Return-Path: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5263112 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 01:25:57 +0200 Received: from [10.1.1.208] (71-13-195-18.static.eucl.wi.charter.com [71.13.195.18]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Mg52j-1VNDaD48Ht-00NQeA; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:27:02 -0400 From: Steve Oakley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4D2E5AF0-36D1-4D58-989B-F2F1333AFB8C" Message-Id: <72104108-1FD8-4DA5-A7C3-5569DEED0063@practicali.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:27:00 -0500 References: To: After Effects Mail List In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Qpl/Aj4ipS+Sz6oc/7T99c7vy53dshPlx6G3/ICLeMk bBKmTa2jSB3uipc/5KyB6OMca0E88cG1XQPLKCFnNLIZuIhcKU q28KsVcUs2eK1vf2ba8w5Teb+M4L3L+QLUsq/ySeD+uo/1pW+D LPLR97JxgkXYxq//hu6O525HzQEqg4HwfLyeYcYcBlQ2UAtT0l Mru+zxLvg9bMGxtkR9M7JB0Khtwfv4k3ksiYmqICjFvwe29wFG tFlzVFjA5iNNd0wIV8GPWRFWzMMN0zxi18wHWSZAD0s7cee/fI TtLwnJcVPmXxlmrZD6i8R3u2jWDT1uVqIOVQcdnz1h6O+WBzGu bxHnLpGPjJajV92KfJ52KlTE3l5fU7HM/VIESaJX0h5ZL6QTCS yS9Y8tnu/4QQA== --Apple-Mail=_4D2E5AF0-36D1-4D58-989B-F2F1333AFB8C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I really disagree as a DP / editor / MG VFX artist. I do almost = everything 24p except broadcast news.... they want 29.97 often referred = to as 59.94i while some animation may have smoother looking moves in 30, cranking up = some motion blur in 24 cancels a lot of that out. 24 is its own beast, = make friends with it because a lot of production is being done with it. = certainly nearly 100% of my corporate work. the exception being when I'm = a hired gun for an out of town production shooting something... and even = they 24 is pretty frequent. S On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:43 PM, Phil Spitler wrote: > We work almost exclusively at 1920x1080 @ 23.976 for many reasons = (some of which Patrick listed). >=20 > Also, footage we get from clients is almost always 23.976 and when we = shoot, we shoot at 23.976 >=20 > Phil >=20 >=20 >=20 > Phil Spitler | Creative Technologist | Bonfire Labs | t : = 415.394.8200 m : 415.571.3139 >=20 > Website | Facebook | LinkedIn >=20 > On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:37 PM, patrick Siemer wrote: >=20 >> 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=_4D2E5AF0-36D1-4D58-989B-F2F1333AFB8C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii I = really disagree as a DP / editor / MG VFX artist. I do almost everything = 24p except broadcast news.... they want 29.97 often referred to as = 59.94i

while some animation may have smoother looking moves in = 30, cranking up some motion blur in 24 cancels a lot of that out. 24 is = its own beast, make friends with it because a lot of production is being = done with it. certainly nearly 100% of my corporate work. the exception = being when I'm a hired gun for an out of town production shooting = something... and even they 24 is pretty = frequent.

S

On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:43 = PM, Phil Spitler <phil@bonfirelabs.com> = wrote:

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:

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>
<= /div>
= --Apple-Mail=_4D2E5AF0-36D1-4D58-989B-F2F1333AFB8C--