Here goes:
My film was shot in 23.976 (24p)
In Windows, when I right click on a clip, go to properties..... it says: 29.97 frame rate
In Premiere Pro, in the Project window, the frame rate reads: 23.976 fps
In Premiere Pro, in the Sequence, that same clip properties read: 29.97 (24p)
Is this all normal? Can I export my footage as 23.976 to disc?
Thank you for your advice.
Still can't believe with all the experience on this board, nobody knows exactly what this means:
FRAME RATE: 29.97 (24p)
I've done more testing and am starting to think that because PPro captured the original footage from the camera, the clip is 29.97 but PPro reads it as 23.976 as well as AE.
It's always 29.97 in the timelines, but not in the properties or project panels. IF the clip was a true 29.97, then it would read that everywhere in PPro and there wouldn't be this odd duality in properties.
If you send a clip in the timeline to ae using "replace with ae comp" and in ae, control click on the clip in the project and choose "interpret footage" will ae guess the correct pulldown cadence and change the "metadata" of the clip to 23.976 fps? I think what you're seeing is just Premiere and AE automatically doing this. The original clip is 29.97 fps with the pulldown cadence embedded in the metadata. If AE does this, I assume you could make a comp from the clip and render it out for a file that actually. is 23.976 fps.
Really the proof is in the pudding. when you put the clip in a 23.976 timeline (and it plays at the proper speed - I guess a better word would be tempo) and you step thru the timeline frame by frame, do you see any interlacing artifacts or repeated frames? if not, Premiere is correctly interpreting the footage and there's no need to worry. If you like, I can post a frame with interlacing artifacts so you see what they look like.
The fact is, this is old technology which is thankfully no longer relevant in the modern world where cameras actually shoot 23.976 fps progressive. The reason this workflow was developed was so the material the camera shot was compatible with standard NTSC video but could also be used to work in true progressive 23.976 environments and be used to. create more of a "film" look and be used to author 23.976 dvd's which would allow you to squeeze a few more minutes onto a dvd because the dvd standard and all (theoretically) were able to either play out at 23.976 fps (via component back in the day or HDMI more recently) but could also output 29.97fps video (automatically adding the pulldown) so it could play properly on older television sets with either a rf or standard composite video imputs.
That still doesn't answer the 16x9 question in the metadata. Try this, if you create a 16x9 HD sequence with square pixels and drop one of these clips in to the timeline, does it fill the frame? If so, it is 16x9 anamorphic not 4x3 pillarboxed. Again, this would be premiere just trying to handle this issue automatically.
I hope this has been clear. Points for you for being persistent and trying to understand what's going on. Back in the day, we didn't have any choice but to either figure it out or live with our mistakes. Can't tell you how many clients would totally screw stuff up in the old fcp by mixing footage with different pixel aspect ratios which the software would usually adjust correctly, but sometimes.... wouldn't.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
AdChoices