Why is TV 29.97 frames per second? - General

[video=youtube;3GJUM6pCpew]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GJUM6pCpew[/video] I love watching Matt Parker's videos, this one was particularly enlightening.

it's amazing how 29.97 is still here like is there any point to making a video in 29.97 frames other than like 30 other than to conform to some standard

I like how he has the TV in PAL mode for a video on NTSC.

[QUOTE=Octopod;51155114]it's amazing how 29.97 is still here like is there any point to making a video in 29.97 frames other than like 30 other than to conform to some standard[/QUOTE] On computer stuff absolutely not. 29.970 is pretty much only there for compatability like for example if you produce stuff to put on DVD or on SDTV in general. Everywhere else there is no real reason to not just use 30. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert on this stuff of course.

Super interesting, always wondered about it. I guess that's why there's also 23.976fps Really sucks when editing conflicting formats though, wasted 6 hours filming for a music video recently, by having my camera set to 60hz, and the flickering not showing up on the monitor until I got home

To be exact, it's 30/1.001.

For those not having 15 minutes to waste, text version from Reddit: [QUOTE]29.97 FPS is the NTSC television standard (so that's what I will base my answer on), however 23.97 FPS is also used for some film releases intended for viewing on NTSC television equipment. It used to be 30 in the days of analog black and white televisions, but when they added a chroma (color) channel to the standard, they had to change it to 29.97 FPS. The reason, essentially, is that the carrier signal used to carry color information was directly in phase with (and experienced interference from) the sound carrier which made everything unwatchable. By adjusting the FPS by a small amount, it brought the signals out of phase so they would no longer interfere with each other. The PAL video standard (used outside North America) didn't experience this problem partly because they implemented a color TV standard using an entirely different method / approach.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The issue was an unpleasant surprise for the NTSC developers who had to call in experts to work out what the issue was. The solution was to reduce the frame rate by a factor of exactly 1001/1000 from 30 frames (60 fields) per second to 29.97 frames (59.94 fields) per second. These numbers are only approximate; it's really a recurring decimal starting 29.97002997002997002997002997... Prior to NTSC colour transmissions, TV was exactly 30 frames per second. 24fps film was displayed on 60 fields per second interlaced TV using "3:2 pull-down", i.e., each film frame is alternately displayed on 3 fields, and 2 fields. (There are two "fields", and odd and an even field, per interlaced frame.) Since the base NTSC frame rate was changed, it was easiest to change the film rate by the same amount for TV transmission to 23.976 frames per second and retain the 3:2 pull-down technique exactly as before. 29.27fps video causes trouble for frame numbering. At 30 fps, frames are numbered from 0 to 29 per second with colon separators between hours, minutes, seconds and frames. At 29.97 they use "drop frame" number, signified by using semicolon separators and selected frame numbers are not used.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55m0tx/eli5_why_does_the_video_codec_ntsc_television/[/url]

This is why I still shoot 25 FPS not 24 for web video, because some cameras only have 23.9..something something, which makes for incompatible archive footage.

[QUOTE=helifreak;51155167]I like how he has the TV in PAL mode for a video on NTSC.[/QUOTE] He addresses this in a making of video: [video]https://youtu.be/PYZJ3csb_rg[/video]

Can't tell if red pixel was added to screen in post to piss me off, or deliberate use of monitor with dead pixel to piss me off. Either way had me frantically cleaning my monitor. Bravo.

[QUOTE=I Am A Rock;51157751]Can't tell if red pixel was added to screen in post to piss me off, or deliberate use of monitor with dead pixel to piss me off. Either way had me frantically cleaning my monitor. Bravo.[/QUOTE] It's the camera.

[QUOTE=I Am A Rock;51157751]Can't tell if red pixel was added to screen in post to piss me off, or deliberate use of monitor with dead pixel to piss me off. Either way had me frantically cleaning my monitor. Bravo.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Psyke89;51157818]It's the camera.[/QUOTE] Specifically the 'recording' red light from the camera for anyone who's confused.