Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5263147 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 01:55:36 +0200 Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id g12so1677019oah.19 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:56:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=ZsAcxEiGqx82GQQ+ulchN4Vug5Sh56hH1P0UhpIJswc=; b=R04IMnmwi/+SIJoyMDzoo3+mSnva/Ntm74l1RZB8MupnDQ+ASAdn08g9nbGERbr/UB zkumg7b3RhaDrDJqj30git5tl4U7W5ZRGND9TgfSiKmM8eaEuw5pcGdo8pziyXyA0JIz 8xjV6UqH840u/13DROzOqFxSB//P3e90pCS3bKM63inlxaV9R5Zwaoo5CQOssUxHplDu ECaA2Z73ED0lLQnSr4nZlurhU2ttDHbGEXLfAyNrWQiAYSJsAVtrobN6CCHuoCrAXqKK dWxwNgqoxsIYCBSQpCOFVxfgU5SFJPFLW1t0PGA0nLiUhEdw8d+3WO1Z5cm/RfCIKopP WeeQ== X-Received: by 10.182.81.65 with SMTP id y1mr12509obx.89.1382572602187; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:56:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.32.5 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:56:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jayse Hansen Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:56:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate? To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e4d32d4636e04e9714417 --047d7b2e4d32d4636e04e9714417 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 20% is pretty significant if you're adding any 3d elements with any quality whatsoever! I think, for footage mixed graphics 24+motionblur looks so much nicer than 30 with or without moblur - but I'm one of those who also despises the 'new tv default-settings' look with a passion. For graphics only - 60fps can be awesome. Just depends on the purpose. -------------------------------- Jayse Hansen www.jayse.tv jayse@jayse.tv 702-321-3449 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > 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). > > 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 > 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 > > > > +---End of message---+ > > To unsubscribe send any message to > > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > > > --047d7b2e4d32d4636e04e9714417 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
20% is pretty significant if you're adding any 3d elem= ents with any quality whatsoever!=A0

I think, for = footage mixed graphics 24+motionblur looks so much nicer than 30 with or wi= thout moblur - =A0but I'm one of those who also despises the 'new t= v default-settings' look with a passion. For graphics only - 60fps can = be awesome. Just depends on the purpose.

----------------------------= ----
702-321-3449



On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Steve O= akley <steveo@practicali.com> wrote:
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 smo= other 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 pr= oduction 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 w= e get from clients is almost always 23.976 and when we shoot, we shoot at 2= 3.976

Phil



P= hil Spitler=A0 |=A0 Creative Technologist =A0 |=A0=A0Bo= nfire Labs=A0 |=A0 t : 415.394.8200=A0 m : 415.571.3139

Website=A0|=A0Face= book=A0|=A0LinkedIn

On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:37 PM, patrick = Siemer wrote:

There is a benefit to work= ing at 23.976 (24), and that is the accumulated savings of time in renderin= g and animating. 20% faster renders, 20% fewer keyframes. 20% less Data to = move around, upload, etc. It is not insignificant. =A0yes 29.97(30) is a bi= t smoother, but really, every single feature film you ever saw uses 24 fps,= and have they suffered from it? =A0Headaches occur when someone forgets th= ey are now working at 24 fps and drop it in a 30 fps comp, or vice versa. = =A0It happens to everyone at least once. =A0The main thing to worry about i= s 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 an= d motion graphics. the dp insisted on shooting 23.976 with the same "f= ilmic" justification. for spots, corporate/industrial and online 23.97= 6 just creates more problems and will give you a massive migraine.=A0=


On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:03 = PM, James Culbertson <albion@speakeas= y.net> wrote:

I work for one company that has always don= e its corporate work (primarily for the web) at 29.97 progressive. They hav= e 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 o= f motion graphics (particularly text) look smoother at 29.97. I'm curio= us 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 whe= n compared to DOF, color, and things like story. Particularly when most con= sumers 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&g= t;


+---End of m= essage---+
To unsubscribe send an= y message to <ae-list-off@medi= a-motion.tv>


+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any mess= age to <ae-list-off@media-moti= on.tv>


--047d7b2e4d32d4636e04e9714417--