Sign In

So then, PAL or NTSC GOUT for best quality?

Author
Time
Hi everyone!

Well I'm happy with my PAL copy of the original Star Wars, apart from the 4% faster running time, though it does appear to have been pitch corrected, as the original THX VHS releases were BTW.

However it appears the PAL versions are merely upscaled from their NTSC counterparts from other comments on this forum. Would having the NTSC version yield better picture quality as it hasn't had to go through this upscalling process? Any comparison shots between the two would be great as I need to know whether to get the other two DVDs in PAL or NTSC.

Thanks!

- John
Author
Time
Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
Hi everyone!

Well I'm happy with my PAL copy of the original Star Wars, apart from the 4% faster running time, though it does appear to have been pitch corrected, as the original THX VHS releases were BTW.

However it appears the PAL versions are merely upscaled from their NTSC counterparts from other comments on this forum. Would having the NTSC version yield better picture quality as it hasn't had to go through this upscalling process? Any comparison shots between the two would be great as I need to know whether to get the other two DVDs in PAL or NTSC.

Thanks!

- John


Getting the original NTSC material would be better.

Author
Time
I'm guessing any difference in picture quality would be negligible (but would appreciate some sceenshots from an owner of the NTSC discs). If you live in a PAL country, you're probably marginally better off getting the PAL discs, as that is what your equipment will primarily be calibrated for.

Has the audio been pitch corrected? I've seen someone else say that it hasn't.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
However it appears the PAL versions are merely upscaled from their NTSC counterparts from other comments on this forum.
The PAL version will be better, even if it has been resized. It's not the fact of the resolution, but the fact of the interlacing methods. Interlaced PAL will always look better then Interlaced NTSC, also the PAL colour pallet is more accurate (and to be honest, it's been up-scaled from NTSC resolution, not from "NTSC"). Also, a version up-scaled from SD to HD will look better, if it's been passed through a really good up-scalier. So I would have to say PAL. From the screenshots posted, the PAL picture extends all the way to both sides, whereas the NTSC one doesn't. For me this is evidence and a give-away of scaling - but it's good news that they scaled it to the full width. The NTSC image may well be a bit sharper in certain scenes... but it won't look as good as a PAL image.

Also, when played on a CRT telle, NTSC will have more visible scan-lines then PAL. This may not bother some, it doesn't both me ... but others are bothered by it - especially those who own widescreen CRT Telle's.

Is the difference big enough to warrant importing? No.

However, ordering from Region 4 (NZ/Aus) may actually be slightly cheaper then buying off the shelf in the USA, as our market has lower prices. But then again, price is the least important thing when talking about quality.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Load of techno-bullshit I don't really understand.
Fixed your post for you, boris.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
I should add to my original query that I use an Infocus SP4805 DLP video projector which throws a widescreen image about 78" across on my bedroom wall, using component inputs, so I guess I need all the detail/resolution etc that I can get, which I suppose means the PAL version then by a narrow margin. Just wish I could get used to the speeded up sound though after being used to the 'Faces' LDs for years. Then again if it's proved at some point within the next few days there's barely a difference in picture quality between the two then I think I'll plump for the NTSC editions for the correct running speed.

Moth3r - perhaps you are right about it not being pitch corrected... it sounds correct, but obviously a little faster... haha! If I hadn't been so used to the 'Faces' LD for years I guess I wouldn't have even noticed.

- J
Author
Time
Boris, you are one amazing forum troll:

Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
The PAL version will be better, even if it has been resized. It's not the fact of the resolution, but the fact of the interlacing methods. Interlaced PAL will always look better then Interlaced NTSC


Please define "interlacing methods" for me. Both systems use the same interlacing methods, just with a different framerate (50 half frames vs 60 half frames).

What you probably mean is 3:2 pulldown. Now, go quickly check wikipedia to present us your knowledge here.


, also the PAL colour pallet is more accurate (and to be honest, it's been up-scaled from NTSC resolution, not from "NTSC").


Argh.... Please define "PAL colour pallet" for me, and explain, how PAL can have more colours than NTSC. Could be quite entertaining.


Also, a version up-scaled from SD to HD will look better, if it's been passed through a really good up-scalier.


Almost perfect repetition of what other forum members said here, except the spelling mistakes....


So I would have to say PAL. From the screenshots posted, the PAL picture extends all the way to both sides, whereas the NTSC one doesn't.


Ummm, huh? DO we have to understand that?


For me this is evidence and a give-away of scaling - but it's good news that they scaled it to the full width. The NTSC image may well be a bit sharper in certain scenes... but it won't look as good as a PAL image.


Again: what evidence? blablablablabla.....


Also, when played on a CRT telle, NTSC will have more visible scan-lines then PAL.


LOL! boris, you are truly an unicum here! The first time I heard that NTSC has actually MORE visible scanlines than PAL....


This may not bother some, it doesn't both me ... but others are bothered by it - especially those who own widescreen CRT Telle's.


But it´s not as bad as the devilish film grain reduction of the shitty 2004SE´s, is it? *LOL*


However, ordering from Region 4 (NZ/Aus) may actually be slightly cheaper then buying off the shelf in the USA, as our market has lower prices. But then again, price is the least important thing when talking about quality.


Then, this DVD set would have absolutely lost against nearly every DVD release of a major motion picture during the past 6 years.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: seventiesfilmnut
Moth3r - perhaps you are right about it not being pitch corrected... it sounds correct, but obviously a little faster... haha! If I hadn't been so used to the 'Faces' LD for years I guess I wouldn't have even noticed.

- J
I'd be willing to bet my right nut that it's been corrected. In the digital age all you have to do is lower the pitch by a semitone... it's not hard anymore, it's standard. I really cannot notice the difference in movie speed - 4% is so small.

By the way, Moth3r, I do know what I'm saying... just like I knew what I was saying when I told you not to go comparing the colour of our captures when they weren't captured using the same method - and you know something? I was right. Mind you I didn't flame at you or call what you said a "load of techno-bullshit" that you don't really understand.

The difference will be small. If you like, you could use boba feta's crawl, which you can find on this page, burn that to DVD-R and use it as a test. Maybe someone else will be kind enough to upload the NTSC version for you. I really don't think the difference in quality would be worth importing the PAL.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
LOL! boris, you are truly an unicum here! The first time I heard that NTSC has actually MORE visible scanlines than PAL....
What I mean is the BLACK scanlines, between the lines of picture, will be thicker - and more visible. This is what bothers some people. I thought I what I said was clear the first time?

Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
LOL! boris, you are truly an unicum here! The first time I heard that NTSC has actually MORE visible scanlines than PAL....
What I mean is the BLACK scanlines, between the lines of picture, will be thicker - and more visible. This is what bothers some people. I thought I what I said was clear the first time?


No, it wasn´t. You can never be sure about what you actually mean with your posts. And how it can change during further posts.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: borisI'd be willing to bet my right nut that it's been corrected.


* kkkkrrrrrrg, plop! *


By the way, Moth3r, I do know what I'm saying... just like I knew what I was saying when I told you not to go comparing the colour of our captures when they weren't captured using the same method - and you know something? I was right. Mind you I didn't flame at you or call what you said a "load of techno-bullshit" that you don't really understand.


boris, let´s face it:

we don´t want to talk about how much you have been corrected here on this forum, do we? We don´t want to talk about how often you obviously are juggling with technological catchphrases without actually knowing what´s all behind this, do we? Give Moth3r your best shot now, will you?

Perhaps we should open a "best of boris" thread, since it has become very boring to go through all your posts and search for your best remarks. My favourites are still:

"digital film scratches"
"better PAL colour pallet"
"more visible scanlines in NTSC"
"16mm is DVD, 35mm is HDTV"
"DV material looks very good in cinemas!"

and more most amusing remarks you have made here during your membership. Shall we continue?
Author
Time
Shall I point out that recently others, including Moth3r, have been jumping to conclusions - I haven't. I've been considering them. Also none of those quotes are real. I especially like the "DV material looks very good in cinemas!"... as I'm if you read what I actually said it may make more sense.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
LOL! boris, you are truly an unicum here! The first time I heard that NTSC has actually MORE visible scanlines than PAL....
What I mean is the BLACK scanlines, between the lines of picture, will be thicker - and more visible. This is what bothers some people. I thought I what I said was clear the first time?


It made sense to me. He was not saying that NTSC had beteer resolution. He was saying it looked worse, because of the lower resolution you can see blank lines between the real lines. I can see those black lines especially when watching laserdiscs. DVD's aren't so bad. Anamorphic DVD's I don't see them at all, because this Sony Wega has a hardware feature to squeeze an anamorphic picture vertically.

Honestly, why all the Boris bashing? It's almost like you guys are taking your anti-Lucas frustrations out on him. You were definitely not trying to understand his post... you just wanted to flame.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Moth3r
Vigo - I'm surprised you even attempted a response to the scaled interlaced colour palette scanlines post.


I know I shouldn´t, but it is just so damn funny.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: calamari
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Vigo
LOL! boris, you are truly an unicum here! The first time I heard that NTSC has actually MORE visible scanlines than PAL.... What I mean is the BLACK scanlines, between the lines of picture, will be thicker - and more visible. This is what bothers some people. I thought I what I said was clear the first time?

It made sense to me. He was not saying that NTSC had beteer resolution. He was saying it looked worse, because of the lower resolution you can see blank lines between the real lines.


That´s not what he said. You just happened to have interpreted it the same way as he did in his follow-up post to my response.


I can see those black lines especially when watching laserdiscs. DVD's aren't so bad.


Then there is something wrong. NTSC=NTSC.


Honestly, why all the Boris bashing? It's almost like you guys are taking your anti-Lucas frustrations out on him. You were definitely not trying to understand his post... you just wanted to flame.


No offence, but did YOU actually READ AND UNDERSTAND what boris has written here over the past few months? His numerous false claims, and always repeating them over and over, despite being corrected many times by people who actually WORK IN THE INDUSTRY Please, don´t go the dark path of the force with him, and try to defend him here, just because you happen to feel sorry for him, and feel angry about our "anti-Lucas" frustrations we are supposed to have.
Author
Time
OK, guys? Could you please stop filling up every thread with flame wars? If there is a troll, please don't feed it. Thanks.
Darth Lucas: I am altering the trilogy. Pray I don't alter it further.
Author
Time
God DAMN could we cut down on the squabbling a bit here please? Just wanted to know which version looks the best - PAL or NTSC... didn't intend to star a techno-babble flame-war discussion hahaha! It's just so infantile at the end of the day.... we don't want this turning into TF.N afterall....

Anyhoo regarding the pitch correction I noticed this was definately NOT the case with the 2004 PAL versions - Luke sounds like a chipmonk haha! He sounds less like said creature in the GOUT so I'm guessing it was pitch corrected for the original versions (as it was when the PAL THX versions were released on VHS way back when - remembered a THX dude being interviewed about it then and saying that was the case. Stands to reason they would have done that on this release as well).

Cheers

- J
Author
Time

That´s not what he said. You just happened to have interpreted it the same way as he did in his follow-up post to my response.


Out of context you can make statements say many things. In the context of what he was saying, it made perfect sense to me. Was it worded perfectly? No. Is that a reason to flame someone? No.


I can see those black lines especially when watching laserdiscs. DVD's aren't so bad.



Then there is something wrong. NTSC=NTSC.


Yeah NTSC = NTSC, but the source image makes a difference! Play an original Atari 2600 someday. Or better yet, a Channel F. The black lines are extremely obvious in these old gaming systems. It is because the resolution of the source image is less than NTSC is capable of representing. When the video is being output, they don't want a squished image at the top of the frame. So, they stretch it out. This results in black lines where there isn't anything real to display. Non-anamorphic DVD does a pretty good job of filling up NTSC, but it doesn't appear perfect, at least to my eyes. When I squeeze the image, I can no longer see the lines.

No offence, but did YOU actually READ AND UNDERSTAND what boris has written here over the past few months? His numerous false claims, and always repeating them over and over, despite being corrected many times by people who actually WORK IN THE INDUSTRY Please, don´t go the dark path of the force with him, and try to defend him here, just because you happen to feel sorry for him, and feel angry about our "anti-Lucas" frustrations we are supposed to have.


I have read many of his posts. Some people have a gift for writing very clearly and concisely. Boris may not always write 100% clearly. However, I can usually understand what he is trying to say, even if he occassionally uses the wrong words or terminology to express it. I'm not an English teacher.. I am more interested in trying to understand what is being communicated than the way it was said. So, I wouldn't be a very good politician or lawyer. They like to pick people apart and NOT understand what people are saying unless it is just perfect.

By the way, I'm not joining any kind of "dark side" for defending this post of Boris's. It is not because I "feel sorry". You didn't try to understand his post. You spouted off some things over some past Boris hatred. And yes, I think you are taking out your frustrations on him. In your mind he is an easy target because of bad grammar or whatever standard you are using. You mark him as a Troll so that you can rally your mob to bash him. I think he brings up some very good points. I can understand why you are so upset at Lucas. Just be an adult about it!
Author
Time
Boris is the guy we love to hate. Yet he's one of us, even if we don't always like to admit it.

He's not a troll; he's the dissenting voice among us. We do need that sometimes. And he does bring up good points occasionally (unlike JediRandy, who really is a sad and pointless troll with nothing to contribute).

But frankly, most of the time Boris is like that über-nerd tech support person who arrogantly insists he knows exactly what the problem is when he really doesn't, and goes through a big jargon-filled pseudo-technical explanation about what's causing it, and then a long and unnecessarily complicated process of fixing it that involves typing a lot of commands, doing multiple reboots, and wiping nearly everything on the hard drive out... when in reality, all you needed to do was uncheck a box in Windows to fix the problem. And of course he never admits he was wrong in the first place.

That's Boris.

Sometimes, when he isn't acting the arrogant über-nerd, I'm on his side.

--SKot

Projects:
Return Of The Ewok and Other Short Films (with OCPmovie) [COMPLETED]
Preserving the…cringe…Star Wars Holiday Special [COMPLETED]
The Star Wars TV Commercials Project [DORMANT]
Felix the Cat 1919-1930 early film shorts preservation [ONGOING]
Lights Out! (lost TV anthology shows) [ONGOING]
Iznogoud (1995 animated series) English audio preservation [ONGOING]

Author
Time
Originally posted by: calamari


Yeah NTSC = NTSC, but the source image makes a difference! Play an original Atari 2600 someday. Or better yet, a Channel F. The black lines are extremely obvious in these old gaming systems. It is because the resolution of the source image is less than NTSC is capable of representing. When the video is being output, they don't want a squished image at the top of the frame. So, they stretch it out. This results in black lines where there isn't anything real to display. Non-anamorphic DVD does a pretty good job of filling up NTSC, but it doesn't appear perfect, at least to my eyes. When I squeeze the image, I can no longer see the lines.

Sorry, but the "thickness" of the black lines displayed by the CRT is determined by how many lines are displayed, which has an effect on the framerate. Most NTSC Atari VCS games generate 262 scanlines, but they appear thicker to you, because the games do not generate an interlaced display. Interlacing can hide those black lines to a certain degree.


I have read many of his posts. Some people have a gift for writing very clearly and concisely. Boris may not always write 100% clearly. However, I can usually understand what he is trying to say, even if he occassionally uses the wrong words or terminology to express it. I'm not an English teacher.. I am more interested in trying to understand what is being communicated than the way it was said. So, I wouldn't be a very good politician or lawyer. They like to pick people apart and NOT understand what people are saying unless it is just perfect.

The problem is, this way also works in the other direction... You can agree with people on anything and also not really understand what they are saying. And I suspect boris to take advantage of this effect, people who have not so profound knowledge agreeing with him because he can make it sound somewhat teccy.

He lost all credibility to me when I pointed out that the screencaps of the speeder sequence were clearly NOT THE SAME, just to get an answer from him that it was a "ploy" to trick people (yeah, sure a "ploy"...) into believing that the OOT shot was the TOP frame, when in fact it WAS on the top frame. He made a mistake, and instead of admitting it, he outright lied to me with this ridiculous explanation. And that´s the reason why I really don´t believe him anymore when he says something like "Yeah, but it was supposed to mean THAT.....". You can also see in this thread how he cleverly and subtly tries to change topic, when someone is nailing him on his false statements.


By the way, I'm not joining any kind of "dark side" for defending this post of Boris's. It is not because I "feel sorry". You didn't try to understand his post.


I have the feeling I figured him out much better than you do. Yes, it may be that boris meant it this way from the beginning on. But you surely know the story about the boy who cried wolf...


You spouted off some things over some past Boris hatred. And yes, I think you are taking out your frustrations on him. In your mind he is an easy target because of bad grammar or whatever standard you are using.


On the contrary, he is a very hard "target" because although he lacks profound knowledge of home theater and film technology, he can express it in a way that most people (who don´t know more than him) would outright believe him. And that triggers my senses.


You mark him as a Troll so that you can rally your mob to bash him.


Nope, I mark him as that because I personally believe it. If you would have read more carefully, you would have noticed that long before I come into play with boris, he mostly has already been corrected a few times by other members of this forum. Hardly rallying my mob here.


I think he brings up some very good points. I can understand why you are so upset at Lucas. Just be an adult about it!


And again, try to explain to me: what has Lucas all to do with this???? Where do you get the Idea I am upset? I am much more reasonable concerning this DVD mess than other members on this forum. I just hate it when people are spreading FUD! You could see the same discussion with me on any other forum, when someone tries to do this. SO this does not make me everyone´s pal, ok. I could try to appease everyone, water facts down or just shut up. But I would hardly doubt this would make me a better forum member.

Believe me, as a politician, I would "Über-Suck!"
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Vigo
He lost all credibility to me when I pointed out that the screencaps of the speeder sequence were clearly NOT THE SAME, just to get an answer from him that it was a "ploy" to trick people (yeah, sure a "ploy"...) into believing that the OOT shot was the TOP frame, when in fact it WAS on the top frame. He made a mistake, and instead of admitting it, he outright lied to me with this ridiculous explanation. You are so sad. I didn't lie, I told you exactly why I chose that shot, and then you claimed I was hiding a mistake, and flamed me. FFS, get over yourself. The shot was chosen because I'd flipped the order of the Jedi shot, and I wanted a shot that clearly showed the OOT was on top. I couldn't find a more subtle example (remember, I could only work with the shots that were up on the website), but I wanted it to be obvious. I can't believe you find it so hard to believe that - it made sense at the time, it makes sense now, and it seemed like a good idea at the time.You can also see in this thread how he cleverly and subtly tries to change topic, when someone is nailing him on his false statements.
It's called avoiding flaming, and trolling. You should try it some time.

Oh wait, no that must be another ridiculous lie and "cover-up" for the mistake that I made, right? Get over yourself.

PS: There are many other members here who are wrong at least as much as I am - and you keep saying I'm "wrong" when expressing an opinion - an opinion being a certain point of view.



By the way, I post - well I try to post - respectfully to every other member. So if you have problem with me - well it's your fucking problem and get over yourself.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<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!
Author
Time
What SKot said.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Get over yourself.


Now, that's a bit creepy. You're using a JediRandy phrase.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Jeez some of you need to grow up a bit - the amount of posts in this place that just turn very quickly into argumentative sillyness or infantile flaming that has nothing to do with the original posting is depressing and VERY annoying...

Out of here.