Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate?
From: Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5265143@media-motion.tv>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:45:09 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <263BF0A0-FFB8-4EEB-B99A-5F989B75D86F@practicali.com>
References: <list-5265143@media-motion.tv>
To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>


On Oct 25, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Chris Zwar <chris@chriszwar.com> wrote:
> 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.

30p is its own look somewhere between 30i and 24p. its less video =
looking and fewer stuttering effects when panning too fast.

that said, I recently bought a C100 and its changed my shooting a lot. a =
few weeks ago I was working on rigging a pair of lights in tight space, =
working on diffusion and then tried something. I shut them off, turned =
up the ISO a bit and had a perfectly great image. I still added a LED =
into the BG, but it was dimmed to about 30% to open that space up. the =
big diffused window light was what I wanted all along and simple assumed =
I'd have to remake my own because my expected ISO of 320 was well under. =
instead the camera let me go to 1200 or 1600 and it was perfect. In fact =
that one scene changed how I shot the rest of the day. While I'd always =
been a fan of supplemental light rather than relighting when working =
locations, this camera ( and others like it ) have changed this to a =
whole new level. I used a 1X1 LED outside to light up some trees as part =
of some night scenes. we had to cut them down considerably because they =
were actually too bright as compared to the interior light level. so =
don't diss available light. sometimes it looks great and all you need is =
a bounce fill or small fixture or to in order to make it great rather =
than a whole grip truck of gak + big lights because the camera can't =
make the exposure. thats all changed.

grading shooting C log as been great. while I've tweaked out a better =
setting than canon's, I'm not using LUTs as they tend to make a very =
fimlic image look like video. instead I'm grading the raw C Log with =
really great results. In fact its generally trivial the amount of =
grading this camera needs when shot well.

S