How do I re-telecine?

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:54 pm

if we didn't have ntsc, we wouldnt fucken be editing right now, because there WOULD BE NO TV.
They are trying to replace ntsc, it's called hdtv, and you see how long that's taking to actually get working.
This is why we still have ntsc and why we still need to use it.

NicholasDWolfwood · Post by **NicholasDWolfwood** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:59 pm

the Black Monarch wrote:
Ashyukun wrote: Maybe so, but it's what the vast majority of us here have to deal with for the time being. If we didn't have it, we'd likely have a dozen or so incompatible proprietary formats and blah blah blah blah blah.
Umm... no. If we didn't have NTSC, then we'd use 24 progressive frames per second, AKA "FILM"

FILM still uses NTSC/PAL you dumb fuck.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:18 am

if we didn't have ntsc, we wouldnt fucken be editing right now, because there WOULD BE NO TV

Umm... I'm sorry, but what law of physics requires TV to use NTSC? In an infinite number of alternate universes out there, TVs all operate at 24 progressive frames per second and no one has ever heard of interlacing or NTSC. These universes are inhabited by people smarter than us.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:49 am

It's the same reason we don't all have magical fuel-cell cars. So much money has been put into the TV infrastructure that you're stuck until everyone who put money into it agrees on a new standard.

It would be annoying if when color TV came out and only certain stations worked with certain TVs. Heh, no one would want that. Not many people out there get the idea that "this is better use it". No people think "this has always worked so why change it".

I doubt you knew about NTSC or PAL TV for years and years. I bet you didn't care. Until now. Until you see how "dumb" it is. Well that's the majority of the population. No one knows, no one cares. They will care if the $20 TV they bought at the garage sale doesn't work anymore because the standard for TV broadcasts changed the week before.

Also that alternate universe you speak of is "The Future".

~klinky

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:51 am

klinky wrote:I doubt you knew about NTSC or PAL TV for years and years. I bet you didn't care. Until now. Until you see how "dumb" it is. Well that's the majority of the population.

Yeah, but as soon as I knew, I cared

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:22 am

the Black Monarch wrote:
if we didn't have ntsc, we wouldnt fucken be editing right now, because there WOULD BE NO TV
Umm... I'm sorry, but what law of physics requires TV to use NTSC? In an infinite number of alternate universes out there, TVs all operate at 24 progressive frames per second and no one has ever heard of interlacing or NTSC. These universes are inhabited by people smarter than us.

The law that requires NTSC to still be supported in the U.S. is the law of the rule of the majority. All televisions, DVD players, VCRs, game consoles, and so forth in the U.S. either accept NTSC input or output NTSC-compliant video streams. Most of them will ONLY do NTSC I/O.

HDTV is on the way, and more and more devices are supporting various HDTV standards. (The XBox, for example, can go up to 1080i; I'm sure other game consoles can do that too, though I don't know which ones in particular.) But, honestly, I hope that it doesn't overtake NTSC for a while: every single corporation involved with HDTV is orgasming not over the fact that HDTV can look better, but because it grants them the ability to do all sorts of Draconian lock-downs on the signal.

Different topic: why 24fps at all? 24fps is rather jerky motion, and if you accept that as full-motion video, you're dumb. The only reason why it looks smooth on film is because of motion blur.

Why don't we use 60fps, which is what 3D graphics aims for as full-motion?

Hell, why 60? Why stop there?

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 2:09 am

24 FPS looks pretty damn smooth to me...

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:04 am

Because 60fps is when persitence of vision supposedly ends. Though actually for me the number is somewhere in the mid 80s.

Ashyukun · Post by **Ashyukun** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 7:02 am

klinky wrote:It would be annoying if when color TV came out and only certain stations worked with certain TVs. Heh, no one would want that. Not many people out there get the idea that "this is better use it". Now people think "this has always worked so why change it".

~klinky

Actually, I believe this wasn't 'it would be annoying' but 'it was annoying'.... there were several competing standards for making TV broadcasts color instead of black and white, and it took some time for the current method to be decided on. And I'm glad we have it and not some of the alternatives of the time... spinning color wheels? Um, ICK?

I'd imagine the reason for not going to a higher framerate with HDTV would be that most equipment is already set up for it, but more importantly going to 60fps progressive would mean each data stream (channel) would have to be larger, and they couldn't squeeze as many channels onto the bandwidth available, which would mean less profits for the companies.

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 9:07 am

actually 720p at 60fps is part of the standard and I'm not positive but I believe even 1080p is as well