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-5263306@media-motion.tv>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:08:34 -0700
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <3ED4553F-EDE9-4C2B-8A0E-9056A6CF5AD5@mac.com>
References: <list-5263306@media-motion.tv>
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>

But film being projected is no longer the case as well..

I actually have no idea when the last time I saw celluloid projected on =
screen,.   most of the theaters I go to have gone digital  (or I can't =
tell when I'm viewing)..

But it can be argued that 99% of theatrical releases are being produced =
at 24fps
so there's nothing wrong with people wanting to do the same for their =
home/corporate videos.

On Oct 23, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Phil Mastman <pmlists@sandlotpictures.com> =
wrote:

> In my opinion, the big benefit of 23.98 is when it is being shown on
> broadcast TV, with 3:2 pulldown added to make it 29.97. In that =
situation it
> does look more "cinematic".  In most corporate situations, this is no =
longer
> the case, and in my opinion I prefer the smooth natural quality of =
shooting
> and editing at 29.97.. Still looks cinematic to me.
>=20
> Projected film is not really comparable... Movie projectors show each =
frame
> twice at 24p. There is no real equivalent to that in electronic =
display.
>=20
> --Phil
>=20
> Phil Mastman
> Sandlot Pictures, Inc.
>=20
>=20
>> 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!)
>>=20
>> 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)
>>=20
>> 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!@#
>>=20
>> -Gary
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 3:45 PM, brian@totaltraining.com wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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>
>>=20
>>=20
>> +---End of message---+
>> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> +---End of message---+
> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>