PAL vs. NTSC in the marketplace

[David M.]

Because they have no idea what they're doing and how what they're doing is affecting the image detrimentally.

^This

The biggest irony is that doing the conversion properly (adjusting the speed) is easier (if you know what you're doing) than doing field blended standards conversions.

I've had conversations before with people who reply to this with, "But our post facility is using [expensive standards converter] which is known as the best in the industry!"

To which I reply, "Yes, it's a very good machine, but it's not the right tool for this job because all you need to do is adjust the frame rate and how pulldown is applied". There's a misunderstanding of how to handle film vs video, and I guess to a certain extent, facilities trying to sell machines they've invested heavily in, even in cases where it's not appropriate.

[tenia]

Sometimes, people rely on tools that are said to be wonderful to do complicated jobs for the said-people, when they could just do by themselves a very simple thing to solve the problem.

It is not only in video industry but everywhere. One think because you have the best tool in the world, you can use it for everything you need to do. It can but it shouldn't.

[Zot!]

Who is making these decisions?!
So the dude editing this had to make a 25fps native version and a 24fps version to conform for projection. The way he's describing it, for the 24fps version he's actually manually removing individual frames, specifically chosen to hide the jumps in an effort to conform the video to the audio and keep some kind of sync. I appreciate his efforts, but why doesn't somebody consider this during pre-production?

[David M.]

50hz video should have been left to die along with standard definition. A total pain for worldwide compatibility and display tech.