Does Premiere read them without issue?
According to the manual:
This tells me that you may be improperly interpreting the footage. What happens if you just create a new comp from the footage? What are the comp settings? If they are 60i then step through the footage one frame at a time. If there are no duplicate frames then AE is properly interpreting the footage. If there are duplicates then you need to check for blended frames where you have what looks like a double exposure of things that are moving. If there are no blended frames and you have duplicates you should see something 4 frames that are the same, then 4, then 6, and so on. If you don't get some kind of a pattern like that then let us know.
If you have a crash then AE is not decompressing the footage properly. If there is a Canon utility for importing the footage I would use that and convert it to a production codec. If there is no utility I would convert the footage to a suitable production codec in Premiere Pro or just directly in the Adobe Media Encoder.
Hi Rick, thanks for the response.
It does show up as 60i, sorry my bad. I have been using this technique for 2+ years now. The issue with premiere is when you add this footage (without running it through AE) to a project in Premiere then the footage is displayed as 60i, even though it is 24P footage. Never sure why Canon did this but they did.
If you add that footage to a project defined as 24P with other 24P footage the Canon footage is terrible, ghosting, anti aliasing like there is no tomorrow. If I feed it through AE and then add it as 24P then all is well and no issues at all.
I did not come up with this technique, was told about it by Eugenia and it has been good until now.
It appears to be file dependent as some files work just fine while others cause the hang.
The funky way of doing 24p in video was developed because until recently it was not possible for monitors to run at different frame rates. Everything in the US ran at 29.97 frames per second interlaced. When you wanted progressive footage each field was just identical slices in time. If you wanted 24 fps you had to slow it down to 23.976, which didn't effect the sound quality, interlace it and then use a combination of 2 identical fields and 3 identical fields. There's where the 3:2 pulldown comes in.
Almost everything that is broadcast on cable and everything that goes over the air is still 29.97 fps interlaced. In Pal countries it's 25 fps interlaced. Delivering our content used to be one standard, now there are many. There are endless articles and papers written on visual perception and delivery of video or movie content. The HFR "Hobbit" from Peter Jackson was loved by some and panned by many. There is little agreement as to the best way to tell a story with moving images. I can only tell you one thing for sure. It's much harder to get smooth motion and visually pleasing motion in the frame at 24 fps than it is at 29.97 (30) and if you are setting your camera to 24 or 24p you had better be careful when moving the camera at or near critical panning speeds or you will have unwatchable video. Anybody that grew up shooting 35mm film with a motion picture camera learned about the problems associated with 24 fps filming or you didn't work on many projects.