From: brian@totaltraining.com
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Subject: Re[2]: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:45:02 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <list-5263034@media-motion.tv>
Message-Id: <em95b615b3-6b54-4bc9-b6a3-ca6554cedf1a@production-pc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: brian@totaltraining.com
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.18661.0

While this is technically true, it is (for me at least) not the problem=20
it once was. A 20% increase on a 5-day render was catastrophic. But a=20
20% increase on a 30-minute render is an extra round of Puzzle Quest.

Storage is likewise so cheap now that the extra frames don't really cost=
=20
me much.

Just my take...

B

------ Original Message ------
From: "patrick Siemer" <siemer@gmail.com>
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Sent: 10/23/2013 6:37:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate?
>There is a benefit to working at 23.976 (24), and that is the=20
>accumulated savings of time in rendering and animating. 20% faster=20
>renders, 20% fewer keyframes. 20% less Data to move around, upload,=20
>etc. It is not insignificant. yes 29.97(30) is a bit smoother, but=20
>really, every single feature film you ever saw uses 24 fps, and have=20
>they suffered from it? Headaches occur when someone forgets they are=20
>now working at 24 fps and drop it in a 30 fps comp, or vice versa. It=20
>happens to everyone at least once. The main thing to worry about is=20
>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=20
>>broadcast that was about equal with footage shot on set, combined with=
=20
>>animations and motion graphics. the dp insisted on shooting 23.976=20
>>with the same "filmic" justification. for spots, corporate/industrial=20
>>and online 23.976 just creates more problems and will give you a=20
>>massive migraine.
>>
>>
>>  On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:03 PM, James Culbertson <albion@speakeasy.net>=
=20
>>wrote:
>>
>>>  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=20
>>>in a new DP who is religious about using 23.976. I'm not that=20
>>>attached one way or the other except that I find that certain kinds=20
>>>of motion graphics (particularly text) look smoother at 29.97. I'm=20
>>>curious what others standardize on in the corporate sphere when going=
=20
>>>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=20
>>>compared to DOF, color, and things like story. Particularly when most=
=20
>>>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>