- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Knightmessenger
Well, do Pal laserdiscs have a greater possible resolution than NTSC? The pan & scan THX version was only on vhs in '95. I have a feeling that the source may have been used to create a Pan&Scan version for TV too - which would need to be higher quality then for VHS.
I'll give you my example about Last House on the Left - LHOTL was shot on 16MM, but when transferred for theatrical prints 35MM will hold more picture information and more quality then a 16MM print. It's kind of like that with LaserDisc - because it's an analogue format. Even if the source is a digital NTSC resolution standard definition version, a Pal version laserdisc should hold more quality in it then an NTSC version Laserdisc. They actually still have the exact number of lines (and ergo the same number of pixels) per second in each version, here's how:Well, do Pal laserdiscs have a greater possible resolution than NTSC? The pan & scan THX version was only on vhs in '95. I have a feeling that the source may have been used to create a Pan&Scan version for TV too - which would need to be higher quality then for VHS.
Originally posted by: THX
Originally posted by: boris
The PAL LD's *do* have more detail in them, however it can be speculated that even though this is the case they were still resized from NTSC resolution.
Please explain how this is possible. Originally posted by: boris
The PAL LD's *do* have more detail in them, however it can be speculated that even though this is the case they were still resized from NTSC resolution.
576 lines for PAL x 25fps = 14400 lines of resolution.
480 lines for NTSC x 30fps = 14400 lines of resolution.
The difference is though because of NTSC's 2:3 pulldown, every 5th field is redundant (a repeated copy of the filed preceeding it). SO, you really only get 11520 lines of unique resolution per second. Now let's add to the confusion:
576 lines for PAL x 25fps = 14400 lines of resolution (25 frames).
480 lines for NTSC x 24fps = 11520 lines of resolution (24 frames).
As you can see, when comparing per-second we're comparing 25 film frames to 24 film frames. SO, the difference is that NTSC stores each film frame at 480 lines, whereas PAL stores it with 576 lines - which means PAL allocates 96 more (unique) lines to each film frame, and NTSC uses those lines to repeat every 5th field (half-frame, but to keep it simple – 96 x 5 = 480). On DVD every 5th feild doesn't have to be stored and the player can do it "on the fly". With LaserDisc it is stored.
Now another thing to consider is that PAL also stores more colour information, which in turn results in more accurate colours. Now if Laserdisc was a perfect 1:1 copy of the Digital Master then the NTSC version should be the better copy. However, because it's not and because it's analogue data that stores the image, it's better to store it at a higher resolution then at the original resolution, even if you have to resize the video. Think about if you're developing a photo, but it's slightly out of focus - this is like what laserdisc does, it's video is a little out of focus and looses some detail. Now if you went and developed the same photo again, this time a little bit bigger but still a little out of focus then this time it'll have a little bit more detail in it, and look a bit better then your first one. Also, the digital masters undoubtedly hold more accurate colours then even PAL can reproduce, which means even if they are up-scaling the video the colour will be more accurate on PAL because for both PAL and NTSC that is down-scaled, and even if it isn't PAL will reproduce the colours more accurately. And this could be the reason the PAL LD's look better.
You have to remember it's not like they converted the NTSC laserdisc to PAL - they made secondary laserdisc masters from the digital masters for both PAL and NTSC. So it's entirely reasonable to expect the PAL version LD's to look better, even if taken from a source originally in NTSC resolution.
By the way to those who were excited when France said they'd have anamorphic OOT's and got excited at the idea of making anamorphic NTSC versions from it - it'll give you better results to make anamorphic NTSC from the NTSC DVD's if NTSC was the native resolution, otherwise the video's been resized twice not once.
<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!
I kind of wish the France thing had turned out to be true as anamorphic video would have made this release a little less painful. 
releases.
,