- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Rikter
Anyone wanna buy a kidney?
Anyone wanna buy a kidney?
I've already got one...
I've already got one...
I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.
.: Citizen's NTSC DVD / PAL DVD / XviD project :. (Released) — Page 13
I've already got one...
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: HyperYagami
Thx for all the answers Karyudo and Citizen. So are these correct?
1) PAL -> speeded up from original film (23.976fps -> 25fps), higher-pitch audiotrack
2) NTSC -> same framerate as the original film, no alteration to the LD NTSC audiotrack, resized from the PAL capture.
Thanks!
I don't know who told you cinema is 23.976fps, it's 24fps. NTSC is slightly slowed down as it runs at 29.97fps as opposed to 30fps - but it's not by much. I think you'll find that NTSC was originally 30fps not 29.97fps but was changed for some reason. I don't think the pitch was increased for the PAL releases of SW, I believe they're pitch-corrected. Thus this is correct:Thx for all the answers Karyudo and Citizen. So are these correct?
1) PAL -> speeded up from original film (23.976fps -> 25fps), higher-pitch audiotrack
2) NTSC -> same framerate as the original film, no alteration to the LD NTSC audiotrack, resized from the PAL capture.
Thanks!
1) PAL -> sped up from original film by 4% (24fps -> 25fps), higher resolution. PC software (PowerDVD, WinDVD, etc) can play back at 24fps.
2) NTSC -> slightly slowed down from original film (24fps -> 23.976fps), played back with a 2:3 jitter pulldown on DVD players, PC Software can play back at 24fps without the pulldown. Lower resolution.
This is true for Star Wars movies, and many other movies, but not all movies. Basically if you were to watch them on a projector through a PC the only difference would be that the PAL version has a higher resolution. But if you're to watch them on a TV through a DVD player then all those other differences come into play.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
I don't think the pitch was increased for the PAL releases of SW, I believe they're pitch-corrected.
I had to resample the snippets I took from the NTSC SE LDs to match the PAL DVDs, so it was just a straight resample.
Can pitch-correction be done in such a way that it doesn't cause audio artefacts? I believe they may have tried it with recent UK broadcasts of Stargate SG1, and you can hear the glitches.
I just wanted to add the caveat that, in the case of PAL, 5.1 audio will be downsampled to stereo.
I would have thought that in the second case, PC software would always playback at 23.976fps - no-one's going to notice that 0.1% speed difference, and it would run into audio sync problems unless it resampled as above (only 7s over a two hour movie, but still).
This is true for Star Wars movies, and many other movies, but not all movies.
I don't think the pitch was increased for the PAL releases of SW, I believe they're pitch-corrected.
I had to resample the snippets I took from the NTSC SE LDs to match the PAL DVDs, so it was just a straight resample.
Can pitch-correction be done in such a way that it doesn't cause audio artefacts? I believe they may have tried it with recent UK broadcasts of Stargate SG1, and you can hear the glitches.
1) PAL ... PC software ... can play back at 24fps.
2) NTSC ... PC Software can play back at 24fps without the pulldown. Lower resolution.
2) NTSC ... PC Software can play back at 24fps without the pulldown. Lower resolution.
I just wanted to add the caveat that, in the case of PAL, 5.1 audio will be downsampled to stereo.
I would have thought that in the second case, PC software would always playback at 23.976fps - no-one's going to notice that 0.1% speed difference, and it would run into audio sync problems unless it resampled as above (only 7s over a two hour movie, but still).
This is true for Star Wars movies, and many other movies, but not all movies.
What movies would it not be the case for?
DE
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Editous
What movies would it not be the case for?
TV movies, and movies filmed in PAL countries, even if it's being filmed on forign soil which includes the occasional hollywood film that's shot in 25 fps rather then 24 (in cinema it would be slowed to 24 fps). I don't think it's very common, but then you can never know since they obviously don't publicise it. I think the main reason they sometimes do this is so they can watch their takes on a TV right away (interesting note is that sometimes when shooting on an open-matte the director would cover part of the tv/monitor with cardboard to mimic widescreen). There may also be some TV movies shot in 29.97 or 30 fps, which I would imagine is very rare. Originally posted by: boris
I don't think the pitch was increased for the PAL releases of SW, I believe they're pitch-corrected.
I had to resample the snippets I took from the NTSC SE LDs to match the PAL DVDs, so it was just a straight resample.
Can pitch-correction be done in such a way that it doesn't cause audio artefacts? I believe they may have tried it with recent UK broadcasts of Stargate SG1, and you can hear the glitches. Yeah I read after I posted that.. still. Yes it can, but I don't know how. Basically you stretch the audio without changing the pitch (ie you never really "pitch correct"). It's one of those "more recent" developments I suppose, how NTSC used to just repeat every 4th frame but now they use the 2:3 pulldown (I also hear ntsc used to slow down pal material, whereas now they apply a 2:2:3:2:3 pulldown). Basically PAL and NTSC conversions are a lot better then they used to be.
This is true for Star Wars movies, and many other movies, but not all movies.
I don't think the pitch was increased for the PAL releases of SW, I believe they're pitch-corrected.
I had to resample the snippets I took from the NTSC SE LDs to match the PAL DVDs, so it was just a straight resample.
Can pitch-correction be done in such a way that it doesn't cause audio artefacts? I believe they may have tried it with recent UK broadcasts of Stargate SG1, and you can hear the glitches. Yeah I read after I posted that.. still. Yes it can, but I don't know how. Basically you stretch the audio without changing the pitch (ie you never really "pitch correct"). It's one of those "more recent" developments I suppose, how NTSC used to just repeat every 4th frame but now they use the 2:3 pulldown (I also hear ntsc used to slow down pal material, whereas now they apply a 2:2:3:2:3 pulldown). Basically PAL and NTSC conversions are a lot better then they used to be.
Originally posted by: Darth Editous
I just wanted to add the caveat that, in the case of PAL, 5.1 audio will be downsampled to stereo.
Howcome?Originally posted by: Darth Editous1) PAL ... PC software ... can play back at 24fps.
2) NTSC ... PC Software can play back at 24fps without the pulldown. Lower resolution.
2) NTSC ... PC Software can play back at 24fps without the pulldown. Lower resolution.
I just wanted to add the caveat that, in the case of PAL, 5.1 audio will be downsampled to stereo.
This is true for Star Wars movies, and many other movies, but not all movies.
What movies would it not be the case for?
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
PC software (PowerDVD, WinDVD, etc) can play back at 24fps.
Where's that hidden setting?
Btw, software like Sony's SoundForge works well for speed and pitch shifting ("well" being relative). For a whole discussion check out the early part of the thread for my transfer. I had originally intended to just slow Mother's audio down, which of course wouldn't work, but all the technical ins-and-outs were brought up.
To be fair at least 23.976 is close. Until there's a true 24 fps home format it'll have to do.
If the lines of resolution bother you get an HD-DVD/BluRay Player.
Anyone with a tin ear can hear how bad 25 fps sped up audio is. Those extra lines of resolution mean squat in comparison.
Frankly I'd go so far as to say 99% of all film (for theatrical release) is shot at 24 fps regardless of country. The rare times you'll find true 25 fps film is when the destination is expected to be TV in a PAL country. Even the U.S. shoots it's TV at 24 fps instead of 30.
You do find the odd 30 fps shots in anime for smoothness but in those cases it's not 100% and you find hybrid framerate video which is a whole other discussion.
Dr. M
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Doctor M
To be fair at least 23.976 is close. Until there's a true 24 fps home format it'll have to do.
If the lines of resolution bother you get an HD-DVD/BluRay Player.
Anyone with a tin ear can hear how bad 25 fps sped up audio is. Those extra lines of resolution mean squat in comparison. Well that's not true because pitch is preserved these days. And to be perfectly honest, coming from a PAL country you do miss the 90 or so lines that is missing from NTSC whos resolution holds 480 lines, PAL has 576 lines, so From your point of view (if you're in an ntsc country) the difference is about a 20% increase in resolution compared to what you're used to. If you don't think that's significant then why is it that so many people here think there's such a big difference between non-anamorphic and anamorphic NTSC?
2.35:1 NTSC: 720x272
2.35:1 PAL: 720x324
The September DVD's will be in (about) the above resolutions.
2.35:1 Anamorphic NTSC: 720x360
2.35:1 Anamorphic PAL: 720x432
You still don't think it's significant?
And even when I watch movie in PAL and then NTSC I cannot tell the difference in speed. Even movies that don't have a corrected pitch. And I have an excellent ear, I’m not tone deaf, I distinguish pitch and tone and volume probably better then most people - to me MP3's sound hollow compared to CDA... yet most people can't tell the difference. MY visual senses are probably more forgiving then my auditory ones. Can you honestly say that a Pal movie that isn't pitch-corrected sounds wrong to you? If I gave you 3 Pal movies (one shot in 25 fps, one shot in 24 fps and pitch corrected, and the other shot in 24 fps and not pitch corrected) – would you really be able to pick out the one that wasn't pitch corrected? I'd find it difficult just to find a Pal DVD that wasn't pitch corrected in the first place.
The one thing that does bother me is "steady" pan shots in NTSC, because they always look awful due to the jitter, aside from that the pulldown doesn't bother me too much - I read once on the internet that more of the American population finds NTSC jitter noticeable then British people find the increased pitch noticeable - and as I said, to be fair these days movies released in PAL still play at the correct pitch. Also, from what I've heard when NTSC is broadcast the signal is highly unstable which causes it to be called "Never The Same Colour". I've never seen NTSC broadcast, so I don't really know, but someone told me this was related to the framerate being 29.97 instead of 30 fps.Originally posted by: Doctor M
Frankly I'd go so far as to say 99% of all film (for theatrical release) is shot at 24 fps regardless of country. The rare times you'll find true 25 fps film is when the destination is expected to be TV in a PAL country. Even the U.S. shoots it's TV at 24 fps instead of 30.
Yes I know that NTSC countries never shoot movies intended for cinema in 30fps, and I really don't know how accurate your "99%" is - because as I said you can never really know. If your ntsc dvd plays back at a 2:2:3:2:3 pulldown, then you may know - but I have a feeling that slowing the movie down to 23.976 fps is more common then using that pulldown (not that I'm an expert but someone told me that pitch suffers much more when it's slowed down a bit compared to if it's sped up). I have heard of cinema movies being shot in 25 fps instead of 24, mostly movies from Britain and other Pal countries - but you can never really know, I strongly suspect that quite a few American hollywood movies were shot at 25 fps too. I really wouldn't be prepared to estimate how many movies I think might be shot at the faster frame rate, because I'm really in no position to even make an informed estimate, I would simply be stabbing in the dark.To be fair at least 23.976 is close. Until there's a true 24 fps home format it'll have to do.
If the lines of resolution bother you get an HD-DVD/BluRay Player.
Anyone with a tin ear can hear how bad 25 fps sped up audio is. Those extra lines of resolution mean squat in comparison. Well that's not true because pitch is preserved these days. And to be perfectly honest, coming from a PAL country you do miss the 90 or so lines that is missing from NTSC whos resolution holds 480 lines, PAL has 576 lines, so From your point of view (if you're in an ntsc country) the difference is about a 20% increase in resolution compared to what you're used to. If you don't think that's significant then why is it that so many people here think there's such a big difference between non-anamorphic and anamorphic NTSC?
2.35:1 NTSC: 720x272
2.35:1 PAL: 720x324
The September DVD's will be in (about) the above resolutions.
2.35:1 Anamorphic NTSC: 720x360
2.35:1 Anamorphic PAL: 720x432
You still don't think it's significant?
And even when I watch movie in PAL and then NTSC I cannot tell the difference in speed. Even movies that don't have a corrected pitch. And I have an excellent ear, I’m not tone deaf, I distinguish pitch and tone and volume probably better then most people - to me MP3's sound hollow compared to CDA... yet most people can't tell the difference. MY visual senses are probably more forgiving then my auditory ones. Can you honestly say that a Pal movie that isn't pitch-corrected sounds wrong to you? If I gave you 3 Pal movies (one shot in 25 fps, one shot in 24 fps and pitch corrected, and the other shot in 24 fps and not pitch corrected) – would you really be able to pick out the one that wasn't pitch corrected? I'd find it difficult just to find a Pal DVD that wasn't pitch corrected in the first place.
The one thing that does bother me is "steady" pan shots in NTSC, because they always look awful due to the jitter, aside from that the pulldown doesn't bother me too much - I read once on the internet that more of the American population finds NTSC jitter noticeable then British people find the increased pitch noticeable - and as I said, to be fair these days movies released in PAL still play at the correct pitch. Also, from what I've heard when NTSC is broadcast the signal is highly unstable which causes it to be called "Never The Same Colour". I've never seen NTSC broadcast, so I don't really know, but someone told me this was related to the framerate being 29.97 instead of 30 fps.Originally posted by: Doctor M
Frankly I'd go so far as to say 99% of all film (for theatrical release) is shot at 24 fps regardless of country. The rare times you'll find true 25 fps film is when the destination is expected to be TV in a PAL country. Even the U.S. shoots it's TV at 24 fps instead of 30.
Anyway at least Pal plays back frame-for-frame, that almost makes up for the difference in speed (which although I can't notice it's still a little difficult to accept you're watching a movie timed incorrectly). At the end of the day they're both stupid standards. They have to make a 600Htz display standard for TV (that's 600 FPS), then that will handle everything fine (24 fps, 25 fps, 30 fps), played back at the correct frame rate with no pulldown, or shift in speed - when broadcast.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Richard
With all this PAL NTSC talk made me think. they need to merge or something. Cuz NTSC obviously is the worse of the two. It wo0uld be nice if there could be a universal one that use the frame rate that is was shot in but with PAL resolution. Or something like that but anyways
With all this PAL NTSC talk made me think. they need to merge or something. Cuz NTSC obviously is the worse of the two. It wo0uld be nice if there could be a universal one that use the frame rate that is was shot in but with PAL resolution. Or something like that but anyways
It exists (but better) and it's called Blu-Ray at 1080p/24.
.... and all this is wildly off topic.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: pupil
It exists (but better) and it's called Blu-Ray at 1080p/24.
.... and all this is wildly off topic.
Originally posted by: Darth Richard
With all this PAL NTSC talk made me think. they need to merge or something. Cuz NTSC obviously is the worse of the two. It wo0uld be nice if there could be a universal one that use the frame rate that is was shot in but with PAL resolution. Or something like that but anyways
With all this PAL NTSC talk made me think. they need to merge or something. Cuz NTSC obviously is the worse of the two. It wo0uld be nice if there could be a universal one that use the frame rate that is was shot in but with PAL resolution. Or something like that but anyways
It exists (but better) and it's called Blu-Ray at 1080p/24.
.... and all this is wildly off topic.
I though that Blu-ray still used NTSC and PAL??!?! and yes this wildy off topic but I doubt citizen would mind cuz it all (sorta) is about his preservation.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Richard
I though that Blu-ray still used NTSC and PAL??!?!
I though that Blu-ray still used NTSC and PAL??!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
Essentially, Blu-ray has the ability to display video at either 24/50/60Hz, like Film or PAL/NTSC TV signals, so depending at what frame rate the footage was filmed/produced it can be put onto Blu-Ray disc at whatever speed it needs to be in, either 24/25/30fps. I'm hoping that over time, especially as the whole HD thing is adopted en masse, we will see a universal frame rate accepted. The whole resolution thing is not an issue anymore as everything will be at 1920×1080 (for 1080 naturally).
PAL and NTSC are really terms used to define the colour encoding systems in analogue TV signals, but is used (kinda incorrectly) to describe resolution and frame rate, but it's not a term that is appropriate for HD signals. The only difference between regions now for HD is the frame rate.
The 24Hz Disc is for Blu-ray only though. HD DVD doesn't allow this, it's still holding on dearly to the old DVD technology of 50 or 60HZ only. IMHO the MAIN reason that Blu-ray should be the successor and not HD DVD.
All this is to my understanding though, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: pupil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
Essentially, Blu-ray has the ability to display video at either 24/50/60Hz, like Film or PAL/NTSC TV signals, so depending at what frame rate the footage was filmed/produced it can be put onto Blu-Ray disc at whatever speed it needs to be in, either 24/25/30fps. I'm hoping that over time, especially as the whole HD thing is adopted en masse, we will see a universal frame rate accepted. The whole resolution thing is not an issue anymore as everything will be at 1920×1080 (for 1080 naturally).
PAL and NTSC are really terms used to define the colour encoding systems in analogue TV signals, but is used (kinda incorrectly) to describe resolution and frame rate, but it's not a term that is appropriate for HD signals. The only difference between regions now for HD is the frame rate.
The 24Hz Disc is for Blu-ray only though. HD DVD doesn't allow this, it's still holding on dearly to the old DVD technology of 50 or 60HZ only. IMHO the MAIN reason that Blu-ray should be the successor and not HD DVD.
All this is to my understanding though, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert
Originally posted by: Darth Richard
I though that Blu-ray still used NTSC and PAL??!?!
I though that Blu-ray still used NTSC and PAL??!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
Essentially, Blu-ray has the ability to display video at either 24/50/60Hz, like Film or PAL/NTSC TV signals, so depending at what frame rate the footage was filmed/produced it can be put onto Blu-Ray disc at whatever speed it needs to be in, either 24/25/30fps. I'm hoping that over time, especially as the whole HD thing is adopted en masse, we will see a universal frame rate accepted. The whole resolution thing is not an issue anymore as everything will be at 1920×1080 (for 1080 naturally).
PAL and NTSC are really terms used to define the colour encoding systems in analogue TV signals, but is used (kinda incorrectly) to describe resolution and frame rate, but it's not a term that is appropriate for HD signals. The only difference between regions now for HD is the frame rate.
The 24Hz Disc is for Blu-ray only though. HD DVD doesn't allow this, it's still holding on dearly to the old DVD technology of 50 or 60HZ only. IMHO the MAIN reason that Blu-ray should be the successor and not HD DVD.
All this is to my understanding though, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert
thanks for the explination. And ya I think that Blu-ray will win cuz one it is better and two thats what the PS3 will be so in my opion it has already won.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Richard
With all this PAL NTSC talk made me think. they need to merge or something. Cuz NTSC obviously is the worse of the two. It wo0uld be nice if there could be a universal one that use the frame rate that is was shot in but with PAL resolution. Or something like that but anyways
The problem is they need to keep broadcasting a signal that is "compatible" with TV's people own, and probably very hard to make a "new" standard - for instance imagine changing American roads to accept the European standard of driving on the left hand side (or vice-versa)! It's one thing to improve the roads and vehicles, but quite another to change the standards.. still I hope in a few more years Pal and Ntsc will be a thing of the past. With all this PAL NTSC talk made me think. they need to merge or something. Cuz NTSC obviously is the worse of the two. It wo0uld be nice if there could be a universal one that use the frame rate that is was shot in but with PAL resolution. Or something like that but anyways
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: pupil
Essentially, Blu-ray has the ability to display video at either 24/50/60Hz, like Film or PAL/NTSC TV signals, so depending at what frame rate the footage was filmed/produced it can be put onto Blu-Ray disc at whatever speed it needs to be in, either 24/25/30fps. I'm hoping that over time, especially as the whole HD thing is adopted en masse, we will see a universal frame rate accepted. The whole resolution thing is not an issue anymore as everything will be at 1920×1080 (for 1080 naturally).
HVD is the future. I'm unimpressed by HD-DVD, it's only 15Gig/layer - that's not very much of an improvement upon DVD. In fact if you were to record a 2-hour movie onto a DVD-9 maxing out the space using the latest Mpeg-4 codec you'll have something in a quality at least 10 times better then the DVD standard alone allows for - yet HD-DVD doesn't make a "huge" leap in the quest for greater space. Remember Laserdiscs would split movies up between discs to keep them in high quality - HD-DVD dual layer discs are 30GB? That's less then half the size of a standard HDD. Also remember if you want to reduce piracy, you should release a movie in a higher format then can be easily ripped. HVD has claimed they will exceed 1TB discs - now I'd like to see a consumer rip and pirate THAT! a movie on a 1TB disc could be presented uncompressed - and still be of a quality equal to cinema. Boost it up with some lossless video and audio compression and the disc will probably hold information in greater then cinema quality, and it's good business because consumers can't easily copy it (even if they crack your encryption).Essentially, Blu-ray has the ability to display video at either 24/50/60Hz, like Film or PAL/NTSC TV signals, so depending at what frame rate the footage was filmed/produced it can be put onto Blu-Ray disc at whatever speed it needs to be in, either 24/25/30fps. I'm hoping that over time, especially as the whole HD thing is adopted en masse, we will see a universal frame rate accepted. The whole resolution thing is not an issue anymore as everything will be at 1920×1080 (for 1080 naturally).
I wonder if they'll try regional-lockout again? Surely it'll be ruled illegal within 6 months if they do.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
I think we are really looking at Beta vs VHS all over again.
Not just that you have 2 formats, but Beta was always considered superior, it just didn't win.
HD-DVD will win as well. The tech in BluRay is better, but it's also a much more expensive hardware and software solution. (It's also cheaper for the software manufacturers (using existing equipment), so smaller houses (including porn) are more likely to turn out HD-DVD than BluRay).
Most people will never notice a audio/video quality difference so they'll buy for price.
If more people can afford HD-DVD, more people will buy it, more adopters = winner. Sad but true.
Back on subject, if you want a best of both worlds Star Wars, get Citizen's Xvid edition. I'm assuming he has it at as pure film 24fps at high resolutions.
Then you don't have to worry about what format wins the war, or PAL/NTSC. (I'm sure we will see DivX chips in future HD/BR players anyway).
Edit: Btw, Boris, I think you're tone deaf.
I've heard several recent PAL DVD's. Guess what, Pitch Shifting really ISN'T that common (or my sampling was skewed). If you want details drop your DVD in your PC, grab a VOB file and load it into GSpot software. It'll tell you the frame rate and pulldown.The extra lines would be great to have, I will agree, but DVDs look pretty good for 480 lines (and anamorphic helps hedge the line-equation a bit). While more lines would be better, it's NOT better at the expense of sound quality.
Also your films being 4% faster are paced differently than the director intended.
Dr. M
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Doctor M
Also your films being 4% faster are paced differently than the director intended.
Watching them in your home is different from what the director intended also. Watching ntsc with the 2:3 pulldown is different to what the director intended. I find it interesting you say beta was better - but was it really? Or is that just an opinion? Beta was released before VHS and, so, for a time was the standard - consumers when given the choice preferred VHS, so explain that. And at any rate, it's probably true to say Video 2000 was much better then either VHS or Beta.Also your films being 4% faster are paced differently than the director intended.
JVC's D-VHS is better quality then either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray could ever hope to be (and it's been available for 8 years now), yet people won't go back to a tape format.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
Imagine changing American roads to accept the European standard of driving on the left hand side (or vice-versa)! It's one thing to improve the roads and vehicles, but quite another to change the standards.
Imagine changing American roads to accept the European standard of driving on the left hand side (or vice-versa)! It's one thing to improve the roads and vehicles, but quite another to change the standards.
Why change anything? Europeans drive on the same side as North Americans.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
Why change anything? Europeans drive on the same side as North Americans. Eep, I stand corrected. Although Wikipedia suggests driving on the left is safer.
link
New Zealand
Even though New Zealand drives on the left, drivers must give way to traffic coming from their right at intersections. Thus, the give way rules have more in common with those of countries that drive on the right than of other countries that drive on the left.
Well DUH giving way on right makes sense, traffic comes at you from the right, it's only sensible you give way to the right.... ???confused! Why change anything? Europeans drive on the same side as North Americans. Eep, I stand corrected. Although Wikipedia suggests driving on the left is safer.
link
New Zealand
Even though New Zealand drives on the left, drivers must give way to traffic coming from their right at intersections. Thus, the give way rules have more in common with those of countries that drive on the right than of other countries that drive on the left.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
I wonder if they'll try regional-lockout again? Surely it'll be ruled illegal within 6 months if they do.
Originally posted by: pupil
Essentially, Blu-ray has the ability to display video at either 24/50/60Hz, like Film or PAL/NTSC TV signals, so depending at what frame rate the footage was filmed/produced it can be put onto Blu-Ray disc at whatever speed it needs to be in, either 24/25/30fps. I'm hoping that over time, especially as the whole HD thing is adopted en masse, we will see a universal frame rate accepted. The whole resolution thing is not an issue anymore as everything will be at 1920×1080 (for 1080 naturally).
HVD is the future. I'm unimpressed by HD-DVD, it's only 15Gig/layer - that's not very much of an improvement upon DVD. In fact if you were to record a 2-hour movie onto a DVD-9 maxing out the space using the latest Mpeg-4 codec you'll have something in a quality at least 10 times better then the DVD standard alone allows for - yet HD-DVD doesn't make a "huge" leap in the quest for greater space. Remember Laserdiscs would split movies up between discs to keep them in high quality - HD-DVD dual layer discs are 30GB? That's less then half the size of a standard HDD. Also remember if you want to reduce piracy, you should release a movie in a higher format then can be easily ripped. HVD has claimed they will exceed 1TB discs - now I'd like to see a consumer rip and pirate THAT! a movie on a 1TB disc could be presented uncompressed - and still be of a quality equal to cinema. Boost it up with some lossless video and audio compression and the disc will probably hold information in greater then cinema quality, and it's good business because consumers can't easily copy it (even if they crack your encryption).Essentially, Blu-ray has the ability to display video at either 24/50/60Hz, like Film or PAL/NTSC TV signals, so depending at what frame rate the footage was filmed/produced it can be put onto Blu-Ray disc at whatever speed it needs to be in, either 24/25/30fps. I'm hoping that over time, especially as the whole HD thing is adopted en masse, we will see a universal frame rate accepted. The whole resolution thing is not an issue anymore as everything will be at 1920×1080 (for 1080 naturally).
I wonder if they'll try regional-lockout again? Surely it'll be ruled illegal within 6 months if they do.
thats what I thought too. Jsut wait in 15 years that will be the standard. At maximum that thing can hold 3.6tb thats friggin amazing.
- Time
- Post link
I'd say that'll be fine for awhile.
Dr. M
- Time
- Post link
30GB allows for an extremely high quality 1080 picture.
If it doesn't look much better than DVD, perhaps you need to recalibrate your display device, or perhaps you have something that isn't capable of displaying HD-DVD the way it should look.
Sure 1TB+ discs would be better, but support circuitry to be able to handle the data rates required for uncompressed video is a big unknown, especially at consumer level pricing. Getting all the studios onside, getting a working product out for the right money, all the DVD fabs having to totally retool etc.
Having a big disc is the easy bit, getting all the other stuff is a lot more work to get a product to market.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Gorram
Well, the HD-DVD titles I have look a *lot* better than DVD, massively better in fact, (except one title which isn't great) the sound however is a massive improvement over DVD, it really is mindblowing.
30GB allows for an extremely high quality 1080 picture.
If it doesn't look much better than DVD, perhaps you need to recalibrate your display device, or perhaps you have something that isn't capable of displaying HD-DVD the way it should look.
D-VHS holds more then that capacity - and has been available since '98, how come you not excited about it? Like I said, better technology is not always more popular. HVD will take over, and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will be short lived.Well, the HD-DVD titles I have look a *lot* better than DVD, massively better in fact, (except one title which isn't great) the sound however is a massive improvement over DVD, it really is mindblowing.
30GB allows for an extremely high quality 1080 picture.
If it doesn't look much better than DVD, perhaps you need to recalibrate your display device, or perhaps you have something that isn't capable of displaying HD-DVD the way it should look.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith
You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked
None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: boris
D-VHS holds more then that capacity - and has been available since '98, how come you not excited about it? Like I said, better technology is not always more popular. HVD will take over, and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will be short lived.
D-VHS holds more then that capacity - and has been available since '98, how come you not excited about it? Like I said, better technology is not always more popular. HVD will take over, and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will be short lived.
Perhaps its the degradation factor, perhaps its the possibility of breaks, snags and stretches, perhaps its just the inconvenience of having to rewind your tapes, the relative ease of duplication, the lower price and ease of digital distribution afforded the DVD all probably play a factor.
“I love Darth Editous and I’m not ashamed to admit it.” ~ADigitalMan
