Eric Ward
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks Ryan.
I was reading in apple discussions that fcpx does not even use all 4 of the cores in a quad core machine. I can’t verify this to be fact though. But if it is true, and a quad core 15 is almost double the price of a dual 13, I would rather just replace with another $1300 machine years down the road, then to buy a $2000 or $2600 machine now. I would connect the 13 macbook pro to my 27 cinema display to view fcpx.
-
“So what you’re saying is that on your computer monitor, the NTSC and the converted PAL versions look roughly the same?”
I watched it a few more times on my laptop. The pal one is “blurrier” and not as sharp as the ntsc. Colors are the same, and as far as motion they are close. The biggest difference is sharpness. I would say the pal one has maybe 70% of the sharpness that the ntsc one has.
However I could be pickier than a non videophile type. I’m going to see if a non video phile type can take a look and get their opinion. -
“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.
-
On back of tv it says 60hz, so I doubt it does PAL.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
“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. -
Interesting stuff – thanks.
-
And for those tv’s and dvd players that will play ntsc in the uk, is the quality degraded somewhat you think? I noticed a person who reviewed the sex and the city dvd said it did not look good on their tv.