Return-Path: Received: from icp-osb-irony-out4.external.iinet.net.au ([203.59.1.220] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 5263353 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:55:47 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsCAESnaFI6BjM8/2dsb2JhbAANTBaCLXyFHLFOiEaBM4MZAQEBAwFOMAcECw0EBAEBASAOIRAVCQgGCAsdBIdTAwkTp2yJTg2Ja4xggTUGgToGgxmBCwOWHQGDGoUzhW6Ib4FVCA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,559,1378828800"; d="scan'208,217";a="157659155" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.1.1.4]) ([58.6.51.60]) by icp-osb-irony-out4.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2013 12:56:51 +0800 From: Robert Davidson Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-556485392 Subject: Re: [AE] [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate? Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:56:51 +1100 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) --Apple-Mail-2-556485392 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii OK, sorry I now realise what you mean. Each frame is shown twice because of the rotating blade shutter. I suppose in some ways that could be compared to interlaced fields. Rob On 24/10/2013, at 2:53 PM, Phil Mastman 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" >>> To: "After Effects Mail List" >>> 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 = 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 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> +---End of message---+ >>> To unsubscribe send any message to >>=20 >>=20 >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to >=20 >=20 >=20 > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to Robert Davidson Multimedia Specialist 0419 211175 robdav@ozemail.com.au http://members.ozemail.com.au/~robdav/SiteRD/Welcome.html --Apple-Mail-2-556485392 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii OK, = sorry  I now realise what you mean.
Each frame is shown twice = because of the rotating blade shutter.

I = suppose in some ways that could be compared to interlaced = fields.
Rob


On = 24/10/2013, at 2:53 PM, Phil Mastman 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.

Projected film is not really comparable... = Movie projectors show each frame
twice at 24p. There is no real = equivalent to that in electronic display.

--Phil

Phil = Mastman
Sandlot Pictures, Inc.


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.

Storage is likewise so cheap now = that the extra frames don't really cost = me
much.

Just my = take...

B

------ 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:

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?
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">

I've = always found the notion of using 23.976 for "filmic" effect = overrated
outside = of feature narrative/documentary sphere when compared to = DOF,
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
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>


+---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>

= --Apple-Mail-2-556485392--