Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:6848 rec.video:7504 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!ggs From: ggs@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith) Newsgroups: comp.graphics,rec.video Subject: Re: HDTV and ATV Glossary (TN32) Summary: 24 Hz is too slow Keywords: 525/59.94, 625/50, NTSC, PAL, SECAM, Component, Composite, Message-ID: <12027@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> Date: 13 Aug 89 21:57:57 GMT References: <120919@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <121076@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 36 In article <121076@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, poynton@vector.Sun.COM (Charles A. Poynton) writes: > A few people in Hollywood proposed 30 Hz film, and SMPTE had a study group > on it, but there was never any popular support behind the idea. Among > other things, > > - 24 Hz is quite sufficient for motion rendition, ... > All in all, just no good reason to do it. For years, I had wondered why motion looked `real' on television, and artificial on film. Then I began to see some film that had been done at 30 Hz, and realized that the faster frame rate made the motion much more realistic. Furthermore, to me there is an additional dramatic improvement in going from 30 Hz to 60 HZ. 50Hz television won't do, it flickers too much. > > ... why burden TV with a slower rate. > > Ah, wait a minute here, we want to burden TVs with a slower rate because > we can't afford the bandwidth to raise it! I assume this is part of the attempt to get rid of interlace so the computer graphics folks can avoid motion artifacts. I already have to put up with motion artifacts while watching film on television, why do I have to lose realistic motion on recorded television just so computer graphics can look better? What is so evil about interlace? > ----- > Charles A. Poynton Sun Microsystems Inc. > 2550 Garcia Avenue, MS 8-04 > 415-336-7846 Mountain View, CA 94043 -- Griff Smith AT&T (Bell Laboratories), Murray Hill Phone: 1-201-582-7736 UUCP: {most AT&T sites}!ulysses!ggs Internet: ggs@ulysses.att.com