Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: [AE] [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate?
From: Gary Reisman <garyreisman@mac.com>
In-reply-to: <list-5263062@media-motion.tv>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:24:13 -0700
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <F8FADF13-2041-4DCC-A024-7F73D1C401AC@mac.com>
References: <list-5263062@media-motion.tv>
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>, brian@totaltraining.com

Well,  24p does look more filmic and less "video", so can't really blame =
people for favoring it.  (and on the flip side,. seems like a lot of =
people dissed Pete Jackson for going 48p on The Hobbit!)

24fps always =3D 20% faster RAM previews...  20% faster uploads. and in =
some fields,.  that 20% might not seem like much, but for those who work =
on ridiculous daily  deadlines,  that can be huge.
(one of the reasons I try to avoid field rendering much of the time)

But I do agree,  if you're forced to remove 3:2 pulldown in a 29.97 =
video (that's been edited),   what a headache!@#

-Gary


On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:45 PM, brian@totaltraining.com wrote:

> While this is technically true, it is (for me at least) not the =
problem it once was. A 20% increase on a 5-day render was catastrophic. =
But a 20% increase on a 30-minute render is an extra round of Puzzle =
Quest.
>=20
> Storage is likewise so cheap now that the extra frames don't really =
cost me much.
>=20
> Just my take...
>=20
> B
>=20
> ------ 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 =
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
>>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:03 PM, James Culbertson <albion@speakeasy.net> =
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 <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> +---End of message---+
>>> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
>>=20
>>=20
>> +---End of message---+
>> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
>=20
>=20
> +---End of message---+
> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>