1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

If PAL picth correction was perfected...?

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by one_jedi, Aug 30, 2003.

?
  1. Mainly NTSC, would still stick to buying NTSC.

    6 vote(s)
    20.0%
  2. Prefer NTSC, would start getting more PAL but still prefer NTSC.

    3 vote(s)
    10.0%
  3. Mainly PAL, Would buy PAL all the time.

    5 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. Prefer PAL, would get mainly PAL and some NTSC.

    10 vote(s)
    33.3%
  5. Mixture of both, 50/50.

    6 vote(s)
    20.0%
  1. one_jedi

    one_jedi
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Another poll time!. The last two have been quite successful and some interesting, if not all original, points have been made in relation to NTSC and PAL formats and buying habits. One of the main problems people have with Pal is apparently the 4% speed up and the problems this causes to the audio, I know some people dislike it for other reasons ranging from 50mhz flicker to BBFC cuts or lack of special features etc but it seems even on DVD's that are identical in most respects it is the Pal speed up that makes people go to NTSC. Pitch correction has now being used for certain DVD's like LOTR but with problems.

    So what I was wondering is this; assuming everything is equal i.e., both have the same cuts, same packaging, same price, same features and the best possible encoding (a perfect NTSC conversion and a perfect PAL conversion taking advantages of both systems, i.e. PAL Resolution) and now the Pal versions have the pitch perfectly corrected with no side effects would you then buy PAL more or would you still stick to NTSC and why, for which ever you answer?
     
  2. nathan_silly

    nathan_silly
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    NTSC Region 1- reasons?

    50hz PAL flicker
    I don't want to fund the Nazi like BBFC/FACT- Laser Vision and several other local R1 player/R1 DVD supplies were shut down because of them.
    My DVD player is pure NTSC Region 1 only. I do have access to a Region 2 player (Toshiba SD-100E)- but I'll still collect NTSC discs. I do still think PAL discs show MPEG artifacting more (ie gradient/pixellation)
     
  3. one_jedi

    one_jedi
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Had a feeling you would say NTSC! Isn't the MPEG artifacting down to the encoding rather then the actual PAL/NTSC formats themselves.

    Aslo definetly not going to get into a debate about BBFC/FACT but even by buying R1 you funding a lot of the big US companies who really insist on Region encoding in the first place?

    Did you get your player imported from the US then if it is region 1 only?
     
  4. nathan_silly

    nathan_silly
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't know the details of film/mastering/authoring.. but to my eyes NTSC (from American films) look better.

    Yeah. I bought my player way back in (I think) '99 when only 100 Region 1 DVD's were available. Region 2 wasn't around at that time... and when I heard of BBFC cutting I swore never to buy a Region 2 DVD. And I haven't :)

    It's a 110V model, it doesn't have a PAL circuit. I believe it can be modded for multi-region & PAL playback- but I'll rather leave as it is (rather than risking a bodge mod job)
     
  5. Confucius

    Confucius
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +90
    Although pitch-corrected, the movie would still run too fast in PAL of course!

    The choice would be more difficult, naturally. The only way I could choose would be to view both versions of any said movie side-by-side.
     
  6. Daneel

    Daneel
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,822
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +26
    Yes it is. For every film you can show worse artifcating in the PAL version I'm sure there will be another where it is worse in NTSC. Then again, it depends on the artifact. If the problem is in the source material then the PAL version will show it more clearly due to better resolution.

    If you can live with the lower refresh rate of 25 fps rather than 29.976 fps and don't mind the sound speed up (only an issue for NTSC source material, although this is what a majority of films are) then PAL is better.

    There are many instances where R2/4 is clearly a better choice, most often when the R2 is anamorphic and the R1 isn't. It seems crazy to me to limit yourself to R1 only as Nathan has.

    I wouldn't try to change Nathan's mind, judging from his posts that I have read once he has made a decision about something, in this case NTSC being better than PAL, it is very hard to change his mind. (I hope I haven't offended you Nathan, I just call it like I see it :) )

    With any luck this debate will become academic with HDTV and HD-DVD introducing worldwide formats. Don't hold your breath though.
     
  7. one_jedi

    one_jedi
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yep it would still run faster but would this really be noticable I wonder!? And if it comes to the point where you would have to compare them side by side then it doesn't really matter what version you get does it?
     
  8. nathan_silly

    nathan_silly
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Unless the PAL standard is changed, it'll still have 50hz flicker (which can be seen on my set) Not really crazy.. if I do buy Region 2 DVD's my player will spit them out; I'm in no rush to replace my perfectly good player (probably keep it until HD-DVD players come out)

    Too right. I'm the opposite of (Lance?) from The Fast Show! :) Even if you point a Persuade-a-Tron at me it won't affect me! :)
     
  9. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    Surely that's the fault of your choosen display device Nathan_Silly? Not your player or your software. ;)

    StooMonster
     
  10. nathan_silly

    nathan_silly
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I guess until PAL/NTSC is replaced with a standard, high frameate, high def, high refresh broadcast/storage system- for the whole world (to make everything easier to transfer to different regions)- I'll have to stick to NTSC (even if PAL has better picture quality- as 50hz is unwatchable) -Pseudo 100hz systems degrades the image. I've yet to see a 100hz screen I like.

    I wish they create a DVD-Video player like PC monitors/video cards- the video card outputs the maximum refresh the display supports- and not 50hz from the DVD player; then the TV upsamples this to 100hz.
     
  11. cosaw

    cosaw
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    753
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Stockport, Manchester
    Ratings:
    +19
    Isn't it the case that widescreen tellys have a vertical resolution of 480 pixels. If so this would explain some of the reasons why R2 discs (vertical res: 576) can look worse than R1 discs (vertical res: 480) on a tv. R2 must surely be scaled down in some way creating artifacts like aliasing.

    To display PAL at it's best you'd need a higher res display device like PC to monitor or CRT projector. I've tried various resolutions on my 4:3 ratio PC monitor. It's only when you get to 1152x864 that the total res of an R2 disc is displayable (theoretically I'm sure you should get the full res at 1024x768 but this doesn't seem to work as well). With something like 800x600 noticable aliasing and artifacts are introduced. The same effect would happen with an R2 disc on a widescreen telly. (Note: you need a higher res than 720x576 on the monitor because the monitor is not wide screen and the disc is anamorphic, there's some maths to be done!)

    With regard to pitch correction I do not beleive this should be done to R2 discs. It should be left so that when technology gets better the film can be slowed from 25fps back down to 24fps and the pitch could then be lowered at the same time. WinDVD does this I believe but I think the resultant audio is only analogue, I'm sure we will get digital audio in the future and this would then be the best current solution.

    I' don't believe it is ok to say "lets pitch correct and never bother to try to get back to 24fps". When the film was filmed surely the exposure time of the camera was set for 24fps givng the correct amount of motion blur per frame to allow smooth playback. Playing back at 25fps means that the original playback is not achieved and the picture would still be smooth but quite possibly a little more blured.

    So back to the original question, sort of: On the basis of that said above I do believe that PAL could be the best format if it allows us to extract a version closest to the original film speed and pitch wise, while at the same time being a master from the original film source to achieve the best resolution (not an R1 to R2 type conversion). I'm not too bothered with 50HZ or 48Hz playback (as I would like to achieve, i.e. 2x24fps) and the flicker. After all I would want the output to be progressive, acheiveng a higher theoretical resolution and stabler picture with hopefully less flicker. I was informed recently that in the cinema each frame of film is exposed twice: 2x24=48, so this would be 48HZ but better than progressive because each exposure is almost instantaneous, i.e. there is no scan time of an electron beam. Also with PAL there is no 3:2 pull-down and associated problems.

    I think PAL could be the way to go but for the spec described above you'd currently need a HTPC, which is what I hope to build soon, then if I really wanted I could have 3x25=75Hz playback or as prefered 3x24=72Hz playback. I also want a CRT projector but that's another story. :)

    I don't like some of the cuts imposed on PAL discs, but have seen some R2 discs, like versions sold in Germany, that don't have the cuts.

    For now I will buy R2 discs but not necessarily exclusively, I would not want to buy R2 with pitch correction for the reasons stated.

    I could go on all day, but that's the end of my rant for now!

    cosaw
     
  12. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    Errr... no.

    Your PAL widescreen CRT television set will have full 576 visible lines of PAL's total 625 lines (which are used here for things like vertical blanking and teletext), and will display all the visible lines if your geometry is correctly configured and there is not too much overscan.

    There is no scaling hardware in an analogue CRT, like there is in a plasma or LCD, to scale a 576 line picture to 480 line one.

    StooMonster
     
  13. Daneel

    Daneel
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,822
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +26
    I agreed with the rest of your post but this bit I'm not sure about. If this is the case how does my TV manage to display a NTSC image over the same area as a PAL one? Obviously it is scaling in the opposite direction but surely it's the same thing?
     
  14. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    Same way my PC's Sony FW900 monitor can display a resolution from 640x480 to 2304x1440 pixels over the same size screen area.

    This is not "scaling".

    StooMonster
     
  15. Daneel

    Daneel
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,822
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +26
    So if you make an image smaller than its original resolution that is scaling but if you make a bigger image from a smaller resolution original that isn't? I think you and I have a different definition of scaling. Can you elaborate?
     
  16. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    The image remains the same resolution (e.g. 640x480 or 2304x1440) but the size you are displaying it changes.

    With a CRT display, try changing the horizontal and vertical size -- you are not changing the resolution of the picture but where the cathode ray lines are being drawn on the screen, i.e. which phosphers are being illuminated.

    "Scaling" typically means taking one digital resolution and changing it to another via an algorthim such as interpolation; and is more typically found in plasma, LCD, scalers, etc. than CRT televisions.

    StooMonster
     
  17. Daneel

    Daneel
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,822
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +26
    I understand that, I have a degree in computer science and I'm about to finish a masters in display technology (LCD, OLED, CRT, plasma, front/rear projection etc ) :)

    I will quote you again.

    Using the logic from your post above:

    This implies that the this hardware is not nesessary for displaying a 576 line image on a display with 480 lines.

    You seemed to be using this lack of hardware scalar as a reason why a PAL TV could not have 480 lines of resolution and yet your next post says one isn't necessary. That was what I had a problem with. Your explanation up to that point made perfect sense.

    Is that any clearer? It takes some thinking about :)
     
  18. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    Unclear? :blush:

    I should've said "There is no scaling hardware in an analogue CRT like there is in a plasma or LCD, for example to scale a 576 line picture to 480 line one." (This is a common discussion with 480 row plasma screens and PAL content.)

    Also, I don't think I really read your post, but skimmed it.
    Well, upscaling and downscaling tend to use different algorthims, as I'm sure you are aware; and finishing a Masters in Display Technology I'm sure you can write them. ;)

    Key question is what is the physical dot pitch of a widescreen television, does it have enough phosphors to display a PAL image or do some of the lines get rewritten over a limited number of phosphors? e.g. like running a computer monitor at a higher resolution than it has physical pixels.

    StooMonster
     
  19. Daneel

    Daneel
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,822
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +26
    I agreed with what you said, it was just what I thought was implied by that no hardware scalar bit. Don't worry about it. Resume the course of the thread. :)

    I have an essay to right on plastic vs glass substrates by the end of the day. Fun fun fun.
     
  20. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    The original posters theory was that these screens only have 480 rows of phosphors (CRT equivalent of phyiscal pixels in a matrix display) rather than 576, and that PAL "must surely be scaled down in some way creating artifacts like aliasing".

    Before my 50" plasma and LCD televisions, I had a 28" Sony widescreen television -- for a very long time. It was Sony's first generation widescreen set, and it's still a fine picture.

    I was going to discuss running various content, but data is what floats my boat so I just went into the sunroom (where the old Sony widescreen is relegated to the corner as StooMonster Jnr's television) and actually measured the phyiscal pixels.

    Considering a pixel to be the three colour pixels as one. Horizontally there are 25 pixels for every 2cm and the display area is 58cm wide therefore 725 pixels wide, and vertically there are 18 pixels per 2cm and is 32cm high therefore 288 pixel high. Remembering that this is an interlaced device, 288 x 2 = 576.

    Therefore the physical pixel display of my Sony 28" widescreen CRT is 725x576. Definately not 480 rows (240 phosphor row) like NTSC.

    StooMonster
     
  21. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    That'll teach me to read before posting. :)

    Er... thrilling, good luck with writing that.

    StooMonster
     
  22. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,061
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    Can I just say a couple of things ..not trying to cause an argument.

    the 576 y axis resolution of a 720x576 PAL image does not equate to scan lines.

    It is not the case that there are 576 horizontal scanlines mapped from this resolution to 576 of the 625 lines on a normal TV. A couple of scanlines are not use for image ( can't remember off hand how many) thats true but its not a case of 576 lines being used for 576 pixels. The 576 maps to the full complement of available scanlines buts its not 1 for 1. Scanlines and resolution are not the same thing.

    Secondly if I've got a smaller res image say 720x576 and want to display it at say 1800x1600 or any other resolution for that matter it will involve scaling. Even the most simplest technique (nearest: where one pixel maps to a whole number of pixels without using subpixel interpolation). Its still scaling.
     
  23. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    You can, if you don't mind me discussing your points. :devil:

    Really? What does it refer to then? Is it a coincidence that my PAL DVDs have 576 rows of pixels in their images? And my digital satellite signal has 576 rows of pixels in it's images? Spooky or what!

    Do you mean the fact that "broadcast" PAL television is 625 lines, but only 576 of them are visible lines? The non-visible ones being used for vertical blanking information and teletext services?

    Or are you refering to overscan, and the fact that a broadcast picture may be larger than the screen?

    I counted the number of phosphor rows on my old Sony widescreen CRT (with a ruler, this very afternoon, as posted above) and it is 288 phosphors high; which considering it's an interlace set actually equate to 2 fields x 288 rows per field = 576 rows per frame. Spookily the same number of lines as PAL's visible line count. Are you saying this is a coincidence too? Even spookier!

    Yes, nobody said it wouldn't. NSS, changing one digital pixel resolution to another obviously involves scaling and pixel interpolation.

    However, changing the size of an analogue picture does not involve "scaling" one pixel resolution to another. When one uses an old OHP and changes the focus on the lens to make the picture on the screen bigger, is that scaling too? Is there a graphics processor in the OH projector interpolating photons? :clown:

    StooMonster
     
  24. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,061
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    Yes sorry I completely misinterpreted what this thread was about . Didn't read the whole thread. Busy afternoon and all that.
     
  25. cosaw

    cosaw
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    753
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Stockport, Manchester
    Ratings:
    +19
    StooMonster

    Got the old tape-measure out on my Sony widescreen and got similar results to yourself and some eye strain. I think this has furthered my knowledge of how interlaced displays work to at least some extent.

    Ok so each of the phosphor rows takes two interlaced traces of the electron beam, right? So lets just talk about the top row and one video frame. Is this the case: The frist trace of the first field is aimed at the top half of the phosphor row; the first trace of the second field is aimed at the bottom half of the phosphor row.

    If this is the case how does this work, how would hitting the respective top or bottom of the row not light up the whole phosphor row and then just lead to a mishmash when the same happens on the second field?

    Regardles of the above presumably progressive tvs would then need the whole 576 phosphor rows instead of 288?

    I've always had difficulty with the real physical aspects of how CRTs work.

    cosaw
     
  26. Stuart Wright

    Stuart Wright
    AVForums Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2000
    Messages:
    13,925
    Products Owned:
    6
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Ratings:
    +9,660
    For people with projectors and HCPC setups, picture quality is not an issue.
    Therefore I vote NTSC because I want to see the film at the proper speed, thanks.
     

Share This Page

Loading...