Return-Path: Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com ([209.85.160.50] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5263050 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:36:37 +0200 Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id uo15so1611416pbc.23 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:37:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Y8AujSpSgCZ4+2Ddk9DIDadslb5jrT4aS86KvIC6ijY=; b=UYaz83aqFTgGgLlHa+d9dqZ4RTPAQ5PjOcuJPjGOr16i8B/paxTvGFfUTI5iD7wkIw X7cbmM+7s6sghHb1D0D7J18ZoS34e6+BjMVfQwWPObUEf1Cs4teX0JORBNe5vb401Nl+ VBFBolsT04II0RxKh/SeLbYoKxjbJqT8ZrZtCgSueTSfEymIPERWezp/0JxVgZlrBmxS q78JVjn57ZS2cHofovbV2jqVuUOeSWHuMWU4ZiUx2g6gVi4PYugDz7V5qkZE62ovHpiD 3j8LIm2aCEPYFcmUnOHSopYXRYNirvYeZsFv4tGIp2kL/MKh2j1TSISAKcd0hkkA6tSt A9Rw== X-Received: by 10.66.66.42 with SMTP id c10mr130184pat.98.1382567862310; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.42.65] (70-36-142-217.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net. [70.36.142.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fy4sm6889921pbb.1.2013.10.23.15.37.40 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate? From: patrick Siemer In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:37:38 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <78F9FCB9-55C2-4361-9FC8-C1665EDF131E@gmail.com> References: To: "After Effects Mail List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) There is a benefit to working at 23.976 (24), and that is the = accumulated savings of time in rendering and animating. 20% faster = renders, 20% fewer keyframes. 20% less Data to move around, upload, etc. = It is not insignificant. yes 29.97(30) is a bit smoother, but really, = every single feature film you ever saw uses 24 fps, and have they = suffered from it? Headaches occur when someone forgets they are now = working at 24 fps and drop it in a 30 fps comp, or vice versa. It = happens to everyone at least once. The main thing to worry about is = staying consistent. On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:09 PM, rik bogusz wrote: > ugh. i just went through a similar experience for a spot for broadcast = that was about equal with footage shot on set, combined with animations = and motion graphics. the dp insisted on shooting 23.976 with the same = "filmic" justification. for spots, corporate/industrial and online = 23.976 just creates more problems and will give you a massive migraine.=20= >=20 >=20 > On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:03 PM, James Culbertson = wrote: >=20 >> I work for one company that has always done its corporate work = (primarily for the web) at 29.97 progressive. They have just brought in = a new DP who is religious about using 23.976. I'm not that attached one = way or the other except that I find that certain kinds of motion = graphics (particularly text) look smoother at 29.97. I'm curious what = others standardize on in the corporate sphere when going to the web? >>=20 >> I've always found the notion of using 23.976 for "filmic" effect = overrated outside of feature narrative/documentary sphere when compared = to DOF, color, and things like story. Particularly when most consumers = don't notice the difference in my experience. >>=20 >> Thoughts? >>=20 >> James >>=20 >>=20 >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to >=20 >=20 > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to