-
NTSC widely viewable across UK, AU, europe?
-
“If it’s connected with Composite or S-Video, three things can happen. One, the player can output NTSC video as NTSC. On most TVs, this will give a decent quality picture”
Dave, if it’s outputting ntsc as ntsc, and the tv can display this, then the tv will display the original source resolution of 740×480, correct?
I think if the above is true, I would much prefer the viewer see that than view the PAL converted version, which has been changed to 740×576. The PAL version is “viewable” but frankly to me it just does not look very good. I think because the resolution had to be stretched out to be 740×576, it ends up with a “blurry” , not sharp look. And the conversion was done about as well as it can be done on software.
What I’m saying is, even if the colors are off and the PAL version is at 50hz, I would think the most change in quality is going to come from the changing of the resolution? Therefore, people overseas will get the best viewing experience by watching the NTSC version (those that do not have old tv’s) as opposed to watching a PAL version which matches their color and Hz settings, but has a stretched image? Hopefully that makes sense. -
“Dave, if it’s outputting ntsc as ntsc, and the tv can display this, then the tv will display the original source resolution of 740×480, correct?”
Right, if the TV supports NTSC and the player is outputting NTSC, the setup is basically exactly the same as the average American viewer’s.
No matter what sort of cable they have connected, one thing typically does not change: the scan-rate and timing of the signal being output. This is what causes the picture to scroll on very old TVs. It doesn’t matter if they’re connected using RGB SCART, Composite SCART, RCA Composite, S-Video jack… they’re getting 480i video with a 60hz scan rate.
*Unless* the player is doing its own poor quality conversion to 50hz PAL, or unless you’ve authored a new version of the disc which is a converted PAL version anyway.
(Correction BTW: the horizontal width of DVD video resolution is 720, not 740 🙂 )
“I think if the above is true, I would much prefer the viewer see that than view the PAL converted version, which has been changed to 740×576. The PAL version is “viewable” but frankly to me it just does not look very good. I think because the resolution had to be stretched out to be 740×576, it ends up with a “blurry” , not sharp look. And the conversion was done about as well as it can be done on software.”
I agree with you. Especially if your material contains a lot of fast motion, the NTSC-> PAL conversion can look a little shoddy. Video standards conversion is a whole different can of worms, the quality of the converters ranges hugely. Even on the very best (ultra-expensive) hardware converters like the Snell & Wilcox Alchemist, a videophile eye can spot the (slight) inferiority of the conversion. You pay a price for compatibility.
>> What I’m saying is, even if the colors are off and the PAL version is at 50hz, I would think the most change in quality is going to come from the changing of the resolution? Therefore, people overseas will get the best viewing experience by watching the NTSC version (those that do not have old tv’s) as opposed to watching a PAL version which matches their color and Hz settings, but has a stretched image? Hopefully that makes sense.
Yes, that’s pretty much it. NTSC video is best viewed as NTSC. PAL video is best viewed as PAL. Can I ask what software you’ve used for the standards conversion? I’m more of a Windows guy myself, but if you still wanted to make a PAL version, the best software converter I’ve come across is Grass Valley Procoder (aka Canopus Procoder).
-
I use a Mac, so I used a 3rd party filter called nattress and then compressor. I’ll take a look at that one you mentioned.
I’m wondering, what do the American companies that have shows that are broadcast on television and then ported to DVD do? I suppose they use a super expensive hardware encoder like the one you mentioned? Or perhaps, they film in a format that makes for a better NTSC to Pal conversion?Ah, yes, I figured those res stats I named were slightly off.
-
“I’m wondering, what do the American companies that have shows that are broadcast on television and then ported to DVD do? I suppose they use a super expensive hardware encoder like the one you mentioned? Or perhaps, they film in a format that makes for a better NTSC to Pal conversion?”
They’ll likely feed to it to a converter such as the Snell Alchemist PhC. That, I believe, operates in one of two modes:
The Video mode is for video camera generated material or similar, that is, when both fields in the picture are not the same. It essentially “remaps time”, if that makes sense, and uses motion vector technology to make sure the results are as accurate as possible.
The film mode recognises the original source is Film, performs an Inverse 3:2 pulldown routine (to get the NTSC 60i content back to 23.976fps) and simply speeds the film up to 25fps.
The software converters we have access to are most likely the older Field Blending type. These don’t use motion vector technology but result in a picture with more motion blur.
-
Hi again. Just one more thing, Dave. As mentioned the PAL version looks blurry compared to the original. I’m wondering, if I was to watch this PAL verrsion on a PAL television and PAL dvd player, would there be a noticeable improvement, since the settings would be more closely matched?
-
Now that brings up an interesting point. What are you watching the PAL conversion on?
If it’s a computer monitor, then no, that’s a decent facsimile of what you’ll see on a PAL TV.
If you’re viewing the disc on a TV… I’m assuming that your American TV only supports NTSC. If so, the player is probably doing a botched conversion so the TV can display the disc. So the process then looks like:
NTSC Source files -> PAL source files -> Authored PAL DVD -> DVD player converting back to NTSC -> Display on NTSC TV
If that’s the case, it’ll most likely look terrible! The best way to check how it looks is to play it back on a studio monitor or TV which supports PAL (not an easy thing to find in North America, I’m told).
-
The dvd player is an Apex ad-3201
The tv is a panasonic ct-32d12df
Right, as mentioned, it does not look very good. I was also thinking I wish I could play it on a pal tv.
-
On back of tv it says 60hz, so I doubt it does PAL.
-
“If it’s a computer monitor, then no, that’s a decent facsimile of what you’ll see on a PAL TV.”
I played the ntsc and the pal one back to back on my computer, I had the viewer window size at about 600×400 and at that size, the pal version was much closer to the ntsc version in image quality than when I was viewing on my tv.
“The best way to check how it looks is to play it back on a studio monitor or TV which supports PAL”
Why on a studio monitor? Thanks.
-
“Why on a studio monitor? Thanks.”
There’s a million reasons why a studio monitor will look better, but I believe that a studio monitor can replay 50hz PAL natively. Again, that might not be the case over there in the US.
So what you’re saying is that on your computer monitor, the NTSC and the converted PAL versions look roughly the same? If so, it sounds like the conversion will give a decent result on a real PAL TV.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up