Originally posted by: borisAll DVD players capable of playing PAL DVD's can play NTSC DVD's, and all TV's capable of displaying PAL made within the last 8 years or so can also display PAL-60 and NTSC.
There's no advantage of importing a copy if you're from the UK, except maybe if the import saves you money. I don't understand why so many NTSC/PAL threads have popped up. Both DVD's contain the same detail, the PAL DVD is just ever so slightly softer; but the PAL image will look marginally better because it uses more lines of resolution. Laserman threw his PAL copy at Lucas and ordered an NTSC import... but really I think that was a silly idea. Think about it, a HD movie up-scaled from SD WILL LOOK BETTER then the original SD. So it only goes to reason that the same thing applies to this upscale, just on a smaller scale.
You're talking absolute nonsense. While your first statement is correct (about PAL TVs and DVD players) the rest is wrong and/or illogical.
For starters: If the PAL DVD looks "softer", how can it also look "marginally better"? You qualify this statement with ignorance: Confusing the issue of "upscaling" an interlaced SD source to a progressive HD output. This is NOT the same as "upscaling" a DVD's image from 720x480 to 720x576, which is nothing more than "stretching" (not literally) the image to fill the extra lines of resolution and doesn't really offer any increase in quality.
As to why it's up-scaled, who knows... that's just the way it is.
Probably because they were preparing the disc for PAL consumption and PAL is usually 720x576???
As for the overall quality, if you listen to some people here, they're shit. I tend to think the picture quality is quite acceptable - it's not perfect, and there are parts which look worse then others (I swear they shot the out-door tatooine shots with the wrong camera settings, so you shouldn't really read too much into the quality there)... and then again there are parts which almost look better then the 2004 DVD - and even have more fine detail then the 2004 transfer.
The image quality wasn't really in question and it seems that aside from the non-anamorphic problem, the quality is pretty good.
American's hate PAL. And PAL-people hate NTSC. It's just a fact of life. PAL is a better system then NTSC for a number of technical reasons, and although every reputable source agrees that the increase in PAL's pitch is unnoticeable to the majority of the population, and that NTSC's jitter is noticed by many more;
Aside from your glib comment about how American's hate PAL and everyone else hates NTSC (I'm a PAL user and don't care), you're actually not too far wrong. Especially when you take into account pitch correction or even better, the more recent 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown, which solves the problem of 24 into 60 without the need for pitch correction.
and the fact that some movies are even filmed not at 24FPS, but 25FPS ... and not just TV movies either, but Hollywood movies as well ... American's and other NTSC-people, but mostly American's still think their system is better.
I know what you're saying, but the vast majority of movies are 24fps, so that's a more important issue for people.
A member here even said that "anyone with a tin ear" can tell that PAL audio is sped up, when the pitch isn't adjusted (which it always is now these days anyway) - even though it only raises a semitone, and still sounds perfectly normal to at least 99% of the population, and probably more.
Yep, I've heard this from a lot of people, and we can only assume it really does sound that bad to them. Certainly placing two samples side by side produces a CLEAR difference that just about anyone should be able to hear. Unless you're incredibly familiar with a film, you probably won't notice unless they're side by side. Of course there are those who are very sensitive to it.
This doesn't take into account the more recent 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown telecine method, though, and I'd like to know if these DVDs use it! By only altering every 12th frame, you can get 24 into 60 perfectly and not have to bother hear the PAL pitch problem at all!
Progressive scan is the one thing that helps fix the awfulness of NTSC... but it still doesn't make up for the fact that NTSC has 480 lines, and PAL has 576. The only real difference to PAL is that you can watch the entire movie a couple of minutes faster! Whether this is a bad thing is debatable, but for me I like concise movies. I love The Terminator because it's runtime is shorter then 2hrs, yet it is still a complete film.
). In fact I was reading up on the NTSC 4.43/PAL-60 issue, and people have said how they've found more PAL TV's compatible with NTSC 3.58 than with the other "bodged" non-standards... Of course that's just circumstantial "evidence" so it doesn't mean anything.