Nobody watches true 24P!!!! When you see a film in the theater, each frame of the 24 frames per second is displayed TWICE. The shutter is opened and closed twice on each frame.  So, the refresh rate is 48 frames per second.  So, to mimic a trip to the theater, the display would need a refresh rate of 48hz, or close to it.  Any technology that adds virtual frames between the actual frames is stupid and destroys the original director of photography’s vision.  It’s like adding chroma and adjusting hue on the Mona Lisa and saying you’ve improved it.  Ludicrous.

Barrington, check out the image caption? i think they made it clear pioneer was one of larger group.

This artical appears to be misleading implying that Pioneer’s TV is the first (high definition) product with 24p.

Why didnot the author list all other products with 24p?

I have seen so many products for such a long period that I would not call 24p new.

I would call; 4Kx2K (twice the standard of 1920x1080p), 4x1080p and 16x1080p new technology.

Why didn’t the author mentioned; ‘juddering’ (jerkiness) when 24p is broadcasted at 25p in the UK (PAL), and that probably Pioneer and other plasma TV manufacturers don’t have enough faith in their plasma products to include, ‘burn-in’ (faulty display) within warranties?

Unfortunately, Electronic House doesn’t recognize newline characters; my apologies for the block.

The reason why 24 fps has been the old standby is money.  When cinematography was young, it was all controlled by hand - the camera operator turned a crank to advance the film and capture the moving image.  Since sound wasn’t an issue, the film could theoretically be played back at any speed.  However, film is expensive; running 5 minutes at 60 fps back then would’ve taken astronomical funding (think of all the prints that get made of each movie today for each theater).  So, we decided to go with the lowest fps that still showed movement relatively smoothly - 24 fps.  There were a few scientific studies, but I’m not well versed in them.  Anyway, that’s how 24 fps got established.  It still exists today as the dominant film standard because of its cheapness.  CGI and animation films follow the same standard because they are mainly shown in traditional theaters which only have film projectors - the money issue is still present.

The impact this has on the home theater market is two-fold: the display rate (fps) is usually different for consumers, and the content may (or may not) be interlaced for traditional TV display.

TVs scan down (display) at 60 Hz.  American TVs follow the NTSC standard, which dictates that video is broadcast at 29.97 fps.  However, the video is interlaced - first the odd lines are drawn, then the evens.  Therefore, it takes two passes for a traditional TV to display one frame.  Interlaced frames were chosen because the chroma (the stuff on the inside of the picture tube which lights up) doesn’t stay bright for a very long time.  Older TVs couldn’t scan the image fast enough progressively (line by line) to prevent flicker.  By displaying only half the lines at a time, TV developers could prevent their displays from flickering.  As an added bonus (mainly apparent in later years), each frame is blended into the next because of the interlaced effect.  This produces a smoother image for movement (at least in theory) for a given fps.

Since the fps of film and traditional TV don’t match up, you have to compensate.  For interlaced TV, you show one frame on three downward scans of the TV and the next frame for only two scans.  If you count it up, here are the scans: 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 = 60.  Presto, you have a conversion method.  However, for slowly moving shots (particularly credits on movies), this quite often produces vertical jitter.  The video seems to flicker up and down.  There are several solutions to this, but it comes down to making another format which is compatible with film.

The solution above is (theoretically) to display the video at 24 fps as it was originally shot.  Another method mentioned below is to display it at 120 Hz (a multiple of 24 and 60) by repeating each film frame 5 times.  Scanning it progressively on a TV means that you get all of the resolution in one frame (with interlaced, you get half the lines per scan).  Either a true 24p display or a 120 Hz progressive display would work, but there is one caveat.  Traditional TVs still have the chroma issue - they can’t sustain an image for 1/24 of a second from one scan (unless developers have come out with an uber blend of chroma material).  You pretty much have to convert 24 to 60 fps or take the 120 Hz route.  For other displays, 24p is a good option.  But we get back to the initial issue with 24 fps in the first place: it’s actually quite cheap.  In movie theaters, you can see the image flicker because there is some time when the film is advancing through the projector.  Home displays have no film, and we have grown accustomed to TVs without much flicker.  So, to pull off 24p in a home environment, you have to have a VERY short time period between frames.  If not, you’ll get that same film flicker on your brand spanking new display.  So beware 24p until you see a display which pulls it off and pulls it off seamlessly.

In regards to the future, who knows?  HD-DVD and BD have capacities which might allow for higher fps, but it’s still an issue of space.  You’d really like crisp 120 fps source material, but are you willing to buy three discs for one movie with no bonus material?  We may see a push to increase fps of movies, but not until we’ve completely done away with film - it’s just too expensive otherwise.