60 Hz Vs 50 Hz

Only if they were using some complicated equipment to do the conversion. If they simply fed a film with 18 frames per second into a projector that displayed 24 frames per second, it'll display 24 frames (1 1/3 seconds worth) in one second, speeding everything up. It's just like playing a

Aside: I thought early films were done at 16 fps.

Moi? pourquoi diriez-vous cela ?

I was just takin the piss.

sQuick..

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:07:10 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

That would be fine for film, but for TV it doesn't work.

That's so painful it "hertz."

Are you talking about when they play those very old film clips on TV where it looks like everyone is running around like crazy? If so, my answer is unchanged. Unless the TV studio has modified equipment, their equipment to play films (essentially a film projector coupled to a TV camera) will play those 16 fps films at 24 fps, so everyone is sped up.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:30:21 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

You're an idiot. Do you actually think those old films are still circulating around, being played on projectors?

They have been ONLY in digital form for years. Decades even. AND YES, they WERE modified to play PROPERLY on a 30 fps TV set up.

In fact, I doubt that you could lease a film on 16mm like it was back in the seventies... even modern films. The studios just do not waste their money making such "prints" anymore.

Catch up to the real world. And NO, everyone is NOT "sped up".

The 1902 Le Voyage dans la lune by Geo. Melies Is a perfect example of it being done properly. Another would be the 1928 Un Chien Andalou by Louis Bunuel and Salvador Dali.

Give it a rest. You don't get to make s*it up... any more.

No. Old films are extremely fragile (an enormous percentage of very early movies aren't available at all in any form). The ones we do see were transferred to a different form decades ago, often with the resulting copies "sped up" because the 16 fps films were played with 24 fps mechanisms.

Oh, certainly the resulting videotapes are proper NTSC, at 30 fps etc. Only problem is how they were recorded decades ago, and as if the original was at 24 fps, not 16 fps.

You mean people 100 years ago really did run around as if on crack?

Of course, in many cases, people actually did make the proper effort to transfer old 16 fps films to 24 fps films or video.

I believe 60 Hz was chosen as the NTSC frame rate to prevent annoying flicker if power line hum was present on the video signal or power supply. If they chose, say, 70 Hz, the video signal and power line hum could produce annoying 10 Hz flicker (70-60 Hz). If synched with the power line, this wouldn't happen. If the frequencies were only very close, the difference would be very slow and filterable.

That's one way of doing it.

Whether TVs are 60 fps or 30 fps is a matter of semantics. If the even frames contain different information (such as the same scene 1/60th second different in time) it's hard to argue they're really 30 fps. But most of the time the even and odd scans are the same scene so

In many TV broadcasts of films, the even scans are not the same (film) frame as the odd scans. It is readily apparent if you step through captured video frame by frame on a computer during a rapidly moving scene or when they cut from one scene to another. These films appear to have been transferred using the sequence (1/1) (1/2) (2/2) (3/3) (4/4). The numbers are the 24 fps film frames, the parenthesis are the 30 fps video, the number before the slash are the odd video scans, after the slash the even video scans. Note the second frame has the odd and even scans of different scenes. Perhaps one that would appear smoother is the sequence (1/1) (1/2) (2/3) (3/3) (4/4), but I don't know if that is done.

You don't read well, do ya' Fuchs. TVs aren't "projection equipment at normal speed".

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:37:35 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

Wrong AGAIN. They have ALL been digitized. And TIME CORRECTED.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:37:35 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

Nope.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

No. That IS the way it IS done. I know it is because it was explained fully back in the Laser Disc days, which were all NTSC preparations.

Were you researching video back in the Laser Disc days, over 20 years ago?

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

Not when converting 24fps motion pictures to 30fps NTSC it isn't. It is a hard fact.

Been that way for a LONG time. No semantics required.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

Not at all. Half goes up, and the other half goes up. POV in both the phosphors on the screen as well as the mind's eye see it as ONE rendered frame, and THAT happens 30 times every second.

ALL THE TIME.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

Not true. It depends on the source data. Always has, always will.

A CLV Laser Disc will show APPARENT effects such as that which you describe. A CAV Laser disc is discrete frames, and will not show the anomalies you claim are real. Whenever a freeze is instituted on a CAV Laser Disc, the laser stays on ONE track, and displays the TWO fields held on that ONE track, and they are ONE frame from the film that was transcribed onto the disc. Since a CLV disc has no true freeze frame capacity, a random "freeze" at any given moment CAN and DOES capture the last field from a previous frame along with the first field of the next frame. It happens all the time. With a player that has a "Field Memory" capture capacity, the same frame will be perfect sometimes, and show your anomaly at other times.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

Since 1978, they have been done from LD.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:35:52 -0500, Keith Gave us:

You don't read worth a f*ck at all. The entire conversation is about film to video conversion.

Every 24 fps second of film has six repeated frames after it undergoes the conversion to NTSC video. And from the perspective of the CRT's electron gun, it is most certainly a projection.

Come back when you are informed KiethTard.

All? Even those that were lost? You're a fruitcake Fuchs!

No, it wasn't, fruitcake. "Modern projection" equipment will make the old

You are most certainly a fruitcake, but carry on... Theis isn't "projection" at all.

Oh, I'm hurt! I know that's the best you can do on short notice (and I do mean short).