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>