Re: [FFmpeg-user] movement on ffmpeg .R3D v4 support?

On Feb 24, 2017, 9:55 AM -1000, Rob Wentz , wrote: > > > Hi, > I work in video post production, our DPs all shoot on Red cameras. . . it's > become the norm that if stuff is coming in shot on anything larger than 2K > it's shot on a Red camera and the footage is in .R3D. > > > I was hoping to be

Re: [FFmpeg-user] Converting a 23.98p source to 29.97i ProRes w/interlaced 3:2 pulldown?

> On Oct 27, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 October 2015 12:03:33 pm Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> Mel Matsuoka gmail.com> writes: >>> I had to add the "setfield" filter in order to >>> flag the UFF field order in t

Re: [FFmpeg-user] Converting a 23.98p source to 29.97i ProRes w/interlaced 3:2 pulldown?

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Moritz Barsnick wrote: > >> >> Is it bad form to simply use the "ntsc" and/or "ntsc-film" aliases, >> instead of using the fractional forms? > > In my opinion: Not at all. That's exactly what they're designed and > useful for. (And save you remembering the fract

Re: [FFmpeg-user] Converting a 23.98p source to 29.97i ProRes w/interlaced 3:2 pulldown?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Moritz Barsnick wrote: > > And I suppose this begs the question, where do the numbers 3 and > 1001 come from to begin with? > > From the same page, different section: > > To make the resulting pattern less noticeable, designers adjusted the > original 60

Re: [FFmpeg-user] Converting a 23.98p source to 29.97i ProRes w/interlaced 3:2 pulldown?

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > I believe (strongly) that what you like as output > framerate is not 29.97 but 3/1001 Hi Carl, I guess I'm looking for the "why", rather than the "what", as far as this syntax is concerned. In NTSC broadcast land, 29.97 fram

Re: [FFmpeg-user] Converting a 23.98p source to 29.97i ProRes w/interlaced 3:2 pulldown?

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:47 AM, Marcelo Boufleur wrote: > >> Why is "-r 3/1001" necessary? >> Is there a bug? > > "-r 3/1001" in not necessary, and there aren't any bugs related to this > code/syntax. Just for my newbie-enlightenment, is there a reason why people seem to prefer using

Re: [FFmpeg-user] Converting a 23.98p source to 29.97i ProRes w/interlaced 3:2 pulldown?

> On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > Perhaps telecine filter is what you need? Duh...I can't believe I didn't even think to search for the term "telecine". It's been so long since we worked with film transfers that I've gotten used to referring to the process as simply "pull

Re: [FFmpeg-user] Converting a 23.98p source to 29.97i ProRes w/interlaced 3:2 pulldown?

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Marcelo Boufleur wrote: > > > I'm no sure about the color primaries command though. It seems experimental > at this point. > https://ffmpeg.org/doxygen/2.8/movenc_8c_source.html > > >>{ "write_colr", "Wr

[FFmpeg-user] Converting a 23.98p source to 29.97i ProRes w/interlaced 3:2 pulldown?

I'm trying to convert 23.98p ProRes QuickTime (.mov) files to interlaced 29.97 ProRes files, and I'd like to do the frame-rate conversion to 29.97i by using a 3:2 pulldown cadence (upper-field first). I can't seem to figure out how to do this in FFmpeg 2.8 on Mac OS X 10.10.5. I am able to con