Video Engine Frame Rate? Red 23 fps?

[myleskramer]

This thread is pretty old but for anyone who is reading it now, I solved the problem:

The problem was in Premiere CC, not Pro Tools.

On export, the exported video was not coming out as 23.98 fps despite my export settings. My exports were resulting in strange frame rates like 23.18, 23.16, etc. which was causing my video to lag in the Pro Tools video engine, resulting in my syncing mismatch.

To fix the problem:
1) make sure there are no gaps between clips in the Premiere timeline. Replace all gaps with a black video with correct frame rate specs (23.98fps in my case)
2) do not select "Optimize Stills" when exporting your video

After this, my exports were coming out correctly at 23.98 fps.


Hope this helps someone!

[V5V]

Originally Posted by myleskramer

This thread is pretty old but for anyone who is reading it now, I solved the problem: [...]

Thanks for posting the follow-up! I hope I never need the information you've provided, but I sure am glad you posted it in case I do!

[Kasper]

The frames were not ALL the same rate.
Now, I'm not exactly sure how this happens, but it does.

There are some apps that can analyze the rate and tell you what it is. I use Video spec, it's a freebie (http://videospec.free.fr/english/) Anything other than 100% the same rate and PT will report it as another rate.

My workaround is to recompress with Apple Compressor, the only app I have found that corrects the problem.
QT does not, in my experience.

Many years back, Premiere could "conform" the movie to the proper rate.
I had a copy for ONLY that purpose.
It would only take a few seconds to do so, so it wasn't recompressing the whole file, only adjusting the rate of the errant frames.

Is that capability still in the current Premiere?

Thanks,
kasper.

[V5V]

Originally Posted by Kasper

The frames were not ALL the same rate.
Now, I'm not exactly sure how this happens, but it does.

Some CODECs will do that if you're not careful with export settings. Variable frame rate compression can reduce file size considerably, but according to what's been written here, will apparently cause Pro Tools to barf.

The "industry standard" and "professional choice" for audio post from the company that claims pinnacle status for their video editor uses a video engine that seems to abhor consumer video formats.

Obviously one prefers not to use heavily compressed material, but when the footage comes from common sources like DSLRs which output h.264, or the video is simply a reference track for spotting audio, having to re-encode everything before it can be used is a time consuming drain on creative energy.

[Kasper]

You seem to have some agenda RE the "industry standard"
OK, fine .... if you don't like PT, don't use it.

However, consumer formats are just that; not suitable for our use.
H264 or any temporal codec will be unstable by it's very nature.

Point taken though, and hence my ? ... does the current Premiere conform all frames without having to re-encode?


kasper

[V5V]

Originally Posted by Kasper

You seem to have some agenda RE the "industry standard"

I guess I do. It irks me that Pro Tools is so bloody finicky and easily broken by drivers for non-Avid devices, certain hardware components, and even CODECS so common they may be described as "universal."

Originally Posted by Kasper

OK, fine .... if you don't like PT, don't use it.

Are you saying that if I have complaints I should stop using it, and if I use it I should not complain, or have I misunderstood what you meant?

I wish I could tell you conclusively whether or not Premiere will do what you're asking but I don't know off the top of my head. I'd check, but I cancelled my Adobe subscription because I object to the payment model. I've also stopped upgrading Pro Tools for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Kasper

However, consumer formats are just that; not suitable for our use.
H264 or any temporal codec will be unstable by it's very nature.

I disagree, and said why, but maybe I didn't state my thoughts clearly. So, to clarify and maybe elaborate a little:

1. One doesn't need a high-quality picture for audio post. Since delivery to audio post almost invariably involves sending it over some form of network connection, often even via the internet, the reduced file size of a compressed format offers benefit in the form of reduced bandwidth consumption and transfer time.

2. Current hardware is plenty powerful enough to decode on the fly. It shouldn't be necessary to create an additional, size-bloated version just to be able to use it in Pro Tools.

3. Pro Tools is the ONLY app among the many tools I use over the course of a typical year that imposes that kind of silly limitation. Even Adobe Audition allows one to import VFR h.264 and get to work. If other apps can accommodate sub-optimal video without screwing up, why can't the "industry standard?"

4. It's time-consuming and a mood killer to have to convert files before importing them. It requires either doing it on my own time or making small talk while the client anxiously stares at the clock.

I'm sorry I couldn't answer your question, but I appreciate the opportunity to vent my spleen over how frustrating I find being an Avid user!

With respect,
Lorin

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by V5V

Are you saying that if I have complaints I should stop using it, and if I use it I should not complain, or have I misunderstood what you meant?

Complaining is the main sport here on the DUC, but if you have found something better, use it.
I doubt you have, or you wouldn't be here.
I know I haven't, and not for lack of trying.

Originally Posted by V5V

I disagree, and said why, but maybe I didn't state my thoughts clearly. So, to clarify and maybe elaborate a little:

1. One doesn't need a high-quality picture for audio post. ...

Maybe you don't, but "one's" needs are quite variable.
Besides, frame accurate and high quality are not always the same thing. However, frame accurate is needed for post.
High compression, temporal codecs are not accurate, nor designed for this purpose.

Originally Posted by V5V

3. Pro Tools is the ONLY app among the many tools I use over the course of a typical year that imposes that kind of silly limitation. Even Adobe Audition allows one to import VFR h.264 and get to work. If other apps can accommodate sub-optimal video without screwing up, why can't the "industry standard?"

Then use them, problem solved. (see above)

Originally Posted by V5V

4. It's time-consuming and a mood killer to have to convert files before importing them. It requires either doing it on my own time or making small talk while the client anxiously stares at the clock.

Get used to it or get an intern

Really? Just deal with it, are you an engineer or a princess ..... that's why you make the big bucks, right?

kasper

[smurfyou]

I don't see any reason for hostility.

The main problem with the AVE as I see it is that previous versions of PT could import and play an H264 with no problem. Scrubbing was terrible and sync was iffy but it worked well enough to drop in and spot with a client, even if you were converting it to a better codec in the background.

Now it borders on unusable. H264 is listed as a supported codec, therefore it should work even within limitations like no scrubbing and sync slop. I don't even try to use them anymore. But according to the compatibility doc I should be able to.

Variable frame rate movies are not an acceptable deliverable but you don't always think to inspect each QT before you import it. PT should tell you its not kosher and offer to convert it for you to your desired codec. That would be an ideal solution.

If Avid wants everyone to use their DNx codecs they should implement a built-in background conversion. No external programs, no fiddling with settings, just an invisible conversion to a PT-friendly DNxHD movie. In the background. So I can sort through the audio timeline while it converts.

[Noiz2]

Originally Posted by Kasper

Maybe you don't, but "one's" needs are quite variable.
Besides, frame accurate and high quality are not always the same thing. However, frame accurate is needed for post.
High compression, temporal codecs are not accurate, nor designed for this purpose.
kasper

So this is not totally true. h.264 can be positionally accurate all you have to do is have it drop a keyframe on every frame. An easy setting that still gets you a reasonable file size and every frame is fully represented.

Now in truth you are misunderstanding how it works because even with keyframes every 24 frames (the usual default) you are getting a one to one frame relationship. The reason to add keyframes in is that jogging and shuttling backward can be a huge PITA with out having every frame a key frame. Either way there is a frame in the h.264 for every frame in the uncompressed version. If you are loosing positional accuracy it is because your computer/ video card etc. is not able to keep up with decompressing on the fly, something having a key frame every frame also fixes.

And while I like PT better than any of the competition I have tried, it is ridiculously temperamental with video. The main reason I believe is that they are using Quicktime for playback and expecting high accuracy. QT is notorious for pulling frame rates out of it neither quarters. You can play the same file five minutes apart and QT will report different frame rates. If AVID is going to use QT then they NEED to roll with it's weirdness with FR. This is an ongoing problem with every file format I have used with PT. QT very often reports 23.976 as 23.98 and IF it read as 23.976 when you imported it into PT and the next day QT decides it's 23.98 you can't import the very same video because it has a "frame rate missmatch". I have literally had that problem and had to create a new session with the video and import the tracks from yesterdays session.

[Kasper]

First off, you do realize this thread is 2 years old?
(it matters because the tech and hopefully our understanding of it is evolving)

Regardless ... you have a number of misconceptions -

If every frame is a key frame, it is no longer high compression nor temporal.
H264 and other temporal codecs achieve their relatively small file size by throwing away information that is the same between frames.
They are designed for keeping file size and bandwidth low, not for post.

PT no longer uses QT, the AVE and preferred codecs have been implemented since 11.
(if this is an improvement is highly debatable, and has been here on the DUC at length)

23.98 and 23.976 are exactly the same, there is no difference.
It's merely different nomenclature (laziness/ignorance) between manufacturers.

If you are having problems or PT reports a different frame rate than QT player, that's because all the frames in the QT are not the same length. The movie needs to be conformed so all the frames are of the same length/speed.

kasper