Return-Path: Received: from mail-qe0-f44.google.com ([209.85.128.44] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5265675 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 22:11:46 +0200 Received: by mail-qe0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 6so3202127qeb.17 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:12:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=ccm9n3PIMQu4i2Q99Utktmg7QxAT6oU9xbsn+pB/z/U=; b=wBDbSAZhJeWRCfpCuKyMruV3wVwonx89zb+JRk9DStzAKX2WYrXrJyPUkTfr9HdOpB hFm5BsAFCHqSvO+IE/bt++P74Eovv6n6YSGxLS7n9NW4vLQF1fGAGwEAR3AuKVaBn4mp S6/9pQ7ePOQaK1WLiGQv1swVHjQDoeYk00gGpOdE/TP9Jx5DgzQ4EaBkQQpZHSC6X+0g Hfz6BpePNxWRO+TIILajU4JKILUkCvYvts44L7iTglMRNn2u8TCcOpvMuNU7q2kIQc5r gfWSwksOANdJorF7nwS87MgGg0F5krOe1xy+71cAdXyF58lrPmVhPKSF0gpkL+M4M7/+ CFAA== X-Received: by 10.224.137.130 with SMTP id w2mr20052732qat.43.1382818378239; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:12:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.96.40.131 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:12:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Teddy Gage Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:12:18 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] 29.97 versus 23.976 for corporate? To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2c1ae39545004e9aa7edd --001a11c2c1ae39545004e9aa7edd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 wait... you're grading raw log c without a LUT? that's crazy man. That means a lot of headaches down the road... On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Chris Zwar 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 > > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > -- VFX & Motion Graphic artist NEW - teddygage.com --001a11c2c1ae39545004e9aa7edd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
wait... you're grading raw log c without a LUT? that&#= 39;s crazy man. That means a lot of headaches down the road...


On Sat, Oct 26, = 2013 at 2:45 PM, Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com> wr= ote:

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 sec= ondary to things like depth of field, lighting and colour grading and so I&= #39;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 shallo= w depth of field and is nicely graded would look much more filmic that some= thing shot 23.976 using only available light, ungraded and with everything = in focus.
> If I had a client who wanted something "filmic" then I would= n't worry about the fps, I would just go to town with something like Ma= gic Bullet Looks.

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

that said, I recently bought a C100 and its changed my shooting a lot. a fe= w weeks ago I was working on rigging a pair of lights in tight space, worki= ng on diffusion and then tried something. I shut them off, turned up the IS= O a bit and had a perfectly great image. I still added a LED into the BG, b= ut it was dimmed to about 30% to open that space up. the big diffused windo= w light was what I wanted all along and simple assumed I'd have to rema= ke 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 chang= ed how I shot the rest of the day. While I'd always been a fan of suppl= emental 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 L= ED outside to light up some trees as part of some night scenes. we had to c= ut 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 b= ecause the camera can't make the exposure. thats all changed.

grading shooting C log as been great. while I've tweaked out a better s= etting 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 r= eally great results. In fact its generally trivial the amount of grading th= is camera needs when shot well.

S



+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>



--
VFX & Motion Graphic artist=
NEW - teddygage.= com

--001a11c2c1ae39545004e9aa7edd--