Guido van rossum: Someone mailed me SICP...

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8lgp0/guido_van_rossum_somebody_mailed_me_a_copy/

>>30
There are motion search aided framerate conversion techniques that allow for serviceable NTSC -> PAL conversions without speed changes.

On the other hand, I'm from the school of thought that playback equipment should just support all the applicable framerates, since it's very easy for screens to do so (most in fact do without even trying: if you feed them a PAL signal with NTSC resolution and timing, also known as a PAL60¹ signal, most TV sets just display it correctly, even analog ones made a lot of years ago).

¹ PAL60 signals are the result of lazy as fuck or retarded as fuck video game programmers. See also 16% slowdown which was typical in the old ages, and epileptic judder which can be appreciated on most moder first party Nintendo games, which just discard one of every six frames (the fact that this works nicely should also give you a hint about how much time these games spend on game logic, as opposed to rendering. Remember the GameCube 1.5, also known as Wii, can't run multiple threads at once.)

>>33
You just sound like you're too poor to afford a PLAYSTATION 3. Get a job, friend.

>>33
NTSC->PAL conversion is GAY. Say no to automatic motion compensated NTSC->PAL conversions!

Have you ever looked at artifacts generated by such conversions, it blurs/blends images and looks ugly. What's even worse is when video authoring companies in PAL lands take a film was was originally progressive (24fps FILM) which got telecined(which is losslessly reversible back to FILM, as it works by duplicating fields) to 29.97fps NTSC and just blend it down to 25fps(PAL) using your beloved ``motion search aided framerate conversion techniques''. The TV sets should just support both PAL and NTSC.

I'm not arguing against PAL here, of course video game programmers should make appropriate versions of their games which follow the appropriate standard. I'm only arguing that NTSC->PAL conversion by motion compensated techniques tends to be ugly and unnecessary, and that TV sets should just support both standards.

>>34
Actually the PS3 also has its own set of problems. Namely, it lacks an output scaler, so if you want for some reason 1080i/p  output, you're pretty much screwed. They figured out a hacky way to do it by changing scan timings, making the game render at 960x1080 and outputting each pixel twice, giving 1920x1080. Which sucks, because it's 12.5% more pixels than 720p (causing even more slowdown) and it's a terrible waste of rendering time (1x2 aspect ratio pixels are worthless, properly resized 720p would look better).

This is tangential to the fact that most games on the 360 or the PS3 just force 30Hz/60Hz output, not dealing with framerate differences at all.

>>35
No need to argue, please refer to
I'm from the school of thought that playback equipment should just support all the applicable framerates

However I'd take motion compensated crap over judder crap any time of the day. If you want to broadcast true NTSC content (30fps, not telecined) over PAL air, you don't have a lot of choice.

About FILM stuff, well, of course an 1:1 mapping is most appropriate, albeit a 4% speedup is no small issue.

>>39
Enjoy you're poverty!