Return-Path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5263058 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:42:38 +0200 Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id un1so1635573pbc.19 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:43:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:content-type:subject:date :in-reply-to:to:references:message-id; bh=rNvCIpjeEjmoVcqSTUL04YWFPgf6ur68IPR7ScidB/8=; b=NbRNbqDnytSu+PpW/eKhA/cesXNegJQlrQmVGsppZejI4ySmdd2fdvoKwumOIZXcwP zVA44nNW/b0/qpoQFB8HIadY7iV7GWss52ua7tFLxSa9p99AQK56YesNGjQZ+mYiRTgv rkvwLTsytjjeZLv9bGoIHJEOy7G7VSC+QpvKoqOPkhqbcuHvgmTLGHuzhBhnlb8BEtII IROcvDEHKKHThDG7Bf2a8gIykaFxsw+mNf3l5xZTdLUaA+EoQie6ScyO3qhhjbPpBizJ tugeNcCiQF7IN5xVj57B+O9blc0C274H+qt9Vz9tfKmNdLImiZdgsbOZZrcHXWGzCR+3 QuCg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmS6y/sPx2eerOVm6XwHan/6yGop9vdD0qVi1j9dwGDzCNopfGRYtyen2yNofW47QqJuHtn X-Received: by 10.68.125.226 with SMTP id mt2mr3914054pbb.115.1382568223700; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [10.0.0.227] ([65.223.58.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hw10sm6888689pbc.24.2013.10.23.15.43.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:43:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Spitler Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3E4C006-AA26-41F9-A8E5-32A6594C5DCA" Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:43:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: <06871925-1598-4250-89E0-40E02307CF8C@bonfirelabs.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) --Apple-Mail=_B3E4C006-AA26-41F9-A8E5-32A6594C5DCA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii We work almost exclusively at 1920x1080 @ 23.976 for many reasons (some = of which Patrick listed). Also, footage we get from clients is almost always 23.976 and when we = shoot, we shoot at 23.976 Phil Phil Spitler | Creative Technologist | Bonfire Labs | t : = 415.394.8200 m : 415.571.3139 Website | Facebook | LinkedIn On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:37 PM, patrick Siemer wrote: > 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: >=20 >> 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 >=20 >=20 > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to --Apple-Mail=_B3E4C006-AA26-41F9-A8E5-32A6594C5DCA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii We = work almost exclusively at 1920x1080 @ 23.976 for many reasons (some of = which Patrick listed).

Also, footage we get from = clients is almost always 23.976 and when we shoot, we shoot at = 23.976

Phil


signature1 Phil = Spitler  |  Creative Technologist   |  Bonfire Labs  |  t : 415.394.8200  m : = 415.571.3139

Website | Facebook | LinkedIn

On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:37 PM, patrick Siemer = wrote:

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. =


On Oct 23, = 2013, at 3:03 PM, James Culbertson <albion@speakeasy.net> = wrote:

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?

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.

Thoughts?

James


+---End of = message---+
To unsubscribe send any message = to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>


+---End of = message---+
To unsubscribe = send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>


+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe = send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>

= --Apple-Mail=_B3E4C006-AA26-41F9-A8E5-32A6594C5DCA--