I'm sure people will disagree, but IMO the effects of PAL speedup pretty much negate the advantages of DTS.

I don't usually find PAL speedup too objectionable, but if we are searching for best audio quality, an NTSC Dolby Digital disc is usually preferable to a PAL DTS disc.

I can understand that many would agree with that statement, but I still find the improvements in fidelity worth it... For example Mummy Returns in PAL DTS sounds MUCH better than the r1 DD track. Wherever possible I will go for the NTSC DTS version though, but if there are any DTS titles exclusive to PAL (such as this release and the new Scream r4 Collector's Edition) I will go for those.

Josh,

COMPLETELY agree. It's not worth it.

That's why I'll always search out an NTSC version in another region (i.e. 2 or 3) that will have this DTS track.

I figure that people were spending a lot of money on laserdiscs simply for that DTS track...and it's kinda the same thing here.

Pal speedup takes some getting used to...and I have. Sure, certain songs sound different.. but hey... PAL discs are just as good in my opinion. Just think, if you lived elsewhere and only heard PAL all your life.. you might be crapping on NTSC. Something to think about.

But PAL will ALWAYS be sped up and NTSC will always be the way it was originally intended.

But if I wanted to be anal about it I could rant on about the deficiencies in the NTSC format such as the artifacts associated with 3:2 Pulldown. So neither format is perfect. I can tolerate either and am enjoying all dvd has to offer.
By the way I just bought this disc and the dts track sounds incredible.

Understandable...I guess.

But NTSC will always be the way the director, actors and everyone else involved with the production intended.

PAL will always be sped up and that, my friend, is what I can't get over.

(But NTSC will always be the way the director, actors and everyone else involved with the production intended).

What a ridiculous statement! By that same logic, a film made in a country that uses the Pal format and releases the DVD there, is the way the director and everyone else invloved with the production intended as well...lol

For the record, A good Pal transfer wipes it butt on its NTSC counterpart IMO, taking advantage of the higher resolution of 576 lines over NTSC at 480...

Again...we must agree to disagree. I dont' care about increased resolution because we'll be living in a high definition age soon and that won't mean anything.

As an actor, I'd hate to have had my performance (not to mention, the pitch of my VOICE) sped up. That's not what I wanted.

And no...I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I'd have to agree with your statement about PAL releases. You're getting it! :)

No, not unless they are shooting on standard definition video for a TV production (like the local news). Film is 24fps regardless of what country you live in. The PAL video transfer is a compromise of that.

I am not as adamantly anti-PAL as digitalfreak, but it must be stated that both formats have their compromises. PAL has higher resolution, but it runs too fast and has a lower refresh rate, which can lead to flicker. NTSC is lower resolution but has a higher refresh rate (no flicker) and runs at the correct speed.

They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and in the end come out about even. Both are woefully inadequate in comparison to high definition.

Although more expensive (read: decent) TV's have 100hz capability and remove said flicker.

Actually...my WEGA has the same flicker and although it could be the PAL-NTSC conversion, I would definitely say it is "decent."

Amusing that you equate "expensive" with "decent."

Then regardless of the speed up issues, you are in no position to judge the quality of the PAL format if you're viewing it downconverted. Unless you're viewing it in native PAL it's otherwise compromised.

Guess what? I NEVER judged pal other than the speed up issues.

It stops right there for me. I don't care how good the picture looks if it's sped up. Check my posts. I've never judged it beyond that.

But because you are getting none of the benefits of the format, and are only seeing it's weakness, it goes to stand that you'd have a problem with the speed up, because it's just like you're watching a sped up ntsc signal. To me the resolution counters the speed up because it is so pleasing to the eye when viewing a good PAL transfer, which makes the (minimal) speed up more than bearable to me, and in turn puts both formats on equal footing IMO. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with NTSC (I buy mainly r1 releases when they have all the features I'm after), but I'm not going to ignore a superior release simply because it's running slightly faster.

And finally if you're not interested in PAL releases why are you even on this thread? If someone was to bring up a new D-VHS release (something I have no interest in) I wouldn't be sticking my nose in to sidetrack the thread to a discussion on the virtues of the format... choose to create a new post to keep it on topic. I'm sick of every PAL related thread turning into this same tired ass argument, just as DTS ones do. You can either put up with it or you can't, we can all agree to disagree in that respect and leave it at that. Obviously noones going to change their mind as it's already made up.

Not that i have to justify my being here but ...I buy NTSC DVD's from other regions. All of which are for their DTS sound. But I don't bother buying PAL movies. The only PAL discs I have are the Will and Grace DVD's but I justify that because they're going to be released in R1 one day and I have all of them on VHS already. Just want it now...

Not that I have to defend myself ;)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've seen this all before. If you live in an NTSC coutry you prefer NTSC and vice versa for PAL. Nothing new to see here folks...

So far, I've purchased about 40 PAL regions 2 and 4 DVDs (mainly U.S. films that are non-anamorphic in R1) and have a few observations:

* The 4% speed-up has been noticeable on only a few discs. "The American President" (R4) is one of the ones where the speed-up was extremely annoying -- the actors all sounded like they'd inhaled helium before delivering their lines. On the other hand, I suspect that many of the audio transfers have been pitch-corrected. For example, "The Graduate" (R2) sounds fine to me. I even tried it using a PC-based player called WinDVD that can lower pitch for PAL discs, and it sounded too low played with the correction. With pitch-correction, the movie still plays 4% faster, but the 4% speed-up in the action is a lot harder to detect than helium voices.

* On the subject of video, we're talking about a 20% increase in resolution for PAL over NTSC. This is definitely noticeable with the right A/V equipment (see below). It's not as great a difference as anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic (33% increase in resolution), but small object detail on good transfers is noticeably increased. It's the best DVD will look until a new HD-DVD format arrives, which with the current level of industry in-fighting will probably take at least 5 years. Of course there's HD D-VHS for A/V enthusiasts with money to burn, but I'd rather not invest in a dead-end tape based format.

* The slight flicker of PAL DVDs, owing to the lower refresh rate, is visible when paused or in sequences with a lot of white (for some reason, not sure), but in general I don't find to be noticeable when actually viewing the movies.

* It seems to me that most of the U.S.-based folks in this forum *DO NOT HAVE* the equipment to take advantage of PAL's improved video. The majority of U.S. TVs can't display a native PAL signal, and most international players (Malata, JVC, Cyberhome, etc.) down-convert the 576P signal to 480P for compatibility and legal reasons. So any theoretical video advantages of PAL over NTSC are lost right there. In order to view true PAL progressive in the states, you need one of the few players on the market that can output 576P (Philips 963SA, Philips Q50, etc.) and a compatible display: either a multi-standard TV, most front projectors, or one of the few rear-projection sets that can accept a PAL signal (which is what I have). Alternately a HTPC set-up would allow you to view PAL DVDs with their full resolution, at the expense of poor de-interlacing (compared to the better standalone DVD players) and setup/maintenance hassles.

* In general, it escapes me why people without the right equipment to see the resolution increases of anamorphic vs. non-anamorphic, and PAL vs. NTSC, worry about buying only DVDs with anamorphic transfers. If your TV isn't widescreen, or if it is standard ratio and doesn't have a special anamorphic mode, you can't take advantage of the 33% resolution increase. In fact, everything else being equal (i.e. the quality of the transfer), the PQ on a non-anamorphic DVD will look *BETTER* on TVs without an anamorphic mode, because anamorphic DVDs have to letterboxed inside the DVD player in this case, and most DVD players do a really bad job at this. Similarly, the format conversion of PAL to NTSC done by some DVD players is normally less than perfect.

* On the other hand, if you're buying international DVDs to get movies/features that aren't available in R1, or for the (hopefully pitch-corrected) DTS soundtrack, that makes total sense.

Hey, I don't remember starting this thread. Oh wait.... Crazy mods!

Anyway, I've been watching the region 2 Buffy season 4 box set on my projector (which is capable of full 576p). The increase in resolution is very nice indeed, but the voices are off. The people in Europe and Australia really have no idea what our dear Willow's voice actually sounds like.

It's a trade-off. I am perfectly capable of enjoying a disc in either PAL or NTSC format, but all things considered would probably default to a well-mastered NTSC disc if one is available with identical content.