[Steven Lin]

Sound & Vision seems to be on a crusade to fix usage of this conversion process. They claim that "2:3 pulldown" is the correct term.


They seem to stand alone in this regard. I don't see anybody here using "2:3 pulldown". Is S&V right? Why?

 

[snowmoon]

Actually they are both correct. The general consensous is that the process of taking film to video is a 3-2 pulldown conversion. The diffrence between 2:3 and 3:2 is almost nothing.


The diffrence is all dependant on if the FIRST frame of film is converted to 2 or 3 fileds of video.

 

[ciper]

I think you may have just thrown a monkey wrench into some peoples understanding! Im not sure anymore. But i think they are refferring to taking all video and changing it into two frames. Half of the vieo exists as three frames so they get 2 frames from 3 that were on the movie or 2:3 pulldown?

 

[Guy Kuo]

Having the pull-down sequence start with a 2 frame can make the editing process simpler than starting with a 3 frame. When you receive a telecined segment or have a telecine done you specify the cadence and where in the cadence the clips should begin. Otherwise, things can get out of sync and you could make scene cuts at bad places (a frame with mixed fields). Then there's the issue of odd or even field dominance which must also be specified.


For the general public, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to be so exact as to call things 2/3 pull-down instead of the more common but perhaps antiquated and less accurate phrase 3/2 pull down. Most people could care less and don't really understand what pull down means anyway.