4 ms·
This doesn’t make any sense. Why would you want to use 3:2 pulldown unless your display is interlaced, which AFAIK will never be the case for any modern display
by creato 3y ago
This doesn’t make any sense. Why would you want to use 3:2 pulldown unless your display is interlaced, which AFAIK will never be the case for any modern display?
And even if you did use it, it doesn’t do anything to help with the extra 1000/1001 factor, so what is the point?
- dylan604 3y agohere here. we finally have a standard starting with UHD that does not included interlacing. finally. hallelujah the chorus of angels are singing.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago> Why would you want to use 3:2 pulldown unless your display is interlaced At this point, the only great reason is that it's an industry standard, but that alone is more than enough reason to still do it, evidenced by the fact that so many people still do it.
- jonhohle 3y ago3:2 pull-down works for converting 24fps to 60fps. It doesn’t matter if the target f is fields or frames.
- bobdvb 3y agoThe film industry should stop using 24fps, it's a waste of people's time and energy. At least they should move to 25fps which is what most of the world uses as a frame rate, if not 30fps. For the stupid North American non-integer frame rates, just change the playback speed by a fraction and get on with life. Or drop 1000/1001 frames for live, people won't notice.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- creato 3y agoYes, it does. 3:2 pulldown produces interlaced 60 fields/s. On a digital display, it must be deinterlaced, and the only "correct" way to do that is to remove the pulldown, producing 24 fps. If you just deinterlace it as if it were originally 60i, you'll just end up with something similar to 24p converted to 30p by repeating 1 of every 4 frames (with a loss in resolution to boot). So for digital displays, 3:2 pulldown is pointless at best, destructive at worst.