[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: <telecine at alegria.com>
- Subject: 24 FPS
- From: "Martin Euredjian" <martinfx at email.msn.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:24:28 -0700
- Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:35:21 -0700
- Resent-From: telecine at alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"wB5k1C.A.ew.Rv5s1" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: SmartList account <slist at sun.alegria.com>
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
How's this for an un-scientific observation:
This weekend I watched two films: "Lethal Weapon 4" and "Shindlers List"
(second time). Probably as far apart as you can get in story-telling.
Not once during either one of those films, was 24 fps a hindrance of any
24 fps obviously works very well for a wide range of films. I don't see a
reason to use more film, tape or disk space per unit of time.
How sensitive are productions to the cost of film? Why do you think some
choose to shoot 3 perf?
Thanks to Bob Festa and Rick Dean for support in 1998.
No product marketing allowed on the main TIG. Contact rob at alegria.com
993 subscribers in 39 countries on Mon Jul 20 12:34:35 PDT 1998
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/