1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Why is 23.976 and 25 still around?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Judgment, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. Judgment

    Judgment New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I play bluray on the PC and run at certain refresh rate to avoid jitter. When I play an import from Europe, some are 25 fps and that strategy goes out the window unless I switch the refresh rate. I don't think 23.976 should be around for new releases, either. Do you think it's really necessary for these different frame rates to exist in the age of bluray? I would have hoped bluray would have been standardized to 24 for movies for all regions. Who made the decision for this? IMO it was biased and self serving. What do you think? Should we get rid of the legacy NTSC/PAL junk?
     
  2. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    302
    I can tell you why 1080i/50 is still around. In the UK many stations simulcast in SD and HD. These boadcasts have to run at identical times. It'd be no good if Aunty broadcast The Great Escape on BBC1 in PAL and on BBC1 HD in 24fps (all be it interlaced). The 5% speed up of PAL would result in these broadcasts going out of synch. Steve W
     
  3. Judgment

    Judgment New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    That I understand. TV is different and needs to be backwards compatible. It's the same thing with 29.97 (NTSC), but I guess I should have framed it more clearly. I am only talking about blurays of theater releases, which are pretty much all meant to be presented in 24. And 24p seems to be part of the bluray spec, so I'm not getting why they continue releasing theater releases NTSC and PAL compatible, other than as another artificial excuse to restrict region.
     
  4. Brian Kidd

    Brian Kidd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    177
    Will, it's because there are still a huge number of SD television sets in use. Blu-ray players are so cheap, now, that many people use them as their primary DVD player, even if they don't yet have a digital set. Since the studios want Blu-ray to be attractive to the widest-possible customer base, they need to make it compatible with older televisions. Since it's easy to convert a 23.976 signal to a standard NTSC signal, it makes sense to go ahead and do that. It will be interesting to see what happens once SD televisions are finally replaced completely by digital sets.
     
  5. Judgment

    Judgment New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, there's that. I just wonder how many people somehow still stuck with SD televisions are buying bluray discs and the players to watch them. Personally I have not known or seen a single person that bought a bluray player before an HDTV, and I doubt that's rare. The priority of backward compatibility with an undetermined amount of SD users Vs. region-encumbered blurays with sync and sound issues already released seems off to me. Also, what would be the defining factor where SD televisions are considered fully replaced, and who's going to decide it? Like I said, my guess is that it's actually motivated by region control, and I don't think the shift will happen until they're ready to sell you yet another version of your favorite movies.
     

Share This Page