| ||||||||||
| 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? > > 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> > |
