FORUMS: list search recent posts

DPX image sequence PROBLEM!

COW Forums : RED Camera

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Whirity
DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:16:27 pm


So I exported a few DPX image sequences from RED footage in 2K 2048x1024 from Red Alert.

When I imported the sequence to After Effects it worked fine. In the project viewer it shows the duration of the clip as being norma ex) 00:00:05:11 for a 5 sec and 11 frame clip.

I drop that on the comp button to make a comp that matches. That too is listed as 00:00:05:11

But when I navigate in the timeline of the comp the sequence ends two frames short of the displayed duration.

And when exported it does the same. It's been doing this on all the DPX sequences. Any ideas what's wrong or why its dropping two frames despite the fact that settings info says the duration is normal?

My Preferences settings for image sequences is 23.98fps. The comp setting say the same, though the duration days 00:00:05:11 then Base 24. Not sure if that's part of it.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'd hat to have to go re-export adding two frames to each sequence knowing they'll be cut off.




Return to posts index

David Battistella
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:32:39 pm



Make sure that you are using NON DROP Frame TC

Drop is a semi colon ;
NON drop is a colon :


David




Peace and Love :)
Read my Blog
http://blogs.creativecow.net/DavidBattistella


Return to posts index

Bill Whirity
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 16, 2008 at 10:36:49 pm

Everything is in NON DROP as you can see in the screen cap...


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 17, 2008 at 1:39:50 am

In AE you need 23.976 fps, not 23.98.


Return to posts index

Bill Whirity
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 17, 2008 at 3:20:43 am

Worked! Thank you so much!


Return to posts index

gary adcock
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 17, 2008 at 1:47:17 am

[Bill Whirity] "My Preferences settings for image sequences is 23.98fps. The comp setting say the same, though the duration days 00:00:05:11 then Base 24"


AE is the only app the correctly delivers at 23.976
if you specify 23.98 you will loose 2 frames....

every other app rounds up. AE does not.

gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows

Inside look at the IoHD




Return to posts index


Arnie Schlissel
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 17, 2008 at 8:00:47 pm

[gary adcock] "AE is the only app the correctly delivers at 23.976"

I would have said "AE is the only app that correctly labels it 23.976". Other apps, like FCP label the same frame rate 23.98, even though it's 23.976.

Arnie

Post production is not an afterthought!
http://www.arniepix.com/


Return to posts index

Graeme Nattress
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 18, 2008 at 12:55:22 am

Maybe labeling it 24 * 1000/1001 would be more accurate still? 23.976 is close, but not quite right. 29.97 is close, but not 100% right either. Hell, we should have done away with this on the move to digital broadcast, but I guess old habits die hard...

- http://www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP


Return to posts index

gary adcock
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 18, 2008 at 9:29:24 pm

[Arnie Schlissel] "I would have said "AE is the only app that correctly labels it 23.976"."

the problem with that Arnie, is in AE there is a difference between 23.976 and 23.98, it is my understanding that AE is the only software app that shares this distinction, hardware based systems like Baselight, Luster and Pablo can dynamically correct this.

As the poster has said that was the issue and by changing this one setting was able to fix his problem.

I agree that it is a matter of semantics- too bad you did not note that on some Sony cameras it is labeled as just 23.9- try getting a file that works universally out of any application with that time base.

gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows

Inside look at the IoHD




Return to posts index


Arnie Schlissel
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 18, 2008 at 10:01:00 pm

[gary adcock] "is in AE there is a difference between 23.976 and 23.98"

You're absolutely right, and it turns out to be a very significant one under some situations. The thing is, that while 23.976 is in AE's pulldown menus for frame rates, 23.98 has to be input manually.

[gary adcock] "too bad you did not note that on some Sony cameras it is labeled as just 23.9"

I did not know this. But, coming from Sony, I can't say that I'm surprised.

BTW, in QT, it's 23.976, while in FCP it's 23.98. I'm pretty sure that Shake is 23.98, but I can't remember how it is in Motion or Compressor (and my Mac is across the East River from me right now, so I can't check). Maybe the people responsible for each program are in separate wings and never get to see each other? Or maybe they just hate us all?

I agree with you completely that this is just the semantics that different hardware & software companies are using.

The entire industry very happily rounds 30/1.001 to 29.97, but some hardware and software companies round 24/1.001 to 23.976, and some round it to 23.98.

Those of us who know this rarely even think about it or even notice it. But to those who don't know better, it's not just confusing, it can screw you up.

Arnie

Post production is not an afterthought!
http://www.arniepix.com/


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 19, 2008 at 12:22:42 am

If doing frame rate conversions in Compressor, you have to manully input 23.976 otherwise it won't playback in FCP correctly. You can't even choose 23.98 from the frame rate drop down menu, you have to add a 'custom' frame rate.

Graeme, I am totally with you. I guess we have to drag the old legacies around for a long time.


Return to posts index

Ramona Howard
Re: DPX image sequence PROBLEM!
on Oct 21, 2008 at 5:11:38 am

The spec is 23.976, I guess some were/are a bit lazy or don't like using 5 digits or didn't know any different (god I hope not) so they shortened and rounded up. Regardless, programs should just interpret them to be the same......as they are, or should be......well they are suppose to be.....hell I don't know, it's all the same.

Now add, that some even get lazier and call 23.976 or 23.98, 24 and now some people are really confused as 24 is a different rate all together.......

the truth is:

23.976 and 23.98 are the same, why companies when it came to naming choose to go down one path vs the other (thanks Sony) is beyond me. Regardless, if a program is well written it will interpret them both to mean the same thing and know that 24 is something entirely different. Pretty simple when you think about it.

In reality 23.976 is mathematically very different than 23.98 and heaven forbid that companies really made errors when coding because they use these two different numbers in calculations. The real calculation when it comes to this frame rate is really one that is based on 24 not either of the 23.976 or 23.98 numbers. There simply needed to be an easier way to label the 23.976xxxxxxxxxxx number, so they stopped at 5 digits. We got 23.976.

confused? ah come-on, it's simple, that is why every one can do it and they have. The question is did they do it right? hell my brain hurts when I have to re-think about this stuff, hopefully someone got a little out of this rambling :)

Cheers,
Ramona

Just trying to add a little humor to the crazy world I work in.



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]