Telecine specs

[Matt Mayer]

Damndest thing we've ever seen. 55 tracks, and the Fostex couldn't read them. BWF-Widget reported that their starting timecode was 00:00:00:00, and the ending timecode was 00:00:00:00 (!). And there was sound there. My feeling is, the guy rolled but the timecode feeding the 744T (or the 744T's own internal generator) went stupid.

The DAT was fine, so go figure. Oh, and every other take on the DVD-RAM was missing -- literally no file there. It was as if the mixer didn't go into record on X number of takes. It was there on the DAT, but the log from BWF-Widget reported no file there.

Marc,

That does sound really strange.  The only way I can think of for multiple 744 files to start at 00:00:00.00 would be to have the unit in Ext TC but then not feed it anything.  Does sound to me like cockpit error, but you have to wonder how he didn't see that code wasn't running for 55 takes.

I would be interested in getting a copy of the files if that is at all possible.  Drop me an e-mail or PM me through my profile.

---Matt

[Andrew Bellware]

We ask for head tone and a slate telling us what reference level is being used so that we won't screw it up. All incoming audio to most LA dailies facilities goes through some kind of digital mixer (typically a Yamaha 03D or a DM1000), and it's nice to have the tones there so we can check it.

OK, I promise to stop coming back to this, really I do! ;-) But are you coming in digitally to the 03D or DM1000? If so, what would be screwed up? That channel or buss EQ or compression would be on? Otherwise, as long as fader gain is 0dB (which is delightfully easy to tell on both those mixers), 0dBFS=0dBFS! ;-)

[Marc Wielage]

But are you coming in digitally to the 03D or DM1000? If so, what would be screwed up?

Sorry I missed your question eaerlier. The faders move on the 03D consoles. If the levels aren't at 0dB, we're hosed. There are also input gain setup modes that can change the apparent position of the faders). Having the tones on the head of the disc or tape is an easy way to verify that neither the equipment nor the dailies colorist is screwing up.

Most telecine companies in LA that I know of use either digital sample rate converters to convert the pulled-down audio back to 48K, or they come out of the DV40 in analog and then re-convert to digital in the board. The only direct-digital method I know of would be to record on location in 48.048 (which some mixers do).

--Marc W.

[Don Barto]

"...29.97NDF should be used only in cases where the film camera is running at 23.976fps, or for a HD

video shoot in which the camera is running at 23.98fps (progressive) or at 59.97 fields

(interlaced HD)..."  "...We also do not recommend 23.976 timecode for

sound; we instead recommend the use of an Ambient “Lockbox” 202T or Denecke SB-T

Tri-Level Syncbox to convert 23.976 code to 30NDF during the shoot."

The above quotes are both lifted from the same paragraph of the Telecine Specs document, and seem to me to be contradicting each other.  Are the specs saying that audio files for a 23.976fps video project should be stamped with 29.97NDF timecode...or are they saying they should be stamped with 30NDF timecode?  Am I misunderstanding something or is there indeed a contradiction? 

If there is a choice between the two timecode formats for sound that accompanies 23.98fps video, I would suppose that in the case of 30NDF audio files, they should be 48KHz and not 48.048KHz...as there would be no need for a pulldown.  Right?

[cmgoodin]

You are correct the Document is contradictory.  You should be running at 29.97 ND not 30 ND  for a 23.976 fps High Def shoot. And you should be at 48K not 48048 and there is no Pull-down.

---Courtney

[Jeff Wexler]

I am hoping Marc Wielage will send me an updated telecine document since a few people have picked up on some things that are out of date, and in some cases, contradictory or unclear.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Marc Wielage]

I'll check the doc and see if I have time to do a quick rewrite. As far as I know, 29.97 would be the norm for HD video, but we have had a few cases where people have shot at 24.00 fps, requiring 30.00ND time code.

So the answer is really "it depends."

--Marc W.

[Alan]

I'll check the doc and see if I have time to do a quick rewrite. As far as I know, 29.97 would be the norm for HD video, but we have had a few cases where people have shot at 24.00 fps, requiring 30.00ND time code.

So the answer is really "it depends."

--Marc W.

Hi Marc and all,

Just a curious question about a workflow happening in my country (PAL), what are the benefits of shooting 35mm film on 24FPS and transfer to HD on 23.976 (MOS) to be edited on FCP HD (Sound syncing)? Why not a transfer to HD in 25fps? Makes the sound workflow more straight forward IMHO. I was discussing with a post audio engineer and a video editor today about this. Unless this is for the visuals, i don't see this workflow has any benefits.

Alan

[Marc Wielage]

what are the benefits of shooting 35mm film on 24FPS and transfer to HD on 23.976 (MOS) to be edited on FCP HD (Sound syncing)? Why not a transfer to HD in 25fps?

It can work that way just fine. I know that Avid can pull the entire project back down to 24fps, but I'm not exactly sure how that's handled in Final Cut Pro.

But I have done several projects shot in Europe where the film was at 24fps, and the sound had 25-frame timecode. We just make sure the DAT (or DVD-RAM machine) gets a proper 25-frame reference. We can resolve it either at the 23.976 film rate for NTSC video (or 24P HD), or transfer to PAL. We haven't done many 25-frame HD projects, but we've gotten more this year than I would have expected.

Ultimately, though, the choice of frame rate depends more on where the film (or HD) project is being released. If it's for European/PAL TV, then 25fps makes total sense. But if it's a theatrical feature, I think 24fps makes more sense, with 30NDF audio TC. As long as the post facility knows what the audio timecode is supposed to be, there are workarounds to get it in sync. I would ask the post supervisor to double-check, to make sure everybody's on the same page.

--Marc W.

[Marc Wielage]

Attached is a PDF of the revised doc, with the fixes for the 24Psf timecode.

--Marc W.

Location_Sound_for_Post_3rd_Draft.pdf

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

I also am posting the specs from Eric Benton of Modern Video.

Regards,

Richard

MODERN_VIDEOPostSpecs.pdf

[wolf]

Advertisement:

my books meat is free on my website and it deals with a lot of the Sync issues above. Download it for free or buy it at the usual suspects the audio dealers:

http://wolfvid.com/html/lit.html

[Ray M. Owen]

Hi All

Just went back through this topic.

Do new versions of the specs exist?  Could you post them?

Have a GREAT Day!!!

Ray

[RobertKennedy]

I find that most HD post facilities are capable of keeping 23.98 throughout the entire workflow and that audio recorded at 29.97ND may be a kink in the process.  I believe the reason that it was sometimes suggested to set the audio recorder to 29.97ND when on a 23.98 shoot was because picture and sound editorial had equipment that could not do 23.98.  Now that 23.98 has become so common and most modern equipment can operate there, I rarely suggest anything other than matching the camera framerate when working on an HD project.

In short: When camera is HD 23.98, audio should be at 23.98 unless there is a compelling reason otherwise (equipment shortcoming or editorial happening in NTSC)

On a side note, some audio recorders (such as the Sound Devices 7-series) always stamp timecode at the 00 frame (even second).  This makes converting between 29.97ND and 23.98 a breeze.  Simply change the framerate stamp.  Other recorders do not necessarily stamp the 00 frame and simply changing the framerate stamp may result in a <1 sec offset.

[RPSharman]

I find that most HD post facilities are capable of keeping 23.98 throughout the entire workflow and that audio recorded at 29.97ND may be a kink in the process.  I believe the reason that it was sometimes suggested to set the audio recorder to 29.97ND when on a 23.98 shoot was because picture and sound editorial had equipment that could not do 23.98.  Now that 23.98 has become so common and most modern equipment can operate there, I rarely suggest anything other than matching the camera framerate when working on an HD project.

In short: When camera is HD 23.98, audio should be at 23.98 unless there is a compelling reason otherwise (equipment shortcoming or editorial happening in NTSC)

On a side note, some audio recorders (such as the Sound Devices 7-series) always stamp timecode at the 00 frame (even second).  This makes converting between 29.97ND and 23.98 a breeze.  Simply change the framerate stamp.  Other recorders do not necessarily stamp the 00 frame and simply changing the framerate stamp may result in a <1 sec offset.

While this SHOULD be true, I just finished a pilot for ABC Family whose HD dailies facility could not handle 23.98.

Tragic!

[Marc Wielage]

While this SHOULD be true, I just finished a pilot for ABC Family whose HD dailies facility could not handle 23.98.

At the old Complete Post (circa 2005), I put up a stink about this and the engineers figured out a way to provide patchable 23.98 sync to every room. Once we had that, it was no problem to do 23.98 sound timecode for HD telecine in any of the 11 rooms in the building, after about 1 minute of patching. For awhile, we could only do it in two or three rooms. The new Technicolor facility handles it fine (for what few film dailies projects they still do).

I'm amazed in 2010, the post houses haven't gotten all this together by now. (But then, I also yell at my TV set when I see an HD commercial being shown in standard-def.)

--Marc W.

[studiomprd]

" I also yell at my TV set when I see an HD commercial being shown in standard-def. "

since I no longer bother to watch anything in standard def, if that happens, I boycott both the product, and the station/network involved!

[dfisk]

I remember back when the new Devas came out, and I was at Coffey Sound, we tried to get them to go with the Deva (we knew they were going PD-6's) and they were pretty adamant about NOT getting the deva. I don't know what the deal was, but I got a vibe they didn't like to do anything that wasn't "their way". I have also talked with other mixers that had to deal with using their own equipment on a show instead of WB's. It's been several years since I've been in that environment, so I can't say if it's still that way now, but I got a very anti-deva feeling from them back with the new ones came out.

Thanks for that Larry. This must be a specificatinon for TV shows, right? I am glad to see that they no longer put "Fostex PD6 preferred" in the spec (particularly since that is a machine that is no longer being produced). I understand the 48.048 sampe rate but cautioning only Deva users on these settings does not address the potential problems from other users/machines since they all seem to handle 48.048 differently. The point is, as Courtney so often points out, is that pull down and pull up issues need to be figured out and then stick with it. I also take exception to the insistence on 16-bit and UDF format. I know why they are doing this but it isn't right.

Warner Bros. was quite late coming to many of these technological changes, refusing to allow ANYTHING different than what they wanted to do. I had huge battles with Warner Bros. over my use of DAT and then later my use of the Deva --- I tried to help move the studio to what I knew would be the way we will do our work but they wouldn't budge. My efforts were rewarded by their transfer department screwing up our dailies on "The Last Samurai" even to the extent that they actually deleted takes on my disks and did not tell me they had done this. In typical Warner Bros. fashion they later purchased about 40 PD-6's and a bunch of DV-40's and then "standardized" on that, even suggesting that if you used a different recording "system" the Studio could not guarentee that your dailies would be handled properly. Reminds me of the good old days when Warner Bros. sabotaged Ron Cogswell's Nagra dailies because he was using his own equipment, not the studios. This was a case where Ron had secretly run 2 machines, 2 Nagras, so he had a backup --- Ron had a feeling about what Warner Bros. was up to and so this backup saved his job (and the movie he was working on).

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Jeff Wexler]

I don't know what the deal was, but I got a vibe they didn't like to do anything that wasn't "their way". I have also talked with other mixers that had to deal with using their own equipment on a show instead of WB's. It's been several years since I've been in that environment, so I can't say if it's still that way now, but I got a very anti-deva feeling from them back with the new ones came out.

Things have improved, somewhat, since almost all production sound recording is now being done on file based machines (from several prominent manufacturers). During the time we were trying to use the Deva, Fostex was gearing up for their introduction of a file based machine and were in talks with Warner Bros. Fostex obviously played up the existing Warner Bros. policy of standardizing on one way of doing things and wanted to be the main equipment supplier. What still remains is the attitude that when working for Warner Bros. you have to do things THEIR way, no matter what. I believe as well that it is still Studio policy that TV shows use Warner Bros. equipment.