60 Hz Vs 50 Hz

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:09:12 -0500, Keith Gave us:

No, dipshit. Five separate articles to one response.

Oh, so you freely admit that you're a fruitcake. Ok, carry-on DimBulb.

-- Keith

Hey, idiot, what's with the multiple posts replying to a single post of mine? One response would have done.

First, you wrote something that All old movies are now digitized. Most movies produced before a certain date (around 1930) aren't available at _all_ on any media. The film they used then was fragile, and has disintegrated. Second, if the sprocket size and spacing, frame size etc. hasn't changed in 100 years (as someone mentioned) but the film was recorded at 16 frames per second, what do you think is going to happen when played on a more modern 24 fps player? Now what happens if you recorded the output of that 24 fps player on the most modern digital recording media available? I'll tell you, you get the Keystone Kops running around as if they're on crack. Fortunately, the same methods used to record 24 fps video onto 30 fps TV will work to record 16 fps film onto 24 fps film or 30 fps TV, and for some movies that has been done. If someone makes the effort, we can see the Keystone Kops move at normal speed just like moviegoers did in the '20s.

Second, you mentioned that laserdisks use the 1 1 2 3 4 to translate 24 fps movies onto 30 fps video. That's nice, and I already mentioned that that's one way to do it. (and using Wikipedia as an authority - hah!) Another way _that I have seen_ creates an intermediate frame where the odd lines are from the previous frame and the even lines are from the next frame. It looks like a strange special efect when the frames are different and it's annoying when they're similar but not the same (motion) if you look at it as a still frame. This was over-the-air broadcasts recorded directly as a file on a PC. So you've seen the 1 1 2 3 4 and I've seen the hybrid frame. What does that tell us? That both methods are in use. I've also seen the 1 1 2 3 4 method. It's common.

For that specific case, that is essentially correct. I think I've seen that the output of my camcorder produces different picture data for the odd and even frames when taping high speed motion (the even frames show the object 1/60th of a second later than how it appears on the odd frame) but I can't confirm it at the moment, so for its output it can be debated whether it's about 500 lines at 30 fps or about 250 lines at 60 fps. Doesn't matter as it's too blurry to even try to get 60 fps.

If it's been that way for a long time, it's because 1 1 2 3 4 is lots easier to do without technology. Nowadays, it's much easier to do hybrid frame with software. Welcome to the 21st Century. Laserdisks are 1970s technology.

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:33:32 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

It's about choice. Also, you just crossed the line so you can f*ck off and die.

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:33:32 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

You can't confirm a goddamned thing. First off, if you had any brains at all, you would have researched the recording method that your camera uses. I am not talking about the storage medium either, dipshit.

You're an idiot.

---------- No difference in difficulty. The reasons for 50 vs 60 Hz are lost in history because nobody bothered to sort it out- probably political. Technical reasons are of minor significance ( trade off between parameters which have nothing to do with the number of degrees or the number of grads (400)in a circle and computational reasons are insignificant. When one considers 25 or (as used in some electric railways) 16-2/3 Hz vs 50 or 60 Hz or as used in aircraft, 400Hz, there are significant pros and cons depending on the application. "Degrees in a circle" doesn't actually enter into the decision.

This is a dead issue. some places use 50Hz, and some use 60Hz. pros and cons exist- the advantages are mixed. Fact- live with it.

if *you* were even pretending to pay attention, you'd know that 5 frames of video is 1/6 second which is 4 frames of (24 fps) movie film. That's the smallest time which is an integer number of both film and video frames.

I see, you get to insult me with impunity but if I use a single insult, I have "crossed the line".

You need to get your meds adjusted, NOW.

Oh, btw, *plonk*. Which is too bad, because I'm really curious about how they managed to digitize film reels that had already disintegrated by the '50s.

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:43:13 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Gave us:

Bullshit.

meds? You're the fucktard that needs psychotherapy, jack-off.

The most retarded practice in Usenet. Announcing one's filter file edits. Congratulations, you are in an elite club. Not!

I never said anyone did any such thing, DIPSHIT.

Ah Yes....shades of Darkmatter.....now it's Fuchs.... Another rude Troll...... Hey Keith...shoot me an email sometime....

Nope, the same worm; different troll.

I think lost your email address. I saw your note from January (maybe Christmas?) fly by on my other account when I deleted all the spam (it was taking up my email alottment). I never used that account publicly (except for outbound mail) so I didn't expect anything of value in there - oops!

Don't confuse DimBulb with the facts. His head would explode if one ever found its way in there. In any case, look up "3:2 pull down" for the way it's done today. Of course it was a little harder to do in the '50s. ;-)

Well, DimBulb disintegrated in the '60s and he's still around.

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:56:59 -0500, "Ross Mac" Gave us:

The RossTARD only chimes in when he has something stupid to say. Another lame retard, you are.

Oh, *such* a brilliant repartee, from the DimBulb.

Aha! Thanks. I knew when I saw two film frames on the different scans of a single video frame it had to be a fancier method of conversion of films to video. Now I know the name for it.

You live up to your rep "fuchs"....lower case.... Exactly what is your motive on this board?.... Looks troll to me!

Because their design disintegrated at 3600 RPM! ;-)

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:45:36 -0000, "Kirk Johnson" Gave us:

I've got nine inches of "lad" to go up in your ass with, little girl.

have you seen my ring hole? I dont think you would do a lot of good with that pissy little pisser of yours lad.

Heres a look if you fancy trying to fill it

Funny thing...that's a direct quote from Darkmatter... as many of your are...