Return-Path: Received: from nk11p00mm-asmtp005.mac.com ([17.158.161.4] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 5263077 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:53:17 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.68] (99-152-153-100.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.153.100]) by nk11p00mm-asmtp005.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.08(7.0.4.27.7) 64bit (built Aug 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0MV50002U8YNRK40@nk11p00mm-asmtp005.mac.com> for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:54:24 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.10.8794,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2013-10-23_04:2013-10-23,2013-10-23,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1308280000 definitions=main-1310230110 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate? From: Jim Curtis In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:54:22 -0500 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <6AABBF12-916A-4CB8-B774-2411F3609098@me.com> References: To: After Effects Mail List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Except when you enable or increase motion blur to address the strobing. = There go your render savings, if you have a lot of position movement. On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:37 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