(no title)
MoonWalk | 1 month ago
Sure enough, this was the system selected as the winner by the U.S. standard-setting body at the time. Needless to say, it failed and was replaced by what we ended up with... which still sucked because of the horrible decision to go to a non-integer frame rate. Incredibly, we are for some reason still plagued by 29.97 FPS long after the analog system that required it was shut off.
iso1631|1 month ago
When the UK (and Europe) went colour it changed to a whole new system and didn't have to worry too much about backward compatibility. It had a higher bandwidth (8mhz - so 33% more than NTSC), and was broadcasting on new channels separate to the original 405 lines. It also had features like alternating the phase of every other line to reduce the "tint" or "never twice the same color" problem that NTSC had
America chose 30fps but then had to slow it by 1/1001ths to avoid interference.
Of course because by the 90s and the growth of digital, there was already far too much stuff expecting "29.97"hz so it remained, again for backward compatibility.
Dwedit|1 month ago
masfuerte|1 month ago
MoonWalk|25 days ago
lebuffon|1 month ago
The interference was caused when the spectrum of the color sub-carrier over-lapped the spectrum of the horizontal interval in the broadcast signal. Tweaking the frequencies allowed the two spectra to interleave in the frequency domain.
dylan604|1 month ago
Literally, to this day, am I dealing with all of these decisions made ~100 years ago. The 1.001 math is a bit younger when color was rolled out, but what's a little rounding between friends?
eternauta3k|1 month ago
zoky|1 month ago
MoonWalk|25 days ago
Many TV shows (all, before video tape) were shot on film too, but I'm not sure if they were at an even 30 FPS.