2:3:2:3 pulldown

hi:

I have a project with about a dozen mini dvs shot with the 2:3:3:2 pulldown. the goal is to provide the client a qt file and a dvd of each tape.

I am wondering if I should be using the Capture Preset for "advanced 2:3:3:2 pulldown," and if so, what should be the Sequence Preset? The client wants me to use 29.97 fps, but i thought that was the reason to keep the pulldown, because it's already 29.97. I have done several tapes already, using the advance pulldown, and a Sequence Preset for 29.97 fps, and i'm noticing some audio drift. i fixed that on the timeline, but i shouldn't have to do that.

I'd be very appreciative if someone would tell me the proper Capture and Sequence Presets for what I'm trying to accomplish.

Thanks,

Jim

> I am wondering if I should be using the Capture Preset for "advanced 2:3:3:2 pulldown," and if so, what should
> be the Sequence Preset?

That depends. On the thread topic you wrote "2:3:2:3 pulldown"; in the message body you wrote "2:3:3:2 pulldown". These two are diametrically opposite.

If you did shoot with "2:3:3:2 pulldown" (or "Advanced pulldown", then yes, you should use that Capture Preset to remove pulldown frames as you capture. Sequence Settings should be set to 23.98fps, not 29.97fps.

> The client wants me to use 29.97 fps, but i thought that was the reason to keep the pulldown, because it's already 29.97.

The client is wrong. DV footage with "Advanced pulldown" is not meant to be kept at 29.97fps. If he had wanted that, he should have shot with "2:3" pulldown and then left the pulldown frames alone (ie. capture at 29.97fps, as if it were ordinary DV).

I think it's a problem that the footage ended up in your hands -- and past the client's -- without you actually knowing what the correct settings are. You should have had a conversation about this before the shoot. And the client doesn't seem to have done his homework.


www.derekmok.com

yes, it was 2:3:3:2..... thanks for that.

Quote
derekmok
On the thread topic you wrote "2:3:2:3 pulldown"; in the message body you wrote "2:3:3:2 pulldown". These two are diametrically opposite.

What to a super-expert is "diametrically opposite" to others is almost the same. 2:3:2:3 and 2:3:3:2 are both routines for getting 10 fields from 4 frames by taking 3 fields from certain of the frames. This makes 60i from 24p. 2:3:2:3 60i is visually a little smoother but both kinds are visually imperfect. 2:3:3:2 60i uses the simpler algorithm for recovering the 4 original frames, but recovery is also possible with 2:3:2:3.

Whenever mini dv is recorded with a pulldown there must be a reason why it wasn't shot as normal 60i. The reason might be that it will be combined with telecined films in a 60i production. Then it should be recorded 2:3:2:3, as standard telecine is done, for consistency. More likely the mini dv was recorded 60i simply because (NTSC) mini dv must be 60i and the intention was to extract 24p later. Some mini dv cameras offer a choice between 2:3:2:3 and 2:3:3:2 pulldown. A camera operator who intends 24p to be extracted from that camera's 60i would not regard the two pulldowns as "diametrically opposite". He might choose whichever pulldown he thinks the downstream editor will have least trouble extracting from.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

> What to a super-expert is "diametrically opposite" to others is almost the same.

Results-wise they're not opposite. Workflow-wise they are. If you feel like arguing semantics, be my guest. But the fact remains that if they were uncertain about staying in 23.98fps or in 29.97fps (the latter of which was specifically requested by the client), they should have shot 24p, not 24pA.


www.derekmok.com

Suppose you're shooting mini-dv unsure whether you want 24p or 60i in the end.
There are three choices:
1. shoot 60i;
2. shoot with 2:3:3:2 pulldown;
3. shoot with 2:3:2:3 pulldown.

The first choice is poor because you can't get perfect 24p from it.
The second choice is poor because you can't get perfect 60i from it.
The third choice is poor because you can't get perfect 60i from it.

Perfect 60i requires getting 10 different fields 1/60 second apart from the 4 frames. Both pulldown methods yield just 8 different fields, 0 second or 1/24 second apart.

Granted, the 2:3:2:3 pulldown puts the fields in a visually less bad sequence than the 2:3:3:2 pulldown method does. If you've shot 2:3:3:2 pulldown and then want the visually less bad 60i product, it is possible to convert the 2:3:3:2 pulldown material to exactly match 2:3:2:3 pulldown material, since they contain the same information.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

i have another question on the "advanced pulldown." my client wants simply to archive this footage as a qt file on a firewire drive, and as a dvd to allow the subjects of his work to view the footage. in reading more material on removing the pulldown, i noted that shane ross says that if you're going to come out with a fps speed of 29.97, then don't bother with removing the pulldown, because i would need to be at 29.97 for a viewable dvd in an ntsc environment. if that is the case -- and i accept the possibility that i misinterpreted what he was saying -- what is the proper capture preset?

thanks,
Jim Hollander

2:3:3:2 pulldown was created to be removed on ingest. It was a way to get 24p onto tape systems that only allowed 29.97fps, so the editor could have tape with motion quality similar to film. Removing it was also simple- remove one frame out of every 5. Advanced pulldown was not meant to be broadcasted.

If you do not want to remove 24pA, shoot 2:3:2:3 standard pulldown.



www.strypesinpost.com

> i would need to be at 29.97 for a viewable dvd in an ntsc environment.

Nope. DVD standard allows 23.976 fps and it cam add pulldown on playback. If you need to go back out to tape, add a pulldown on the way out to tape.



www.strypesinpost.com

>> 3. shoot with 2:3:2:3 pulldown.
> The third choice is poor because you can't get perfect 60i from it.

I know of at least one broadcast show that shot on DV 24p (2:3 pulldown) and remained at 29.97fps until the end. So if you're not happy with it, apparently broadcast QC was.


www.derekmok.com

> i noted that shane ross says that if you're going to come out with a fps speed of 29.97, then don't bother with removing
> the pulldown

Yes, but you didn't shoot in a format that allows that choice. As strypes wrote, 24pA was never meant to be watched at 29.97fps.


www.derekmok.com

Quote
derekmok
I know of at least one broadcast show that shot on DV 24p (2:3 pulldown) and remained at 29.97fps until the end. So if you're not happy with it, apparently broadcast QC was.

It's a look, but not the look of 60i. By 60i I meant true 60i: shot 60i; displayed 60i. 24p with 2:3 pulldown has precisely the look of telecined movies.

Evidently the director wanted the 24p 2:3 pulldown look in preference to the 60i look. Maybe 60i looked too "televisionish" for the director, and broadcast QC shared the bias, but they should be reminded that they're making television, not cinema fakely telecined.

60Hz TV as a medium assures its inferiority to cinema if it embraces the 24p 2:3 pulldown look. Telecined cinema looks awkward vs. true 24p cinema. TV directors can shoot 30p 2:2 pulldown and get a new look not obviously inferior to any other. 60i as now normally displayed deinterlaced is a scruffy 60p, inferior to true 60p video. Directors can shoot 60p and get another new look not obviously inferior to any other if they believe 60p broadcasting is coming soon. I think the decision for 60Hz TV will be between 30p and 60p. We may have aesthetically rich times if both are widely used.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Quote
strypes
If you do not want to remove 24pA, shoot 2:3:2:3 standard pulldown.

And if miama99's footage was incorrectly shot 24pA and he really wants 2:3:2:3 standard pulldown instead, he can convert it. Are there handy plugins for the conversion? Otherwise it can be done in two steps: convert 24pA to 24p (no pulldown); convert 24p (no pulldown) to 2:3:2:3 standard pulldown. I think both conversions can avoid generational loss, but one can otherwise use uncompressed or little compressed (e.g., HQ) codecs.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany