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 = 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?

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>

+---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>