get that information back. (Hurrah for nondestructive editing)

Oh, but wait. This affects the look of our film in a positive way. Great. Let's keep it up, this Magic Bullet stuff is really sweet.

<Inserts Sollthars post>
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:36pm

Post 25 of 35

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Xel wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:


If you guys were right, that there is only quality LOSS in doing these types of conversions, then things like the MAGIC BULLET plug-ins and software like DV filmmaker would not exist!!
<snip>
Go download the magic bullet demo and see for yourself:
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/mb4editorscross.html
You seem to think that I haven't used Magic Bullet before, which I have. Ah, wait, I own it, and make good use of it frequently. smile

And yes, there almost always *is* a quality loss, even when doing simple things like some color correction. Take some saturation for example: What if you saturated a few pixels beyond 100%? They would get clipped at 100, and you have no way to get that information back. (Hurrah for nondestructive editing)

Oh, but wait. This affects the look of our film in a positive way. Great. Let's keep it up, this Magic Bullet stuff is really sweet.

<Inserts Sollthars post>
Well, I don't own magic Bullet- so I can't say from any extended use and I won't try to pretend I'm something I'm not.
I've downloaded these things, I've played with them, I've played with doing the deinterlacing and frame rate conversions in Vegas using the built in tools-

But why do you continue to use Magic Bullet if it always makes your footage look bad?

Clipping and all of that is a problem with any digital media- I wouldn't blame the tools...

Are you guys stating a technical "loss" of quality or an aesthetic one? Because to me, deinterlaced footage at a lower frame rate looks more pleasing, regardless of the technical loss of data.

Why would you continue to blow out pixels and use MB if it only creates bad video?
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:38pm

Post 26 of 35

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hm, I find your posts pretty confusing. Can't quite put my finger on what you actually want to say. unsure

So do I get it right when I say, your points basically are:

- Framerate conversion does make footage look different (where I wouldn't disagree and never have, obviously it does...)

- This new look you like more (which is a matter of taste at the end of the day so where I'd just have another taste)



I (and I guess everyone else considering their wide user base) don't seem to think that using them creates jerky, bad video in their conversions as has been asserted by Solthair.
Even I've used that kind of software. I even deinterlaced my footage. Hell, I've even done Frameblending and Framerateconversion.
That doesn't change the fact, that deinterlacing basically erases 50% of my video information and the frameblending has reduced the quality of my images. YET, as stated above, there are reasons to do so.
Mine is, NightCast has to be ready for a blow up do film - so I have to have progressive footage in the end, which my camera doesn't shoot (well, it does, but the results are worse then with software deinterlacing). So I have a good reason to do that.

And the often reason for Framerateconversion is Video Slowmotion. You see, whenever you create slowmotion from video footage, your ONLY way to do it is by changing the framerate. While film can simply shoot fast and therefore actually shoot 150 frames a second, video can't. So to achieve that, you have to convert your framerate AND take a loss of quality for it. Many filmmakers are willing to do that, including myself.

There's reasons to do all that. I have some, you have some, as have probably many other of the wide user base you're talking about that supposedly disagrees with this Solthair guy. wink

Maybe they simply don't get it though, who knows. smile
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:40pm

Post 27 of 35

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Because to me, deinterlaced footage at a lower frame rate looks more pleasing, regardless of the technical loss of data.
I was always referring to technical terms and have stated so. Read my above posts. I've named many reasons where I choose to take that loss of quality for something that is in my opinion "worth" it. As for example slow motion.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:41pm

Post 28 of 35

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I think Sollthar and Xel are saying that there are legitimate uses for 24p etc, but that there isn't a simple one-click 'make my video into film' button, and that to encourage such thinking would be irresponsible.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:45pm

Post 29 of 35

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Well, aesthetically, you can convert your film to 3 fps if you like it. I have also used weird fps for dreamsequences etc. You can do what you want.

It's the REASON I'm picking on. Converting to 24 to make it "look more like film" is simply wrong, because it won't look more like film. If you do it because "I like the way it looks better" then I'd say nothing, except I'd doubt you could actually see a difference from 25P to 24P. Of course, with NTSC it'll surely be more visible.
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:47pm

Post 30 of 35

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Because to me, deinterlaced footage at a lower frame rate looks more pleasing, regardless of the technical loss of data.
I was always referring to technical terms and have stated so. Read my above posts. I've named many reasons where I choose to take that loss of quality for something that is in my opinion "worth" it. As for example slow motion.
yes you stated a technical loss, I can't keep up with both you and Xel. But you also made the wide-sweeping comment about "fine-if you like jerky bad video...."
which I found to be an oversimplification of the matter.

It doesn't matter to me- my film is being shot with a Panasonic DVX100B and I won't need to worry about it in the edit. Every single post I made was not in direct reference to you, but split between the opinions offered by you and Xel (that there is no reason to do rate conversion unless you are going to film, etc.. ) which I disagree with- there ARE reasons, aesthetic reasons, etc... do go through these processes. On that point I think we do agree- where Xel does not- and with the other points I think we are talking two seperate things- Of course part of it is a matter of "taste" at a certain point and there is no point in arguing about that...
And yeah- I can see the differences in tape stocks sometimes!, frame rates, and alot of other things- I ran a machine room at a production facility wink ANd I have NEVER been the one here to jump on the "just convert it to 24p and it will instantly look like film!" bandwagon- In fact, I've cautioned AGAINST believing that and instead advised on focusing on lighting and framing....
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 2:55pm

Post 31 of 35

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, wasn't sure if we actually are contradicting. smile
I think for the most points, we're not. smile
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 4:38pm

Post 32 of 35

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Good back and forth on this topic.

I was wondering... would it help if somebody uploaded some clips. One at regular recording and editing, and a couple after post with deinterlace, pulldown etc.

I know we were debating WHY one would do the conversion, but maybe if we saw the difference, then that would help?
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 9:15pm

Post 33 of 35

Xel

Force: 350 | Joined: 6th Feb 2003 | Posts: 152

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

On that point I think we do agree- where Xel does not-
I do agree, which I've stated rather simply, .. I've been arguing what Sollthar has,.. Succintly:

Sollthar wrote:

It's the REASON I'm picking on. Converting to 24 to make it "look more like film" is simply wrong, because it won't look more like film. If you do it because "I like the way it looks better" then I'd say nothing, except I'd doubt you could actually see a difference from 25P to 24P. Of course, with NTSC it'll surely be more visible.
Also, a majority of the reason why I piped up was Juidar's suggestion that maybe he could convert from his NTSC footage to 24p back to NTSC.. or something like that.. And that was where I meant my "You are missing the point" comment that maybe sounded harsh.

Also, I never said magic bullet makes footage look bad. Far from it. You might want to re-read what I said about data... "You lose information" is far from "It looks crappy". Saturated footage can itself be a look, ditto for unsaturated, ditto for any kind of grading you might do. But the argument is that you are throwing away data, which is basically all that happens in format conversions.

(As an aside, clipping isn't always a problem with all digital media, .. If you start dealing with float calculations, oftentimes the data you destroyed can be pulled back just as easily as you removed it in the first place.. But most packages don't support this, especially not for con/pro-sumers like you and I)

Regardless, I should probably duck out, because Sollthar says what I've been saying with better words.

If I can survive until friday afternoon (this is my last week in the semester) I will hopefully return to this thread and get some experiments going with some footage... Any suggestions to the type of footage you'd want to see? Short clip would be best..

Might need a reminder though.. heh
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 11:10pm

Post 34 of 35

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Xel wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

On that point I think we do agree- where Xel does not-
I do agree, which I've stated rather simply, .. I've been arguing what Sollthar has,.. Succintly:

Sollthar wrote:

It's the REASON I'm picking on. Converting to 24 to make it "look more like film" is simply wrong, because it won't look more like film. If you do it because "I like the way it looks better" then I'd say nothing, except I'd doubt you could actually see a difference from 25P to 24P. Of course, with NTSC it'll surely be more visible.
Also, a majority of the reason why I piped up was Juidar's suggestion that maybe he could convert from his NTSC footage to 24p back to NTSC.. or something like that.. And that was where I meant my "You are missing the point" comment that maybe sounded harsh.

Also, I never said magic bullet makes footage look bad. Far from it. You might want to re-read what I said about data... "You lose information" is far from "It looks crappy". Saturated footage can itself be a look, ditto for unsaturated, ditto for any kind of grading you might do. But the argument is that you are throwing away data, which is basically all that happens in format conversions.

(As an aside, clipping isn't always a problem with all digital media, .. If you start dealing with float calculations, oftentimes the data you destroyed can be pulled back just as easily as you removed it in the first place.. But most packages don't support this, especially not for con/pro-sumers like you and I)

Regardless, I should probably duck out, because Sollthar says what I've been saying with better words.

If I can survive until friday afternoon (this is my last week in the semester) I will hopefully return to this thread and get some experiments going with some footage... Any suggestions to the type of footage you'd want to see? Short clip would be best..

Might need a reminder though.. heh
OK-
my comment about digital media meant that "clipping" is (usually) destructive- as in digital audio. Analog audio has the ability to "clip" in a musical way, where digital audio just craps out when it clips. Blowing out pixel levels (exposure in the camera for example where it has been completely overexposed) is usually permanent as the footage cannot "recover" at least not in anyway I've seen whereas some over and underexposed film can be saved to a degree by various processing.

I've not been arguing the point that simply converting frame rates will make footage look "more film like" - But it will CHANGE the look of the footage to something closer to what the original poster was intending and that there are "sane" reasons for doing conversion and deinterlacing- regardless of the "loss" of data (which I'm not disputing- but in my frame grab example, using a de-interlace filter that thows out 50% of the data makes it LOOK better because the 50% it threw away was junk as far as creating a good image is concerned...)
Posted: Mon, 24th Apr 2006, 11:18pm

Post 35 of 35

JUIDAR

Force: 1525 | Joined: 10th Feb 2006 | Posts: 502

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Well I didn't really mean to start a debate was just curious what other people have done and if it worked.

The only bad thing about converting now is that most of my footage has already been edited and clipped already meaning that the original footage is not really retrievable at this point...

Well it is but it would be hard to go back.

I would love to see some examples though.

To really maybe solve this delima but I think it's all in the perpective of the viewer of course.