48 kHz Alliance Warning label is born 5
Support ProVideo Coalition
Shop with Filmtools Logo

What Do You Think? Let Us Know.

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andy Bishop

Hi, I just stumbled upon this website and this page entry – to be honest I came here from a different page discussion colour reference/correction. Whilst photography/image-science is not my field of expertise, I have worked with audio for long enough to know that, under pretty much any circumstances, it is possible to digitally convert a sample rate such as 44.1 to 48kHz, and not only that, but it’s also a fairly straight forward process to do so.

The idea of formats being “locked”, or even locked based on region, I’ll be honest to me this was fascinating to read about, especially with terms such as “worldcam” – it just goes to show that there are so many things out there that most wouldn’t ever dream to consider or worry about, unless of course it was their industry, and directly impacted them.

I’m not a “video” person, but I know that, for example DVDs, and even TV broadcasts, don’t use “lossless” audio encoding in their video, (despite the fact that arguably it’s the only feasible thing that can be made lossless in a video), which means their spectrograms probably hardly ever even reach 20kHz due to lossy encoding – so if you did have to integrate audio that was at originally 44.1kHz into a 48kHz format video, you could make that conversion without impacting the quality of the audio, and be on your way – and I would sincerely doubt that submitted video has it’s audio spectrogram inspected to the point where such a video would be rejected (have you seen what harsh dialogue noise reduction does to a spectrogram, for example?).

Am I missing something? I know it’s an old article, but a reply would be much appreciated, if only to educate on why this is really an issue.

You Might Also Like