Shooting Everything in 23.98 -- Wise?

[Joe Taylor]

Since I took delivery of a RED ONE back in Nov. I have elected to shoot all my footage in 23.98 only because since so far most of what I shoot can be used for stock and used across so many different platforms.

However, last week I attempted to make my first SD Anamorphic DVD as Demo Reel and the final results are unacceptable. Could the big problem be that since SD DVD is 30/60 fps format, that shooting with the RED in 23.98 simply will not work well?

Hopefully my footage is not screwed for standard def. work.

Here is my workflow.

Footage shot in 23.98 RED Space RAW.
Log and Transferred into FCP 6 and worked with in glorious HD rez.
Converted for SD 720x480p Anamorphic (tied both Compressor and Quicktime) Noticeable hit in resolution but still nice.
Imported into DVD Studio. In simulation mode it looks bad as when burned to DVD-- BAD.

I wish there was a published workflow out there for the best results.

Of course all help is welcome.

Thank You

 

[Colin Sheldon]

Try exporting out of FCP into prores, and then import that into compressor, and then downconvert (DVD Best Quality - 90 minutes), and then drop that into DVD Studio Pro.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

everyone's having trouble getting RED footage to look great on SD dvd. It has nothing to do with frame rate.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

everyone's having trouble getting RED footage to look great on SD dvd. It has nothing to do with frame rate.

Could it be that your eyes go from RC to SD in a second? Or is this an actual lower quality when compared to other cameras? It makes no sense... :confused1:

 

[Joe Taylor]

Could it be that your eyes go from RC to SD in a second? Or is this an actual lower quality when compared to other cameras? It makes no sense... :confused1:

No, it is MUCH lower quality than other formats. I was/am prepared for a jump from Red Code to SD but not this. I was just looking at an older project shot on Mini DV and it is much cleaner than the SD RED footage.

There is something wrong. I thought it might have something to do with with shooting 23.98.

 

[scott william]

This may or may not be correct.

It might be an issue that you are buring a 24p movie onto a 30p disk? it's like buring a PAL project onto disk encorded in NTSC, the vision will always be jumpy unless you convert the 24p to 30p (somehow) before exporting to disk.

I always thought you only shot 24p if you were going for a film print?

The DVD's we hire from blockbuster are either 25f or 30f depending on your TV standard, NTSC or PAL. blu ray now does 25p or 30p. I think that's how it works.

The film 'look' - look meaning the way the vision moves is determined by the camera's rolling shutter not the frame rate, i think. From what i understand only shot 24p if your going to get a film print and then have it telecinied back to 25f or 30f for DVD by a professional priduction house with very expensive hardware and people who know what they are doing. please correct me if this is not true.

 

[Craig Parkes]

Frame rate conversion and downconversion is kind of a tricky subject matter, because it's in some ways more 'art' than 'science' in terms of what's going to look the best (because what looks the best is subjective) but the methodology is very scientific (different sorts of pull downs, different scaling techniques, dithering, long GOP compression data rates etc - which can end up being incomprehensible to someone with little experience without trial or error, or a very good understanding of the maths/logic behind what's being done to the footage)

It may best for you to do some experiments with your set up to get your head around where the problem likely lies.

Step 1) Shoot some test footage in 29.97 instead of 23.98, and see if you are experiencing the same sort quality problems with your workflow once you get down to DVD.

If not, then you know it's probably a scaling issue or a GOP or data rate issue in your mpeg compression, not a frame rate or interlacing/pixel aspect ratio* issue.

If you don't experience the same sort of artifacting/low quality, then it's very likely a framerate issue or possibly GOP/data rate issue or combination of both.

*interlacing and pixel aspect ratio issues could be caused by an incorrect timeline setting in Final Cut. In fact, given your workflow described, I would not be surprised if you may be experiencing some pixel aspect ratio conversion problems in addition to other issues.

Step 2) having identified the likeliest areas where the problem lies, read up/get help on the various user selectable features in Compressor to aid in better compression. This is where the art meets science bit really comes in, because lots of people have their own brand of 'secret sauce' in terms of combinations of settings for differing subject matters to get the sort of final picture quality they like.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

toast made for me 1 millions time better dvds then compressor/fcp

i used it for revisioncopys.

 

[Cail Young]

Converted for SD 720x480p Anamorphic (tied both Compressor and Quicktime) Noticeable hit in resolution but still nice.
Imported into DVD Studio. In simulation mode it looks bad as when burned to DVD-- BAD.

Try this:

Export a full-res Prores HQ file of the master.

Add the file to a Compressor queue.

Add a Dolby Digital ac3 2.0 output.

Add a generic Elementary Stream MPEG-2 output.

In the settings for the MPEG-2 output:

• Change Stream Usage to SD DVD
• Leave framerate at 23.98; correct other settings as needed.
• Change Quality to 1 pass, throw it to maximum (should be 9.0)
• Set GOP to be IP, and 6 (or the shortest)

Then, in the filters, add a Sharpen Edge filter, and try really low settings - generally for 1080/2K to SD I use about 7.

Then, make sure you're making an NTSC DVD in DVD SP, and import the m2v and ac3 files.

See how they look!

 

[Matthew Rogers]

I don't know why everyone is having issues with making good looking DVD's. I've had no problems since day one. However, there is one thing you need to set in compressor...

Select 90 Minutes Best Quality preset in compressor. Then under the MPEG2 setting go to Frame Controls. Turn it on. Change the resize setting to best. If you shot 23.98, that's all you have to do. It does a great down conversion and looks very smooth, yet sharp. There will be noise, but that's the fault of the MPEG2 engine in Compressor. I think Episode Pro has a better final output, but it's kinda pricey for people to buy.

Matthew

 

[Frank Cueto]

Is 23.98 really 23.976?
Or if i need 23.976 I need to specify it?

Thanx

-Frank

 

[Rudi Herbert]

This is not another Apple vs. Adobe rant, BUT...

I've worked with a bit of 23.98 fps RED footage in CS4 and made every imaginable final version from it and it all looked GREAT when exported to the Adobe Media Encoder. Made a MPEG2 SD DVD using single and double pass, variable and fixed bit rate and they look outstanding, so much better than digibeta, DVCPRO, etc, etc. If you have access to AE, Premiere or any of the other CS4 products, render a final MOV at the highest quality in FCP, import into AE, PRemiere or Encore and burn an SD DVD, you won't be unhappy. I've heard lots of complaints about the quality of the encoding in compressor. Of course, if you don't have Adobe products, this point is moot...

 

[jpp]

Is 23.98 really 23.976?
Or if i need 23.976 I need to specify it?

It's "really" 23.976. The figure represents a .1% slowdown from 24fps, just as 29.97 represents a .1% slowdown from 30fps. All this is necessary, thanks to NTSC, and the pulldown required for converting film to 29.97 video.

Or try it this way: film is transferred to video at 23.976 fps, not 24fps -- the telecine runs .1% slow. Which is necessary because video is 29.97, not 30fps, and 24fps doesn't go into 29.97 very well.

 

[Frank Cueto]

It's "really" 23.976. The figure represents a .1% slowdown from 24fps, just as 29.97 represents a .1% slowdown from 30fps. All this is necessary, thanks to NTSC, and the pulldown required for converting film to 29.97 video.

Or try it this way: film is transferred to video at 23.976 fps, not 24fps -- the telecine runs .1% slow. Which is necessary because video is 29.97, not 30fps, and 24fps does go into 29.97 very well.

Thanx.

I understood it to be as such but since 23.98 seems to be sooooo prevalent on everyone's lingo for a moment there that thought I had been doing it wrong all this time ;-)

So basically 23.98 its really non-existent? or is there a format where one needs to post in 23.98?

thanx again.


-Frank

 

[jpp]

So basically 23.98 its really non-existent? or is there a format where one needs to post in 23.98?

23.98 is 23.976 rounded to two decimals. However, the time-base remains 23.976fps. Or *should* remain 23.976.

I suppose it's possible, however, that 23.980 has been introduced somewhere as a time-base in post by inadvertence, adding yet another standard. Don't even want to think about it....

 

[Dustin Bowlin]

best settings for compressor

best settings for compressor

I use 23.98 footage-->to pro res 2K in FCP output to DVD using compressor, and yes the results using their presets are unacceptable. There is another thread somewhere on this site that has some specific settings for motion compensation etc. in the compressor panel settings that helped me tremendously. My 2 cents is that if you are making a reference screener it is passable, with the settings they mention, but you should look into Bitvice or a hardware encoder solution for a pristine looking DVD. The color shift etc. is not worth the trouble for tinkering around with if you are sending to festivals and such.

 

[Frank Cueto]

23.98 is 23.976 rounded to two decimals. However, the time-base remains 23.976fps. Or *should* remain 23.976.

I suppose it's possible, however, that 23.980 has been introduced somewhere as a time-base in post by inadvertence, adding yet another standard. Don't even want to think about it....

Now think about all the people that are creating setting for the footage in things like AE or other apps, and using the 23.98 as their FPS setting for their projects.

It already bit me once here.
Client was supplying a 4 minute reference clip to compare to our conform/grade and things weren't quite matching. Suffice to say i had to re-conform everything to 23.98 :$


-Frank

 

[Charles Angus]

It is possible for footage to be 23.980, unfortunately. The kicker is that when FCP imported the 23.980 footage, it simply said to itself "not 23.976, add 2:3 pulldown".

On topic, though. Just wanted to add my weight to those saying the 23.98 is not a reason for bad looking DVD's. Almost all commercial DVDs are 23.98.

A good quality downconvert can be hard to achieve. If you can get good looking 720x480 footage, then you're halfway there.

 

[Joe Taylor]

Thank you so much.

All of this is a big help. Quite relieved that my 23.98 (there is so much of it) should be useful. You are all correct. I've done plenty of SD work but this is my first venture into working with HD. My reel looks incredible in the Final Cut Pro timeline, so I assume the problem is not there.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Bitvise or Adobe. I've been using Bitvise for several years now and for the most part, the quality has always been outstanding.

Scaling algorithm is very important. As is getting your bit management correct. Be careful about setting your bitrates too high. This can cause problems with a lot of players. Your ceiling for audio and Video should never exceed 10.08. On short form, I tend to aim for a two-pass VBR of 6.5 to 7.0 depending on the material, and on long form 4.0 -5.0. In general I don't let my peaks go above 8.5 for the video.

Compression is an artform. To do it right actually requires compressing each section of your show separately based on motion, and complicated patterns. One setting often times doesn't get it right for the whole show. But this is getting down to the nitty gritty and generally the method used on only higher end shows.

There is no technical reason i can think of for RED to look worse than any other camera, except for the scaling process. The footage needs to be properly scaled down from 4K>1080>MPEG2 (720x480). There's a lot of math there, and I can see how this could go wrong with the improper scaling method.