Mike Robertson Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Hey folks, At the last minute - DP switched frame rate to 59.94 interlace - for "that video look". What TC frame rate should I be using? 29.97 DF or NDF? - no one seems to know. Neither of them seem to be staying in sync. As for today ill be running scratch into cameras and removing TC from my recordings using wave agent- out of paranoia of them playing back the wrong speed in the edit. Any help would be appreciated thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Time Base, Time Code, and Frame Rate are three different things. People quite commonly mix them up. To confuse things further, the Alexa also has a Sensor Rate. Drop Frame is a another thing entirely. Drop Frame does NOT drop any frames, it just counts them differently in order to maintain accurate clock time for broadcast. If the camera is set to drop frame then you should be, too, otherwise not. These things have been discussed at some length in previous threads. A Google search such as: jwsoundgroup "time code" "frame rate" "time base" (adjust as per your searching needs) can find you many past discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Only the DP can tell you if the camera is set to Drop or Non-Drop. Some broadcast news/documentary operations run in Drop, but typically it's non-drop. (Except when it isn't!) I make it a point to bring about 20 different PDFs of camera manuals on my iPad to shoots, just in case we're confronted with a camera where the DP or assistant has no idea how to set or slave timecode. I can handle Alexa and Red Epic, but a lot of the other ones -- especially Canon! -- are a little buggy. Do a workflow test prior to shooting: roll 3 minutes of picture and sound, clap a timecode slate at the start, wait 3 minutes, clap a timecode slate at the tail, then take both picture and sound files and load them into a laptop with an editing program. Line them up and see if they stay exactly in sync for the entire shot. If clap is good at the head but bad at the tail, you've got drift. If slate timecode doesn't agree with the camera, there's a good chance camera is wrong. Putting a lockbox on the camera (Denecke or Ambient TC generator) is often more reliable than relying on the camera's internal timecode generator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Robertson Posted February 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Yep - little homework was needed. Thanks! Having manuals handy was a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Yep - little homework was needed. Thanks! Having manuals handy was a good idea. When it comes to time code, a LOT of homework is needed <G>. It can be a confusing subject with different camera models handling the Time Base, Frame Rate, and Time Code combinations differently. All too often ACs are the last to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 also beware that some manufacturers have decided to short hand some frame rates, i.e. calling 23.976, 24. Why?? Who knows, but it's confusing, technically inaccurate, and personally irritating. I've worked with several shooters that have adopted those short hands as well, which I personally think is just asking for problems. But 23 point 976 just takes so long to say.................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I've never heard anyone shortening 23.976 to 24 --- this is really bad. I'm okay with 23.98 because it is easier for some people to remember and say and it doesn't really affect how we set up our gear because it will always be 23.976 even if we call it 23.98. Calling 23.976 24 though, that 's a whole different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I've never heard anyone shortening 23.976 to 24 --- this is really bad. I'm okay with 23.98 because it is easier for some people to remember and say and it doesn't really affect how we set up our gear because it will always be 23.976 even if we call it 23.98. Calling 23.976 24 though, that 's a whole different story. In the rough and tumble Corporate & "ENG" world, 24 is often used as shorthand for 23.976. I'm happy to say that many camera people are getting a bit more educated about the difference now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Woodcock Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 In the rough and tumble Corporate & "ENG" world, 24 is often used as shorthand for 23.976. I'm happy to say that many camera people are getting a bit more educated about the difference now. Had a shoot last week with a lovely american producer, don't get many of your lot in Ireland :-P but when I asked him about TC he said 24, I straight away asked if he ment true 24 or another variation. It was the latter. Only learnt that by being on jwsound all these years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigF Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 I've never heard anyone shortening 23.976 to 24 --- this is really bad. I'm okay with 23.98 because it is easier for some people to remember and say and it doesn't really affect how we set up our gear because it will always be 23.976 even if we call it 23.98. Calling 23.976 24 though, that 's a whole different story. consider your selft luck Cam Ops, Pictuer Editors, and even Video Engineers say 24 when it's realy 23.9xx and I try and school them on there error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 I too make a point of clarifying 24 vs 23.98. It also seems like I hear it spoken incorrectly less these days than when dslr's first became prominent in our market. Maybe the numerous corrections have sunk in?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.