>>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.