|
|
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
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>
|
|
