Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
edrhine

59.94 from 29.97 for broadcast delivery

Recommended Posts

Please forgive my technical ignorance, but have not had to deal with this issues in a long time. We are working on a broadcast package for a major network and they are asking for the deliverables in 59.94. Normally we work in 29.97 and since it is a very heavy 3D package I would of course like to reduce render time as much as possible.

 

This said, is it an appropriate workflow to render out as 29.97 in AE and then convert with AE later to 59.97. Again it has been a long time since I have had to think about this and would love any suggestions to make this a smooth process.

 

Thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it an appropriate workflow to render out as 29.97 in AE and then convert with AE later to 59.97.

 

 

No. This is going to be very problematic and look bad. I would highly recommend against going into a project with this workflow in mind. Instead, try to figure out how to keep your render times down in 3D and render out the appropriate FPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you work at 29.97 and render out to 59.94, you will have very stuttering footage. AE won't interpret the extra frames, it'll just double up the ones you already have. So you have to work at 59.94. Might be worth asking if they want it at 1080 or 720. Most of the 59.94 stuff I work on is 720 instead of 1080.

 

Working on a 59.94 currently myself so I have a few tips for you:

 

1. work in 60 in C4D. You might want to set project settings to 30 and then render out 60 in your Render Settings. Sometimes, this makes it easier to animate with so you aren't parsing 60 units of a single second. Different strokes you know.

 

2. Make all of your precomps 60 and then a final render comp at 59.94. Importing a 60 fps sequence and trying to work with that in a 59.94 composition can be a little wonky. Especially when you are using an imported camera. You generally won't run into problems but it can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think if you were going to do any conversion that you'd want to go the other way and render 59.94 and then convert that to 29.97 later. In these instances I tend to think of frame rate like fourth-dimensional resolution. Generally speaking, going down isn't usually a problem (at least in terms of losing information) but going up is going to give you all kinds of issues, just like up-resing an image. You're trying invent information that isn't there.

 

R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a bunch of work for Fox Sports, and they usually require a 1280x720, 59.94 delivery. I just work normally at 29.97 and deliver animations at that frame-rate to the editor. He drops it into a 59.94 timeline in Premiere or FCP, the frames get doubled to make a 59.94 sequence, and we haven't seen any stuttering or other artifacts. Alot of the footage they shoot is at 23.98 fps and it gets converted to 59.94 no problem too.

 

If you animate at 59.94 the motion looks too smooth or something, like the soap-opera version of mograph.

 

joey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmm... JKorenman -- This is for a sports network and wondering if that would work as well. Looking at 12-15 minutes a frame out of 3D so less frames is way better. I think I will set two renders this weekend and test in the AM on Monday.

 

Thanks... anyone else have thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a bunch of work for Fox Sports, and they usually require a 1280x720, 59.94 delivery. I just work normally at 29.97 and deliver animations at that frame-rate to the editor. He drops it into a 59.94 timeline in Premiere or FCP, the frames get doubled to make a 59.94 sequence, and we haven't seen any stuttering or other artifacts. Alot of the footage they shoot is at 23.98 fps and it gets converted to 59.94 no problem too.

 

If you animate at 59.94 the motion looks too smooth or something, like the soap-opera version of mograph.

 

joey

 

Yes, I hate the look of 60fps whether it's footage or animation.

 

I'd try inquiring a bit about the 59.94fps requirement with your client. On many occasions I've been given the same spec, but if I ask around I'll finally get through to someone who gets it and says that 29.97 is fine. I will do pretty much anything to avoid higher frame rate delivery, both from a render time and aesthetic standpoint. In the old days there were the same issues regarding interlacing. Engineers insisted that if you didn't render at 59.94 interlaced as opposed to 29.97 progressive then the piece wasn't "broadcast quality". I had some interesting arguments when working on animations that were purposely done at 15fps for that specific look, only to be told to re-render them at 59.94i or they would be "unfit" for broadcast.

 

Anyway, a lot of times these are just specs in an email that people have been told to follow. It's worth a little leg work to get around them if it's going to cause you headaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I hate the look of 60fps whether it's footage or animation.

 

I'd try inquiring a bit about the 59.94fps requirement with your client. On many occasions I've been given the same spec, but if I ask around I'll finally get through to someone who gets it and says that 29.97 is fine. I will do pretty much anything to avoid higher frame rate delivery, both from a render time and aesthetic standpoint. In the old days there were the same issues regarding interlacing. Engineers insisted that if you didn't render at 59.94 interlaced as opposed to 29.97 progressive then the piece wasn't "broadcast quality". I had some interesting arguments when working on animations that were purposely done at 15fps for that specific look, only to be told to re-render them at 59.94i or they would be "unfit" for broadcast.

 

Anyway, a lot of times these are just specs in an email that people have been told to follow. It's worth a little leg work to get around them if it's going to cause you headaches.

 

What Scott said... most of the time the specs sheet you get is 10 years old and nobody there even understands it.

 

Nightbus, it might just be a personal preference, but I think that different frame rates make sense in different situations. For live sports, cameras shoot at 59.94 so you get that "immediacy" from the smooth motion. Films are shot at 24, and it gives it a much different vibe. Even 29.97 has it's own feel. When I see animation done at 59.94 it just reminds me of old 80's-90's Video Toaster effects. You can mix and match frame rates without much trouble these days so I say just use what looks right.

 

joey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you animate at 59.94 the motion looks too smooth or something, like the soap-opera version of mograph.

 

 

I completely agree. For some things like video games (in-game animation) higher fps is better. But this whole high framerate thing just looks terrible to me. I accidentally went to the high-framerate version of the Hobbit, and it bothered me so much...I thought I was watching a cheap BBC production (well not quite, but it was way too smooth). The street scene at the beginning had such a Coronation Street look...gross. If that is the future of cinema, then I will be a very very sad person.

 

 

-Spunj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with jkorenman. That's basically how we work too. Going from 29.97p to 59.94i deliverables usual works fine. Our tests in online showed minimal differences when the graphics are played in context with the footage that was also most likely shot at 29.97 for our shows. Do they want 59.94i or p?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I completely agree. For some things like video games (in-game animation) higher fps is better. But this whole high framerate thing just looks terrible to me. I accidentally went to the high-framerate version of the Hobbit, and it bothered me so much...I thought I was watching a cheap BBC production (well not quite, but it was way too smooth). The street scene at the beginning had such a Coronation Street look...gross. If that is the future of cinema, then I will be a very very sad person.

 

 

-Spunj

 

 

I'm sure that was said about sync sound and technicolor at some point too. ;)

 

I digress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HFR in the Hobbit was terrible and I was visibly upset. So much so that I waited until Hobbit 2 was on video. And I loved the Lord of the Rings movies.

 

However, I think the increased frame rate works well for sports. It does feel smooth but thats a different thing than watching movies. You're watching something live and it should feel like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...