Hey guys

You might have guessed that I'm new to all this - but which of the above is better in terms of picture/sound quality?

Hope someone can help - thanks!

PAL---but I can't really explain the technical aspects of it.

If you're after PAL then Region 4 is the better bet. In most cases it will be cheaper than Region 2.

Chris

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Newby:
Hey guys

You might have guessed that I'm new to all this - but which of the above is better in terms of picture/sound quality?

Hope someone can help - thanks! <HR>

Sure- check out http://www.michaeldvd.melb.net/Artic...PALvsNTSC.html

PAL vs. NTSC in a nutshell...

PAL
Pros; Higher screen resoulutiion (625 lines as opposed to 500 lines, I think...), uses original film.
Cons; Runs 4% faster than film in order to go from film's 24fps. to PAL's 25fps., which causes films to run about three minutes per hour short, and also causes the soundtrack to be pitch-shifted up by about a semitone.

NTSC
Pros; Runs at same speed as film, so running length is unaltered and soundtrack runs at original pitch.
Cons; Lower resolution, also in going from film's 24fps. to NTSC's 30fps. some form of frame interpolation is usually used, which causes "judder" on pans and fast moving shots.

Also bear in mind that UK Region 2 PAL discs are quite often ruined by the absurd nannying of the BBFC (features vanish, perfectly innocuous scenes are cut, etc...) and you also don't get half as many anamorphic transfers and DTS soundtracks over here.

Gee, that was quick!

Thanks for all the replies everyone, Hank's articles in particular were very interesting and informative.

Come to think of it - although NTSC is lower resolution than PAL, is the difference noticeable, and does screen size have an effect on how noticeable the difference will be?

[This message has been edited by Newby (edited November 22, 2000).]

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Newby:
Come to think of it - although NTSC is lower resolution than PAL, is the difference noticeable, and does screen size have an effect on how noticeable the difference will be?<HR>

Some people would say it makes a difference, but personally, I don't think so. The resolution difference isn't vast anwyay (I saw an article once where someone had done the maths and figured out that if you sat about two feet closer to your TV, NTSC would look just as good as PAL.) And on an anamorphic transfer, you've almost got more reolution than you need, so it becomes even more of a moot point. Until HDTV becomes standard, there's really nothing to separate NTSC and PAL in terms of picture quailty.

The major factors in deciding againmst NTSC vs. PAL are the aforementioned NTSC judder and PAL speedup issues, neither of which are terribly noticeable, but do bug some people. PAL speedup is especially an issue on films where the soundtrack is a major selling point.

------------------
I had to move to a new apartment recently. The old place was getting a little too small for me and my cat.

You'd be surprised how much space it takes for a cheetah to ride a dirt bike.

Thanks for that, Jim. As it happens, I have 'perfect pitch' (that is, I can tell which is which without reference to another note), so I can imagine if I see a film in the cinema and then on PAL, that the pitch difference might be a little irritating.

Hey, you've got a few posts up since January!

If you are new to the DVD scene, then read this. It will help a lot hey.

------------------
Regards...
Drinker of much Pepsi, trainer of Dingo's and Jack's Aussie Moonshine importer...
John 3:16

so that means that people in R2, like England are watching dvds which are played slightly faster because there format there is PAL? Doesnt that bother the public there? Dont they know ?