From: brian@totaltraining.com
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:06:25 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <list-5263016@media-motion.tv>
Message-Id: <emd041120e-2b61-4700-b3dc-88c7fb04b6fd@production-pc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: brian@totaltraining.com
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.18661.0

I'm with you. 29.97 still looks "filmic" to my eye, but definitely=20
smoothe than 23.976fps ( almost by definition ).

B

------ Original Message ------
From: "James Culbertson" <albion@speakeasy.net>
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Sent: 10/23/2013 6:03:46 PM
Subject: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate?
>I work for one company that has always done its corporate work=20
>(primarily for the web) at 29.97 progressive. They have just brought in=
=20
>a new DP who is religious about using 23.976. I'm not that attached one=
=20
>way or the other except that I find that certain kinds of motion=20
>graphics (particularly text) look smoother at 29.97. I'm curious what=20
>others standardize on in the corporate sphere when going to the web?
>
>I've always found the notion of using 23.976 for "filmic" effect=20
>overrated outside of feature narrative/documentary sphere when compared=
=20
>to DOF, color, and things like story. Particularly when most consumers=20
>don't notice the difference in my experience.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>James
>
>
>+---End of message---+
>To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>