Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate?
From: Chris Zwar <chris@chriszwar.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5263016@media-motion.tv>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:34:51 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7ECA35D7-7FD1-4449-B839-C0269642A618@chriszwar.com>
References: <list-5263016@media-motion.tv>
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>

It's been interesting to catch up on emails and read through all the =
comments in this thread, especially because I have only ever lived and =
worked in 50hz countries, where the difference between 24 fps and 25 fps =
is negligible (and 24p films are played on TV as 25p).

A few years ago the whole concept of a "filmic" look meant progressive =
versus interlaced.  It is interesting to look back and see that even 10 =
years ago hardly any video cameras could shoot progressive.  If you =
wanted progressive you either shot on film or you de-interlaced in post. =
 De-interlacing is what everyone meant when they talked about a 'filmic' =
look.  I'm not sure what the first widely available video camera that =
could shoot progressive was, but I think it might even have been a =
Panasonic DVC-Pro camera from about 2004 - 2005.  I know that the first =
time I dealt with progressive digi-betacam footage was 2005, and that it =
was pretty new at the time.

Since shooting progressive is no longer a problem, I find it interesting =
that the concept of a "filmic" look is still up for discussion.  As I =
don't have any experience with 29.97 video, I really can't comment on =
how different it is to 24 / 23.976.

But my gut instinct is to agree with James and suggest that fps is =
secondary to things like depth of field, lighting and colour grading and =
so I'm a bit surprised no-one else has really commented or debated this.

I would think that something shot 29.97 that is well lit, has a shallow =
depth of field and is nicely graded would look much more filmic that =
something shot 23.976 using only available light, ungraded and with =
everything in focus.

If I had a client who wanted something "filmic" then I wouldn't worry =
about the fps, I would just go to town with something like Magic Bullet =
Looks.


-Chris

On 24/10/2013, at 9:03 AM, 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?
>=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