Originally posted by: THX
1) Are region 1 DVDs in NTSC resolution and region 2 in PAL resolution (in which case why the new names)? Most (virtually all?) R1 titles are NTSC, since that's the region code for North America. R2 are split between PAL & NTSC, because a lot of R2 is in Europe (PAL), and at least some more R2 is in Japan (NTSC). As another poster mentioned, these two things are quite independent.
3) Which is better for NTSC viewers, PAL disc played on multi-region player with player's real-time scaling or NTSC disc made from PAL transfer?
1) Are region 1 DVDs in NTSC resolution and region 2 in PAL resolution (in which case why the new names)? Most (virtually all?) R1 titles are NTSC, since that's the region code for North America. R2 are split between PAL & NTSC, because a lot of R2 is in Europe (PAL), and at least some more R2 is in Japan (NTSC). As another poster mentioned, these two things are quite independent.
2) If so, do multi-region players therefore scale between these standards in real-time? Typically they do, but that's sort of a lucky fluke. I'd say more players can do PAL <--> NTSC conversions than can be made region-free, so by the time you're able to solve the region-freeness problem, the chances of the format conversion being done are pretty good.
1) The PAL telecine session is as good as or better than the NTSC session; and
2) A PAL LD player exists that is as good as or better than the best available NTSC one.
I can tell you from direct experience that it is unclear that (1) is true, and that (2) is (unfortunately) almost certainly not true. We're trying, though...
b) from there, an anamorphic DVD would be best for all 16:9 TV owners, a letterboxed DVD for most 4:3 owners;
I'm in the camp that says anamorphic is better for everybody overall, but I guess technically an argument could be made that you're right. I know MBJ -- whose opinion I respect -- would say you're right, for example. I would argue that since everything's moving to 16:9 HDTV eventually, the tiny compromise in picture quality made for those aging 4:3 sets out there is worth it. And let me assure you, this is coming from an owner of a mid-range, not-too-aging 4:3 set. (Of course, I figured out how to access my set's service mode, and now I can make it do native 16:9...) a) the best possible LD>DVD transfer should start with a PAL LD, regardless of the eventual region/standard of viewing;
True, if the following two things are also true:1) The PAL telecine session is as good as or better than the NTSC session; and
2) A PAL LD player exists that is as good as or better than the best available NTSC one.
I can tell you from direct experience that it is unclear that (1) is true, and that (2) is (unfortunately) almost certainly not true. We're trying, though...
b) from there, an anamorphic DVD would be best for all 16:9 TV owners, a letterboxed DVD for most 4:3 owners;
3) Which is better for NTSC viewers, PAL disc played on multi-region player with player's real-time scaling or NTSC disc made from PAL transfer?
I say an NTSC disc from a PAL transfer. If you play a PAL disc, it'll be 4% too fast (25/23.976 = 1.04, or thereabouts). With a properly-made NTSC-from-PAL effort, the material would benefit from both the better starting resolution of PAL, and the correct speed of NTSC.