Why should consumers forget about getting the one output format the movies are recorded upon? Sounds like the DVD forum should have calculated this and with proper and appropriate predictive determination chose a storage format that was readily available.
But the reason behind chosing 24 fps is because that is the rate at which film is recorded in the United States, so I see no reason why continued support for legacy NTSC frame-rates should even worth considering.
And the only reason why few display products support 24 fps is because those products are designed to be either inexpensive, non-home theater products, or not meant to take a serious approach at reproducing the original film.
Considering the price is now above what entry-level Blu-ray players are being offered at, I think Toshiba will continue to see an up-hill battle in winning consumers over in the long-term.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why should consumers forget about getting the one output format the movies are recorded upon? Sounds like the DVD forum should have calculated this and with proper and appropriate predictive determination chose a storage format that was readily available.
But the reason behind chosing 24 fps is because that is the rate at which film is recorded in the United States, so I see no reason why continued support for legacy NTSC frame-rates should even worth considering.
And the only reason why few display products support 24 fps is because those products are designed to be either inexpensive, non-home theater products, or not meant to take a serious approach at reproducing the original film.
Considering the price is now above what entry-level Blu-ray players are being offered at, I think Toshiba will continue to see an up-hill battle in winning consumers over in the long-term.