> who in the world wants to use a 2:3 pulldown pattern on a progressive monitor?
At least everyone tasked with editing 3:2 pulldown footage for 3:2 pulldown distribution, which is most of the video editors in North America the last time I checked.
At least everyone tasked with editing 3:2 pulldown footage for 3:2 pulldown distribution, which is most of the video editors in North America the last time I checked.
Edit: also, any editor worth their salt will take the telecined content back to progressive for editing. if they then need to deliver like it's 2005 to an interlaced format, they would export the final edit to 30000/1001 with a continuous 2:3 cadence. only editors unfamiliar with proper techniques would edit the way you suggest.
For people never having to work with this kind of content, it makes sense. I’d equate it to modern programmers not knowing Assembly, but can write apps that perform adequately. There’s plenty of content shot on modern equipment delivered to non-broadcast platforms that will never need to know the hows/whys old timers did what they did