The ancient requirement which started this mess, to match the power
frequency (to reduce hum bars) is long gone.
In the future if a higher frame rate is required (for more =8Crealistic=B9
images) then 50fps.
This nightmare of cadence/23.98/30P could go away in HD.
Cheers
Chris
On 21/6/05 11:48 PM, "Timothy Duncan" <timothy.duncan(at)gmail.com> wrote:
> 24PA is much more efficient for software editing at the 2:3:3:2 cadence
> (provided your software understands it). It takes 60% less processor pow=
er to
> edit 24PA footage, and renders are at minimum, 25% faster.
>=20
> But -- if you get 24PA footage that needs to get converted to import to D=
S,
> then you can run it through Vegas, and convert it to standard 24P. I've=
done
> several projects with 24PA keeping the 24P all the way to DVD (which save=
s you
> about 25% space on the DVD as well). Yes -- it has a look that a lot of
> producers are wanting right now... Whether it's great or not is another
> whole topic. ;)
>=20
> The best looking 24P and 30P footage I've seen from the sub-$6K camera ra=
nge
> is 1080i footage shot with the Sony Z1U and then converted to 24P and 30P=
in
> Vegas. Sony worked especially hard in the 6.0 release on this type of
> conversion. This way, you can shoot 1080i all day and have the nice foota=
ge to
> start with, and if your producers wants, you can easily convert to a supe=
r
> clean progressive for that "look."
>=20
> As I've said before, Vegas is no replacement for DS, but it sure is the b=
est
> utility to use alongside DS as Vegas is very strong where DS is weak. (Li=
ke
> file imports and exports and unbeatable audio).
>=20
> td
>=20
> On 6/17/05, Tom Edwards <tdcone(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Well, like I said, the imager can have a shutter speed of 24 frames, the=
3:2
>> pull down gives you 60i out of the camera, but since there never were 30
>> frames "exposed" you end up with that hip, cool, cutting edge "film look=
" of
>> a 24 frame transfer. :-P To my knowledge, there is no wa of getting th=
e
>> imager's 24 frame rate out prior to the 3:2 converter.
>> This reminds me so much of back in the 1900's during the BIG 80's when l=
ots
>> of folks were using their DVEs to freeze fields and/or frames in a simil=
ar
>> cadence to get that "stutter" effect. You, know if the talking head was =
not
>> interesting in 30 fps, it doesn't seem anymore interesting at less than =
30
>> fps to me. I could be wrong....
>> This too will pass I hope.... :-(
>>=20
>> Tom
>>=20
>> Murphy, Paul wrote:
>>> Hi Tom
>>> =20
>>> Thanks for replying. Okay, pretend I'm stupid (I know that won't take m=
uch
>>> imagination - but I'll delete some stuff so I look smarter). According=
to
>>> what you wrote the camera will capture it but not play it back. So wha=
t's
>>> the point?
>>> =20
>>> Murf
>=20
>=20
Chris Schwarze
CEO/VFX Director
Complete Post
Sydney - Melbourne
--B_3202282175_8336617
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Panasonic AG-DVX100 users</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Verdana">Could we start a world wide push to work in a common f=
rame rate standard. 25fps. Either progressive or interlaced.<BR>
