Slashdot Mirror

You're snide "lower-resolution NTSC" comment is simplistic. See the full story: http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/PALvsNTSC/PALvsNTSC.asp

If the source is video from North America, the NTSC DVD will look better.

A good, comprehensive review site, that includes "how pretty this version is", is http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/ -- at least for Region 4 DVDs.

*sigh* Yes, there is. If I have a hammer and you also want a hammer so you copy my hammer by manufacturing one yourself, just like mine, have you just stolen my hammer then? Even though I still have my hammer, right here? Because that's actually what you're saying.

You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.

No, but you can't realistically build a real movie theater at home either. Any way value is added, it can be exploited to drive sales of a good or a service. In Singapore, movie theaters have luxury seats and serve meals as an added value to the movie. Economically, there is no longer any added value in making a copy so it should not be used as the basis for value. Economics 101.

References:
Mindjack - Piracy is good?
International Herald Tribune - Imagine a world without copyright
A History And Possible Future Of Cinema
First Monday - Piercing the myths of p2p
TV Week - NBC: iPod Boosts Prime Time
Stealing Music
Roderick T. Long - The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

"There is ONE recorded case of this I know of..."

Well, then you're behind the times. Try the full screen DVDs of Air Force One, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Titanic, and The Abyss for starters.

See here for explanations with examples (Other Options part):

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/ aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html

and here (Open Matte part):

http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/WidescreenPr imer/WidescreenPrimer2.html

So you can argue that it is a bad choice for whoever made the call on the DVD transfers (and in that case you'll be disagreeing with James Cameron and Stanley Kubrick in some cases), but it is not "BAD DVDs."

I think you've misunderstood what he's saying. See this:

http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/WidescreenPr imer/WidescreenPrimer2.html

...especially the part about "open matte."

Yeah, you may not really be getting the framing the director/cinematographer wanted, but a DVD transfer can indeed get more picture than was shown theatrically.

Still, I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if they massaged it to perhaps 105% of normal (about 5 minutes of fudge time), but above that I think would be too sucky even for TV.

The 4% PAL speedup seems to go mostly unnoticed.

The plaintiff's arguments are that these films were not displayed in theatres in 1.85:1, but in something wider. Then MGM Pan and Scanned these down to 1.85:1 and released it as the FS version, and then added letterboxing and released it as the widescreen version. And the widescreen versions stated that they preserved the theatrical aspect ratio when in fact they didn't.

In other words, the wide-screen version is a pan-and-scan of the theatrical release!

I would refer you to http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/ThatsMySay/ThatsMySay .asp?StepName=Read&ID=21 for the straight dope.

Calm down people.

NTSC is interlaced at a rate of 60Hz (60 fields per second) which gives you 30 frames per second (an interlaced field being half of the frame). PAL is 50Hz, 50 fields a second, 25 frames per second. PAL also has a greater vertical resolution at 576.
It should be noted that the aspect ratio of the DVD actually affects the resolution that the DVD check out the chart at:

PAL vs NTSC

This is so wrong in so many ways, I can't even begin to describe.

Suffice to say, you're wrong. And there are plenty of PAL DVDs. Perhaps you should provide others with explanations only when you have the slightest clue what you're on about.

>When I was a kid, I always wondered why American programmes were so fuzzy

When you were a kid, unless you were living in France, programs were probably being broadcast at 405 PAL (well, actually far less considering how poor recording equipment of the era was), a far cry from the quality available from 525 NTSC lines, which, at the time, in black and white looked great (no colour shifts, obviously).

NTSC had the edge for many years before the UK woke up and improved their standard much later. And let's not forget that all your movies had (still have?) shorter run times due to the poor choice of PAL 25 fps, which doesn't divide well into 24 film fps, unlike 3/2 pulldown, which the NTSC system supports handily.

The only thing PAL really has over NTSC is better colour information (which hasn't mattered in decades). The fact is that NTSC transmits a better picture when one considers total data received by the set:

25 fps (PAL) @ 625 lines = 15,625 lines per second
29.97 fps (colour NTSC) @ 525 lines = 15,734.25 lines per second.
30 fps (B&W NTSC) @ 525 lines = 15,750 lines per second.

Any way you slice it, apart from the (long fixed) colour issue, NTSC beats PAL for everything, including total resolution.

Well, then buy R2/R4 version if your equipment can handle PAL. It's definitely not RCE. You also get better vertical resolution and smoother movement with PAL, and the actual disc features should be exactly the same. There is a review of R2/R4 version of the disc at MichaelDVD, and they seem to consider video transfer rather disappointing. And about RCE... My modified Sony chooses region automatically (also works with RCE discs), yet lets to override manually. No protection can fool good hand-selection without breaking compatibility with "legit" players as well.