Long story short: They used the extra .03 seconds to send color information while maintaining backwards compatibility with older black and white signals. You should still watch the video, since...
Long story short: They used the extra .03 seconds to send color information while maintaining backwards compatibility with older black and white signals.
You should still watch the video, since it’s a fascinating look at how they managed to keep the signal working with older televisions. As a video editor, their decisions are ones that I still have to deal with daily.
Over the next few years, as streaming apps take over and cable becomes less and less important, it will shift. Most content for streaming services (and to a lesser extent dramatic cable shows) is...
Over the next few years, as streaming apps take over and cable becomes less and less important, it will shift.
Most content for streaming services (and to a lesser extent dramatic cable shows) is shot at 24 frames per second nowadays anyway.
TV broadcasts will be 29.97 indefinitely because that’s what the FCC mandates.
It is. But it's what our eyes consider "correct" for high budget content. It has a weird kind of cultural memory that we can't seem to shake. That's part of the reason that when the Hobbit films...
It is. But it's what our eyes consider "correct" for high budget content. It has a weird kind of cultural memory that we can't seem to shake.
That's part of the reason that when the Hobbit films came out in 48 FPS, people complained that they looked cheap and soap opera-y.
I loved the Hobbit movies at 48 FPS and I've seen the last two Ang Lee movies, Gemini Man and Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, at 60 FPS and was blown away.
I would love all films to be shot at 48, 60 or 120 FPS (also completely arbitrary numbers chosen merely because they are divisible by 24 or 60). I was sad when I saw that Avatar 2-9548584 aren't going to be released in high frame rate versions anymore.
Long story short: They used the extra .03 seconds to send color information while maintaining backwards compatibility with older black and white signals.
You should still watch the video, since it’s a fascinating look at how they managed to keep the signal working with older televisions. As a video editor, their decisions are ones that I still have to deal with daily.
It takes forever to drop legacy cruft without a monumental unified effort.
See also: Why the USA is still not on metric system.
Over the next few years, as streaming apps take over and cable becomes less and less important, it will shift.
Most content for streaming services (and to a lesser extent dramatic cable shows) is shot at 24 frames per second nowadays anyway.
TV broadcasts will be 29.97 indefinitely because that’s what the FCC mandates.
As someone not in the industry, I also find 24 fps equally arbitrary and legacy. :)
It is. But it's what our eyes consider "correct" for high budget content. It has a weird kind of cultural memory that we can't seem to shake.
That's part of the reason that when the Hobbit films came out in 48 FPS, people complained that they looked cheap and soap opera-y.
I loved the Hobbit movies at 48 FPS and I've seen the last two Ang Lee movies, Gemini Man and Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, at 60 FPS and was blown away.
I would love all films to be shot at 48, 60 or 120 FPS (also completely arbitrary numbers chosen merely because they are divisible by 24 or 60). I was sad when I saw that Avatar 2-9548584 aren't going to be released in high frame rate versions anymore.
Very good points all around, and that's why 240hz is the likely the last framerate push within reason.