Message-ID: <5268DFFE.7040803@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:53:18 +0100
From: Perry Mitchell <perry.mitchell@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
Subject: Re: [AE] [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate?
References: <list-5263306@media-motion.tv>
In-Reply-To: <list-5263306@media-motion.tv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I always thought it was a 3 blade shutter in movie theaters? When I was 
a kid we saw films in the local village hall with a cranky projector 
that would definitely be 2 bladed! They were known as the 'flicks' for 
obvious reasons. I think a significant proportion of Americans would see 
some flicker at 48hz; there is definitely an environment factor in this 
and visitors to Europe often complain about our 50Hz world.
One of the frustrations to somebody who occasionally lectures the 
theories of motion perception is that many folks struggle to understand 
the personal nature of this. One man's 'film look' is another man's 
'judder'! As an outsider - the 3:2 experience does not give an 
attractive perception of motion. As an engineer it is an interesting 
solution but I cannot see that it would ever have been invented if 
motion film had not already existed. To shoot and edit a video piece to 
get the same effect is (to me) an example of 'the emperor's new clothes' 
but hey - everybody has the right to like what they like!
To me it is praise by association. I was just watching a piece on the 
news about Concorde (it is some anniversary). The reporter was in a 
museum exhibit of one of the planes and rightly reported that it was 
actually not a very pleasant experience - it was cramped and 
claustrophobic with tiny windows. The time savings for ordinary 
passengers (without the VIP ground service) were limited but everybody 
dreamed of flying on it because of all the famous folks who used it.
What is fascinating to me is to see how film and video will develop into 
the totally digital world with no legacy restraints. 4K/48fps is 
obviously an immediate target and it is interesting that you can now buy 
a TV to show this even though there is no current way (in the UK) of 
delivering the programs!
By the way - electronic displays do indeed repeat supplied frames. Most 
TVs have some form of motion renderer that will generate the extra 
frames to some form of algorithm that (if you are lucky) has some user 
control. You can play with these for hours but don't expect your family 
to necessarily like your settings!
FWIW

Perry Mitchell
Engineer
Farnham, Surrey

On 24/10/2013 04:53, 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.
>