Peter Jackson responds to "48gate:"

48gate - Peter Jackson responds (http://news.doddleme.com/news-room/48gate-peter-jackson-responds/)

He's probably right, that we'll get used to it, but it's a BIG risk with a $250 million+ budgeted film. Maybe start small with lower budgeted films that still attract a decent-sized audience, then "hit 'em" at home with DVD, etc.

heath

Here's an article on recent image styles:

What is the difference between The Hobbit and the news? Not as much as there should be | Charlie Brooker | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/29/difference-hobbit-news-not-much)

I'm waiting on the Mark Kermode take on all this; BBC - Mark Kermode's film blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/) It should be an amusing Friday afternoon.

He's probably right, that we'll get used to it, but it's a BIG risk with a $250 million+ budgeted film.
Not really - it would be very easy to derive a conventional looking 24fps version from it. And I'd assume it will be done anyway, if only to produce film prints.

And whatever the conventional argument, it's almost certain it will help the 3D version.

First one clarification:
Film although 24fps has a 48hz flicker, because the shutter blogs the light before and after each frame in order to hide frame movement. Otherwise a descending black line would appear during projection.

In regards to the 24fps vs 48fps argument:
Form antiquity is known that light flickering (ie camp fire) would induce a hypnotic or trance state to mind making the person more docile*1. Therefore, since film and TV*2 is also a medium where still images alternate at high rate and are seen continuous because of the persistence of vision effect, it may induce the same hypnotic effect and make its content more believable.
I presume that 48hz of film projection or 50/60hz of TV viewing falls within the limits of human sensory induction and doubling to 48fps/96hz could lessen the hypnotic and persuasive effect of film projection. Same may apply to upping the Hz rate to 120 or240 on TV.
So the complains against 48fps may not unfounded.

*1 such technics along with repetitive sound effects were used extensively during religious initiations or ceremonies.
*2 how many people want to watch TV before bedtime in order to fall asleep.

48fps PRODUCTION shouldn't cost much more in the digital world than 24fps.

While the production itself perhaps should not cost more, the post-production, and especally VFX (3D, roto) will definitely cost more. Perhaps not twice as much, but it IS 2 times as many frames to work with. Bigger storage, longer render times, new pipelines to develop, etc.

It's not necessarily an argument against, but it is something to consider.

Interesting times.

I forgot to mention that many hypnotists are using pulsing lamps to hypnotize their subjects and I have heard that their frequency is around 20-30 Hz, although I cannot objectively know if the latter is true.

A few years later I started sending projects to Filmlook who had the original 60i to 24p processing facility, which became my new "secret sauce".

I'm with ya Charles. I spent a lot of money sending all of our TV spots and films to Filmlook for processing at that time. Then the process became available in-house, then we got one of the original P&S adaptors and used it with Canon's Frame Mode faux 24p....

I just showed the trailer to my partner and wife without telling her anything. She's a big Tolkein and Jackson fan and she was appalled. She's really been looking froward to the release and is afraid it's been ruined.

He's probably right, that we'll get used to it

I doubt he's right. He's definitely not right with me.
I've seen what he's doing my entire life and his look and film look are the polar opposites. It's not only we in the production world that have worked with this differentiation our entire lives but the viewing public has had the same experience going from movies to news, movies to soap operas, movies to reality TV.

I'm not going to get used to paintings on velvet because they're now on 3D, I want to see the magic of the Dutch masters when I watch story telling.

I watched "The Jazz Singer" the other night on TMC after having only seen short clips. The transfer was excellent. For those who haven't seen it, the sound is really about the music and singing with most of the dialog done in the silent style. There is only a bit of Foley, like applause and the occasional slap or hit. It's more of a "singie" than a "talkie".

But even without audible dialog, it doesn't look like a silent film. The sync'd sequences were shot at 24 fps, as compared to the 16, 18, or 20 fps undercrank that we associate with silent films. (Some parts were still undercranked, but not the majority.) My understanding is that shooting was often undercranked to reduce film costs, but in the theaters, playback was overcranked to shoehorn in more showings per day.

So the "talkie" era didn't just introduce sound. It also introduced real-time action at a pleasing, consistent 24 fps. Audiences loved it and silent film died almost overnight. I've never read that audiences didn't like the transition from variable frame rates to 24 fps in the late '20s. 24 fps was a clear market success - even though audiences weren't trained to associate 24 fps with the cinema experience.

Anyway, it was an interesting film to watch historically. (And yes, the blackface thing was terribly out of context - and preferably off topic.) I was surprised by how many of the songs I recognized - nearly every one. I'd also recommend Fritz Lang's "M" as an example of an early sound film - it's like they released it before the sound editing was complete. Peter Lorre's court plea, even in German, is spectacular. In both cases, it's as much the 24 fps as the sound that sets them apart from earlier productions.

does everyone remember the old days of VHS, how we all watched movies in the 320x288 glory, we thought it looked great! Now when you watch it its like looking through a jam jar.

Well I would suspect once we get use to 48 looking back even though it won't be as exaggerated will probably give rise to the same perspective. Though on a simple note, we are referring to cadence primarily, but we also must consider the video look is given to sharpness and clarity of image.

I hate watching Movies and even free to air on a LED TV, over sharp and nasty, looks 'video'. The plasma by comparison is a lot more pleasing to the eye. If the industry adopts the standard, in 5 to 10 years time, the norm will be shard and clean with judder.. For us old timer traditionalist we probably won't budge from what we know, just like with music styles, standards change, and the new generation which drives the economy won't look back

In regards to the 24fps vs 48fps argument:
Form antiquity is known that light flickering (ie camp fire) would induce a hypnotic or trance state to mind making the person more docile*1. Therefore, since film and TV*2 is also a medium where still images alternate at high rate and are seen continuous because of the persistence of vision effect, it may induce the same hypnotic effect and make its content more believable.

*1 such technics along with repetitive sound effects were used extensively during religious initiations or ceremonies.
*2 how many people want to watch TV before bedtime in order to fall asleep.
I'm not sure of the science behind any of that - have you got any solid references? It seems equally likely that flickering light and such as beating drums may have the effect of heightening tension and doing anything but instilling a trance - I'm thinking of a mob stirred up even more by the flickering light of burning buildings! And what about going into battle? The beating of drums was hardly intended to make the troops more docile?

I do know someone who will regularly fall asleep watching TV - but reading a book has exactly the same effect!

I've also been reminded that in the US, 24fps material gets shown via TV with 3:2 pulldown - which is not the case in 50Hz countries, or, indeed in the cinema in the 60Hz world. Their point was that to those not accustomed to it (ie people coming from the 50Hz world) the 3:2 pulldown of 24fps does NOT look desirable - rather more that "something is wrong". To anyone who's grown up with it, it's obviously a different matter. The logic therefore follows that for framerate matters it's far more down to conditioning, not anything hard wired into human consciousness? Does this not mean there are two "24fps looks" in the 60Hz world - one via TV, one via film projection?

As far as the specifics go, then regarding the Hobbit trailer itself, I've only seen it online but it did seem to be shot with quite a high key, high contrast look? I wonder if some people don't like that, and are bundling it all in together with the framerate issue for general impression?

I just look forward to seeing for myself. For the future, I suspect it's for better 3D compatability that 48fps production will rapidly increase - whatever version gets then derived for 2D.
The sync'd sequences were shot at 24 fps, as compared to the 16, 18, or 20 fps undercrank that we associate with silent films.
The NOMINAL speed for silent films was 16fps - but it seems it was normal to OVERCRANK by a significant amount (18-22fps typically), and for the projectionist to adjust speed so that movement looked correct. The best explanation I've heard is that payment was by the reel, and a higher framerate meant less effort had to be put in to filming to fill the reel - it lasted less time at 22fps than 16!

We now tend to think of them as being undercranked owing to subsequent showing on fixed speed 24fps projectors - it's not how they were seen at the time.

IMHO, 2D narrative and animation looks and feels best at 24 (plus all the technical reasons why: easiest path to PAL, 3:2 pulldown). However, 3D narrative and animation looks and feels better at higher frame rates.

I currently turn off "motion flow" on panasonic plasma when I watch 2D material. I turn it on when I watch 3D. The 3D "feels" so much better at higher frame rates to me.

Again. Just my opinion.

i don't know all the technicalities, but after seeing all of the press on "48gate" i decided to take a look at the trailer. I know the trailer is in 24P (or i've read this), but it definitely looks very "videoy" and too bright. Definitely does not look "filmy" at all (whatever that may mean). Besides the video look, did anyone notice the mattes? They are horrible. I can see all of the edges whenever they are greenscreening and adding a fake or digital matte (they even appear jagged or jaggy at the edges, although maybe this is due to compression?). It looks horrible. You can see the lines in the mattes it looks very fake. It completely looks like oldschool greenscreen where you can tell the actors are obviously not there. I don't know if this has to do with the 48fps or the sheer quality of the "film" but it looks horrible and completely breaks the 4th wall and takes me out of the film. If they cannot make the mattes more realistic and blend them with live action I can say for myself I have absolutely no desire to see this movie. Everything looks fake... really fake and not sci-fi fake. It is hard enough to suspend reality with all of the digital effects and characters, but with the bad matte jobs, it is completely unwatchable to me.

Also on a side note is it me or do the title screens look like 3D circa 1984? Very old school 3D. On an old school Indiana Jones cheesy 3D map? Almost like the crappy Motion templates. I am not saying I could produce anything like this, but for a budget in the hundreds of millions I feel it looks very amateur, very crisp, very high quality, great actors (the real ones) but very amateur. If they can't up the believability of the digital artifacts, they've lost my ticket sale.

I watched the trailer. Looked fine to me. Makes me want to see this movie, and I'm not a big Hobbit fan.

I know the trailer is in 24P (or i've read this), but it definitely looks very "videoy" and too bright. Definitely does not look "filmy" at all (whatever that may mean). Besides the video look, did anyone notice the mattes? They are horrible. I can see all of the edges
This is what I meant by ".......regarding the Hobbit trailer itself, I've only seen it online but it did seem to be shot with quite a high key, high contrast look?" Online, I'm sure I'm not seeing it at 48fps, but the flaws I perceive are nothing to do with that - it's the same on a still frame! I'm inclined to think the whole 48fps debate is a bit of a red herring........

Tend to agree with Matt, ignore the video aspects, still frames just look "wrong" - unbelievable - nothing to do with framerate.

Agreed David. I watched the trailer again and completely agree with you. Very bright. I can't tell you exactly for certain why it does not look like film, but I will say that I feel that the art direction is completely off-whack when you think about the context of this film. I don't know much about these films (sorry not a fan of fantasy especially digital fantasy) but I am guessing and it feels like it takes place in an old mystic land, yet the image is bright and crisp with super-sharp edges? Shouldn't it be more mute, dingy and organic? I just think as far as art direction they have it all wrong and at this point who really cares about the 24 / 48 question. If you want to transport someone to a faraway land the feeling of the visuals should evoke this. Bright, cheerful and crisp makes it too current. Perfect for Love Story 2, but completely the wrong "texture" for a fantasy film taking place in a faraway mystical land. Soooo not impressed. It is the perfect look for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the sets are kinda supposed to look fake, cartoony, childish, but is not fitting for this film. Too bright, too crisp, too detailed. Sets, makeup and costumes look very, very fake.

Also I've attached some low-res screenshots of the trailer on YouTube. Is it me or does this look like the worst greenscreen job you have ever seen. He clearly does not look like he is even there, not even close. How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief what the film looks as 2 different elements. There are lines all around his body disconnecting him form the background. And a super fake looking hair-light causing the outer perimeter of his hat to glow that much? What is the light source? A dark cloudy sky? Did they not see this in post? Very cheesy. In fact All of the greenscreen shots look very bad to me. Might be because of YT quality not sure. Again sorry for nit-picking but the overall look of this film is very amateur. May be a great as as a made for TV movie, but with the technologies he has in his arsenal and the astronomical budgets, it feels as though these films are beginning to digress instead of progress.

Shame we can't see the actor's face in those shots Matt but I suppose these new fangled camera's don't need any light so you don't need a DOP! ;0)

I agree with Glen, looked fine to me. If the critics have the same comments as some of you guys it will be a great success !!! Remember on a PC it will not be 24p or 48P and may well have been made a little brighter for the internet anyway. If the trailer is intended to be watched on a smart phone or tablet it needs to be brighter than it may be in the cinema and the details you see zooming into a still frame are not of importance.

Ron Evans

** delete **

Robert, if you don't agree with other people's opinions, it's really better to make your point without posts filled with insults and dripping with sarcasm.

In this particular case, frame rates directly and exactly create the issue that so many very experienced pros on this forum and in the film world are discussing.

If you don't have the experience to understand why this is the case, there are plenty of well written explanations about the process - none of which will demean or insult you while reading them, I assure you.

** DELETE **

Never mind. If having a contrarian opinion is insulting and demeaning to you and you somehow took it personally, I apologize.

It's not what people on this forum feel that's relevant - more so is that there is unease by many significant figures within the industry, which can't be simply dismissed. The debate about the trailer started at a CinemaCon screening in Las Vegas - 'Hobbit' preview divides CinemaCon auds - Entertainment News, Film News, Media - Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118053075)

"Variety" reports :
".....it takes away that warm feeling of film," said one owner of a midsized, Western-states exhib chain. "It looked to me like a behind-the-scenes featurette."
and
The realism gave CG characters a distinct presence, but human actors seemed overlit and amplified in a way that many compared to modern sports broadcasts (as high as 60 fps in HD) and daytime television.

I agree with the basis of much the criticism - but am less inclined to put it down to framerate. I see what is implied by "overlit and amplified" on still frame grabs, and low res ones at that.

I'm assuming that at CinemaCon, the screenings that caused the negative comments were done on equipment that's about as good as it gets? So can't be put down to the for web versions that the rest of us are seeing?

Also I've attached some low-res screenshots of the trailer on YouTube. Is it me or does this look like the worst greenscreen job you have ever seen. He clearly does not look like he is even there, not even close. How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief what the film looks as 2 different elements. There are lines all around his body disconnecting him form the background. And a super fake looking hair-light causing the outer perimeter of his hat to glow that much? What is the light source? A dark cloudy sky? Did they not see this in post? Very cheesy. In fact All of the greenscreen shots look very bad to me. Might be because of YT quality not sure. Again sorry for nit-picking but the overall look of this film is very amateur. May be a great as as a made for TV movie, but with the technologies he has in his arsenal and the astronomical budgets, it feels as though these films are beginning to digress instead of progress.

Definitely not the worst greenscreen job I have ever seen. Not even the worst greenscreen job in the series. Your dark, cloudy sky is bright behind him too, I note. Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was shot on a set, knowing Jackson's work.
I've seen the sky throw an edge on someone that looked like they were cut out before. This seems relatively mild and unlikely to do a lot of harm to the viewing experience. The Hobbit is a much more story-book affair than The Lord of the Rings. I suspect that explains certain things about its look (although I do think the apparent clean-ness and the digital presentation might be a bit much all at once)

I agree with Robert's sentiment. Peter Jackson clearly states he has not graded the footage to a finished state. He didn't finish the post production and grading of the last movie until 24 hours before it was due to be delivered. A hashed together trailer produced whilst they are still filming shouldn't be judged as a finished product, I see it as the Hobbit v0.5 beta...

Peter Jackson clearly states he has not graded the footage to a finished state.
He may have clearly stated it - it was not clearly reported. Most of the emphasis by far has been placed on the 24-48fps issue, with many reports mentioning nothing else in terms of a different "look". It is worth looking here - Peter Jackson Responds to 'Hobbit' Footage Critics, Explains 48-Frames Strategy - The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-cinemacon-317755) - which is more thorough than previous reports I'd seen, and backs up what Paul says.
Jackson also explained the footage presented at Cinemacon would look different once it goes through the post-production process.

Because production is not scheduled to wrap until July, the customary postproduction that affects the overall look of a film has not yet been done, so the clips were unfinished. They were not yet color corrected, nor had the visual effects been completed. (In various scenes the actors were shown performing in front of a greenscreen.)
It's hardly surprising that such as Matt and myself (let alone many at CinemaCon) may find it "bright, cheerful and crisp" - it's because it's not been graded! If it did look perfectly OK it would mean a lot of colourists may as well go home now....... :-)

I'm sure the Hobbit footage will look fine come final release - even if it doesn't now. It's unfortunate that showing ungraded material should have unjustly given the 48fps issue bad publicity.

Unless we've seen the footage projected, in it's full resolution, in the correct color space, in 3D at 48fps, then this whole conversation is speculative and, quite honestly, silly.

Unless we've seen the footage projected,....... then this whole conversation is speculative and, quite honestly, silly.
Speculative - yes, at least to an extent. Silly - no, far from it. The CinemaCon screenings led to a lot of bad (and inaccurate) rumours going round, and it's worth trying to get to bottom of them.

Opinions have ranged from "nothing wrong with the look of the footage" to "the 48fps look is making it look videoish".

The first opinion is obviously incorrect - from the last link there should be no doubt that what has been seen is ungraded, it would be surprising if it did look perfect! That's straight from Peter Jackson.

On the other hand, the criticisms seem to be along the lines of disliking the footage because it's "overlit and amplified" in one persons words. It's likely their impressions are valid - but what's wrong is blaming the negativity on the framerate rather than simple lack of grading.

Worth reading on down in the Hollywood Reporter article to get some fairly heavyweight opinion SPECIFICALLY about the framerate issue. (Which generally seems positive.) For example:
In contrast to the first wave of skeptical tweets, a sampling of reaction from exhibitors, studio executives and producers at Cinemacon found many saying that 48 fps represents the wave of the future.

At one panel, Regal CEO Amy Miles said her circuit is committed to 48 frame rates............

Producer Neal Moritz (Fast Five, 21 Jump Street) likened the reaction to the 48 fps footage to the first reactions to digital cameras, which wasn’t initially embraced by many filmmakers. “Now, every filmmaker wants digital. It just takes getting used to and this is no different,” he said.

IMAX Filmed Entertainment chairman Greg Foster said it amounts to a generational issue, and that all the kids who have grown up watching digital television find it easy to accept movies projected at 48 fps.

etc...........
But OK, final judgement reserved until we've seen the finished product.

Having seen 24 fps film motion interpolated on modern televisions, I'm no fan of 2D narrative film at high frame rates. In my experience, it can make things look so real that they feel fake - like the reality that we are looking at a Hollywood set.

Also, having seen fast motion 3D at 24 fps, that's also a fail.

We need to stop thinking about 48 fps at either/or and think about frame rate as a creative control. The question isn't if 48 fps is good or bad. The question is "in what situations, genres, and shots would you use 48 fps for the best effect?" Or even broader: "If you had full control over the playback framerate, what framerate would you use for various situations, genres, and shots and why?"

Directors don't shoot everything at exactly 24 fps (slower for action, faster for dramatic slow motion), so why should we play back everything at a single frame rate?

As an example, one shouldn't pan edge to edge on a plate in less than about seven seconds at 24 fps, according to the ASC handbood. You can pan faster when tracking an object. You can also whip pan, which is so disorienting that you don't notice the judder. But what if you wanted to pan at a medium speed on a naked background? This would be a perfect place to switch to a fast frame rate, if only temporarily.

Rather than a technological threat, or a full-time switch, we should see this as yet another creative variable.

The question of whether 24fps for narrative is something that looks right to many of us because of convention or because of inherent qualities of the frame rate is a classic nature vs nurture type of question. If scientific nature vs nurture questions are anything to go by then the answer to the 24fps question will most likely be that our preference for that frame rate for narrative is both nature (inherent quality of the framerate) and nurture (convention established by seeing so many films at 24fps).

Quite aside from our conditioning I think there are many inherent qualities of lower frame rates that make them more useful for many kinds of narrative. I think this connects with a very strong thread in the visual arts where less becomes more because by offering us less information the artist allows more space for the sort of participation in the image/story that comes from us as the viewers filling in some of the missing information.

Contemporary artist Jim Campbell's work is a really good example of this. He creates super low resolution displays from arrays of LED lights. In one work an array of 1040 white LEDs is used to display home movies. There is so little resolution in these works that you find yourself hallucinating the missing detail, a fact that produces a great deal of the power we experience in viewing Campbell's work. The general point is that less information can make a work more powerful.

Regardless of what may please some and pain others, one thing for sure. There are going to be people, unfettered by convention or notions of limitation, who take these tools and make them do things beyond what we and the designers expect and anticipate.

Look forward to that and some good "original" story stuff in the future. It is not a bad time to be around and young enough to wait out the dust storm.

Directors don't shoot everything at exactly 24 fps (slower for action, faster for dramatic slow motion), so why should we play back everything at a single frame rate?



I agree. We are unfortunately still stuck in the business decisions of the last century. The dependence on playback of a 24fps film projector. That isn't used now !!!! We are happy to use VBR to store the data on a DVD rather than CBR but seem unable to extend this to the frame rate. The rational is the same . Use more when you need it and less when you do not.

It is the misuse of 24p that bothers me the most. If I am watching an instructional film of how to assemble some thing etc I want to see this as if I am there right next to the camera man, no judder no fancy color grading just there. For me this includes documentaries as well for the same reasons. I want to be there.

If you want to take me on a dream trip you can use whatever you like in frame rate, color grading etc and I will decide if you were successful in entertaining me. With modern computer technology there is no need to be constrained. We shall see if we can break free over the next few years !!!

Ron Evans

For instructional video, shallow DOF is the worst! I might want to pause the video, see a detail, read if the model number is the same as mine, etc. But if the detail that I'm interested in is out of focus due to shallow DOF, I can't see it.

Oh well. I like creative control, but not everybody will use it the way I would like.

Another article on Peter Jackson's 48p experiment-

Switch to high-frame-rate 3D movies may not be smooth - tech - 03 May 2012 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428636.900-switch-to-highframerate-3d-movies-may-not-be-smooth.html)

I thought this was an interesting observation-

"Some short cuts used for a long time in moviemaking may not now work," says Michele Sciolette, head of visual effects technology at Cinesite, also in London. "Every little detail in make-up, costumes and props will have to be absolutely perfect in terms of visual detail - otherwise they may not be perceived as real."

So now while it's not the cost of film footage that is holding us back the fact that a much higher level of attention to detail might be required of props and sets might be just as much of a financial disincentive.

Another article on Peter Jackson's 48p experiment
But unfortunately another one just repeating uncritically what has previously been first reported. Read the previous comments in this thread, and it seems highly likely that the reason for the general dissatisfaction in the audience was nothing to do with framerate and everything to do with the fact that the material hadn't been properly graded. For example, comments from the article like "the preview was described as video-like and lacking in colour contrast," Is "colour contrast" really much affected by framerate?

As far as the observation you quote, then does this not also sound more of a comment on the fundamental definition than framerate? A comment more about ungraded material that hasn't had the "edge" taken off it by grading, than about the implications of high framerates?

I can only hope that any more "experimental" 48p screenings solely use fully graded material.........

Directors don't shoot everything at exactly 24 fps (slower for action, faster for dramatic slow motion), so why should we play back everything at a single frame rate?

..........But what if you wanted to pan at a medium speed on a naked background? This would be a perfect place to switch to a fast frame rate, if only temporarily.
The answer to "why should we play back everything at a single frame rate?" is most probably because if it was decided to allow continually varying rates throughout a production, the chances of things going wrong increase dramatically. Yes, that SHOULDN'T be the case, but ask yourself how many times you now see something shown in the wrong aspect ratio on somebodys TV? Having continually varying framerates multiplies the chances of something going wrong along the chain, or at the very least gives a whole new set of potential headaches.

And for what? Yes, 25fps may "look" different to 50fps, but why introduce a lot of potential pitfalls to (say) have four successive sequences at 25, then 40, then 30, then 50fps?

In terms of artistic reasons, why not just define replay at 25 or 50fps - which is pretty much what happens now with broadcast TV anyway? Typically, on HD services in the UK, drama is likely to be 25p, sport etc 50fps (albeit via i/25, not 50 frames progressive) For the cinema, if all projection became 48fps the "traditional cinema look" could be very easily got by shooting at 24 and showing each frame twice. (Exactly as a film projector now does via the shutter.) I'd hazard that would give 90% of the effect and look you wish, with none of the potential pitfalls.

If you're still not convinced about the technicalities, then just as example, ask yourself about issues such as timecode. The more I think about it, the more potential problems come up, I wonder how long it would be before a vision sequence got filmed at 40fps, and the sound with timecode at 30fps........ :-) ?

And that's before we even begin to think about backwards compatability. Mercifully, we are spared matters like 29.94Hz framerates and drop-frame timecode in 50Hz lands, but bear in mind that they stem from issues with audio receivers in the earliest monochrome US TV receivers, and the introduction of colour in 1953. Can you imagine the legacy issues that continuously variable playback frame rates would give?