23.98 or 29.97 XDCAM for Standard Def

Is it better to shoot in XDCAM 23.98 OR 29.97
when the ultimate output is going to be letterboxed
Standard Definition master.

thanks

You would possibly consider shooting 23.976 for two reasons that I can think of.

1) You get more shooting time when you shoot at 23.976 native on optical or solid state media.
2) You want that (partial/sort of/kinda) film-type pulldown look.

There are workflow issues that would make it better to shoot 29.97 such as the integration of archival or stock footage, which would most likely come from 29.97 sources and if your deliverable is a tape for broadcast, editing 24p would require that you have a card that can add the pulldown on playout or you would need to have access to some way of adding pulldown inside the system (Natress, AfterEffects etc)

I think the general groupthink 'round these parts is that if your deliverable is 29.97, you should shoot 29.97.
If you are actually talking about XDCAM HD you also have the decision of whether to edit in HD and downconvert at the last stage or edit only in SD, but that's my take based on the little info that was provided.

ak
Sleeplings, AWAKE!

Quote

I think the general groupthink 'round these parts is that if your deliverable is 29.97, you should shoot 29.97.

No. What framerate your timeline should be is a technical decision, but what framerate you shoot is an artistic decision. Asking whether you should shoot 60i or 24p is like asking if you should use oil or watercolor paint. There's no "should" about it; it's purely an artistic choice.

In other words, which is "better" depends on which one you want. If you want 24p, then only 24p will do. Same with 60i.

I didn't know XDCAM was anything but HD
(I know you can record in DVCAM mode)
but the footage would be shot 1440x1080 HD
and edited on a 1440x1080 ProRes timeline in FCP.

I don't like 23.98 because the frame rate is too low,
and I think 29.97 1080i is much better for motion.

It's basically a taste thing you are right, but the
videographer likes 23.98 and I like 29.97.

Thanks



Andrew Kines Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You would possibly consider shooting 23.976 for
> two reasons that I can think of.
>
> 1) You get more shooting time when you shoot at
> 23.976 native on optical or solid state media.
> 2) You want that (partial/sort of/kinda) film-type
> pulldown look.
>
> There are workflow issues that would make it
> better to shoot 29.97 such as the integration of
> archival or stock footage, which would most likely
> come from 29.97 sources and if your deliverable is
> a tape for broadcast, editing 24p would require
> that you have a card that can add the pulldown on
> playout or you would need to have access to some
> way of adding pulldown inside the system (Natress,
> AfterEffects etc)
>
> I think the general groupthink 'round these parts
> is that if your deliverable is 29.97, you should
> shoot 29.97.
> If you are actually talking about XDCAM HD you
> also have the decision of whether to edit in HD
> and downconvert at the last stage or edit only in
> SD, but that's my take based on the little info
> that was provided.

Do you mean you can take XDCAM footage shot at 23.98
and place it on a ProRes 1440x1080 timeline at 29.97?

I have never tried this!



Jeff Harrell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the general groupthink 'round these parts
> is that if your deliverable is 29.97, you should
> shoot 29.97.
>
> No. What framerate your timeline should be is a
> technical decision, but what framerate you shoot
> is an artistic decision. Asking whether you should
> shoot 60i or 24p is like asking if you should use
> oil or watercolor paint. There's no "should" about
> it; it's purely an artistic choice.
>
> In other words, which is "better" depends on which
> one you want. If you want 24p, then only 24p will
> do. Same with 60i.

As with many things in Final Cut, you can, but you shouldn't. Final Cut converts from 24p to 60i using 2:2:2:4 pulldown; in other words, it repeats every fourth frame of your source media to turn four frames into five. This is both Bad and Wrong. The correct way to adapt 24p to a 60i frame rate is by inserting 3:2 pulldown, but Final Cut can't do this on the timeline. Most I/O boards can insert 3:2 in real time on the way out of Final Cut, so the best 24p-to-60i workflow is usually to work entirely in 24p, then insert pulldown when you lay off to tape.

I don't like 23.98 because the frame rate is too low,
and I think 29.97 1080i is much better for motion.

are you aware that nearly all movies and TV shows are captured at 23.98?

Noah

Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [www.editorsstore.com]

NoahK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't like 23.98 because the frame rate is too
> low,
> and I think 29.97 1080i is much better for
> motion.
>
> are you aware that nearly all movies and TV shows
> are captured at 23.98?
>
> Noah


yes, doesn't mean I have to like it.
For example as an animator who is used to rendering everything
uncompressed , the mere concept of compressed video is foreign

Virtually all video is compressed, by definition. Television is 4:2:2 chroma subsampled, which is a form of compression. Digital Betacam is DCT-compressed; so are HDCAM and HDCAM SR. Even nominally uncompressed video is still chroma subsampled, so that's compressed as well. You have to go really far to find truly uncompressed, non-subsampled video.

"I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just PEANUTS to uncompressed?.

Ha. Precisely, Jude.

Hell, if you think about it, even film workflows are compressed. The whole idea behind the Cineon format is to use logarithmic compression to squeeze roughly 13 stops of dynamic range into 10 bits of data. You throw away information you don't expect to need in order to capture the information you really want.

The holy grail isn't uncompressed; it never has been. The holy grail is to keep from applying any more compression than you need to.

maybe where you live Noah ...

Nope, he's right, Andy. You guys get to see things shot at 24p, then ramped up to 25 for the oh-so-delightful Chipmunk effect.

damn .. well in that case its time the industry shot everything 25p so I can be right

All kidding aside, I've often wondered if I could tell the difference in a blind taste-test between 24p and 25p, both shot with 180° shutters. I know I can spot the difference between 24p and 30p (and I hate 30p; it looks cheap), but I've never tried a 24/25 test to see if I can pick it. Mostly because I live in the US and have no 50 Hz gear to try it out on.