Joel Hruska said:
Seriously, Frank. In no way am I trying to either imply you are unhelpful or crap on your expertise.Never mind, so didn’t I with yours. Maybe my English is not that good, and you feel wrong subtle “vibrations”, not meant. It is not really easy to help, if someone of high intelligence like you is in the job for months, already did hundreds of experiments a. s. o.
But in spite of this you - sorry - seem not to really understand what really happens with the original 24fps-film when being pulldowned.
Ok, you see RELATIVE smooth motion in your 60fps result, because you use interpolated frames, but this artificially extended motion cannot be really smooth, it’s sometimes faster, sometimes slower. This can’t be called “stutter”, ok, but it is not the original smooth motion, where one frame of the original celluloid-film is one frame (or at least a multiple of one for EACH frame) in the end result. This is simply not possible, if you have 24fps film and 60fps end result.
I am preparing some clips to show you final output of the method. I want to make sure I am clear about what I expect you to see:
1). Recovery of the same progressive frames as in the 23.976 fps Rio Grande version.
2). Interpolated frames that provide the smoothness required to make the 59.94 version move smoothly in places where the 23.976 fps version fails to recover ideal motion.
The 60 fps motion of Orinoco is smoother than the 119.88 fps conversions that I’ve tested (I tested 119.88 as a way to equalize the 23.976 fps and 29.97 fps content). The motion is less irregular. There are still absolutely interpolated frames being used to smooth out the presentation and I won’t claim there aren’t, but the subtle, hitching jerking that I spent so many months trying to repair has vanished. I’ve messed around with changing the frame rate from 23.976 to 29.97, 47.952, 59.94, even 71.9128 (a little) and 119.88 (a lot).
The encode method I call Orinoco is the best 59.94 conversion method I have found. I’d prefer not to use it. It takes a very long time to upscale 59.94 content. But it does solve problems in the places where Rio Grande leaves bad motion – and it does so without causing visible frame rate stutter. Are the interpolated frames still there? Absolutely. Do I want them there? No. I’m just willing to tolerate them if I have to.
Pulldown is done by doubling several fields (several ways to do so, doesn’t matter here). These have to be decimated to get back the clean progressive, original content, which is necessary to fill the AI upscaler, and to get really smooth and good results. > Your interpolated frames are not really good anyway concerning picture quality, but make also motion slower and faster.
Just the portions where you might have native 29.97fps, (interlaced or not, not important because you deinterlace), will work, because there you have simply doubled frames, when going to 60 (59.94)fps. This is smooth, ok.
I don’t think, it’s the way to go, to keep any double frames, and even worse to add interpolated frames to make it a bit(!) smoother. So your decision to get to 23.976 was the only way to go.
I will show you Orinoco in sections that are originally 29.97 and originally 23.976. That’ll be the easiest way to compare.
Again: If you like to see a IVTC-by-hand-script, send me some portions of the NTSC-DVDs. Also the opening credits are interesting for me - is this field-shifted? Interlaced? Pulldowned AND field-shifted?
I am going to send you the credits and the first part of an episode with multiple 23.976 --> 29.97 transitions in it. About 7:30 worth of footage. This will be a direct copy of the DVD. Prepping these today.