View Full Version : Fifth Element superbit
Am i right in thinking that if i buy the Fitfh Element on region 1, i will get no benefit regarding picture quality because of the inferior NTSC transfer:confused:
Lenny Nero
17-10-2001, 04:23
Jeez, there is no difference between Pal & NTSC... it's all in your head.
Plus it's a much sharper image so unless you're sitting so close to your tv that your nose touches it and counting the resolution lines, you're not gona notice anything.
And don't even bother trying to defend Pal, I'll just repeat, it's all in your head.
It's like saying you can see ultra-violet light or hear supersonic sounds. Doesn't mean they don't exist, you just cant really sense them.
Confucius
17-10-2001, 07:37
The original R1 release had a 'better' picture than the R2 one.
The Superbit release ups the ante.
Do not simply assume that 20% more scan lines will always mean you get a better picture with PAL. Oh, and the official definition of picture resolution is horizontally, ie: the number of vertical lines that can be resolved across the width of the television, nothing to do with scan lines.
Originally posted by Lenny Nero
I'll just repeat, it's all in your head.
Then I think you may end up saying this a few times today ;) .
Let the NTSC vs PAL wars begin (again) :( .
puddleduck
17-10-2001, 08:34
I'll just repeat, it's all in your head.
agree totally - at best PAL only has 22/23 more scan lines per frame, and as most DVD transfers just interpolate the extra lines from 480 (NTSC) to 525 (PAL), there is no extra resolution in 99% of cases.
?!?!?!?!!!!?!!!
Ok here goes.
I'll just repeat, it's all in your head.
Certainly not. It is a phyical carateristic!
agree totally - at best PAL only has 22/23 more scan lines per frame, and as most DVD transfers just interpolate the extra lines from 480 (NTSC) to 525 (PAL), there is no extra resolution in 99% of cases.
Best PAL?? PAL has 625 scan lines, 50 if which are used for teletex, sound etc. So its 575 for the picture. NTSC has 525 can lines, same again 50 are used for teletex, sound etc. so that's 475. SO pal has 100 lines of of resolution more then NTSC. Now like you lot say, On anything less then a 36" TV you probably not notice much difference. But it is important to me because i have a 40" RPTV (Tosh) And i diffently CAN. I have borowed several NTSC discs and did a comparson. And with NTSC i can notice the individual scan lines more readly where as with PAL i get a much smoother picture!
Michael Brooke
17-10-2001, 09:28
PAL is certainly <U>theoretically</U> better than NTSC in terms of resolution, but whether or not this is true in practice rather depends on the transfer quality.
For instance, it's been pretty persuasively argued that the R1 <I>The Fifth Element</I> is noticeably superior to the R2 version, even before the Superbit version was released - and of course now there's no contest whatsoever!
And when I've done side-by-side PAL-vs-NTSC tests in the past, I generally find that although PAL often does come out on top, the difference is so slight as to be irrelevant.
Picture quality aside, both systems have flaws - PAL with the audio speedup and NTSC with the 3:2 pulldown causing jerky movement, which is more noticeable on some titles than others. So as far as I'm concerned it's swings and roundabouts.
MB has spoken, end of discusstion:D
Kidding, i agree with you
Still waiting for this from Moveityme!!
What about the quality of the DTS track - anyone?
SteveB
malcolmd
17-10-2001, 13:11
Best DTS soundtrack I've heard, incredible !
This is something that has always puzzled me also.
I notice a difference between NTSC and PAL discs on my Setup (Panasonic DVD and Toshiba WS TV). I have also looked at the 5th Element Superbit and compared it against my Region 2 version. The superbit picture is definately sharper, but I can still notice what I believe are the scan lines.
Some NTSC discs are worse than others I find. Terminator 2 and Fight Club are superb, while others such as The Patriot are dreadful for noticing the lines.
I can only imagine that some TVs/DVD players handle NTSC better than others. A friend of mine says that he NEVER notices the scan lines on his setup (Sony DVD and TV).
Fatboydim
17-10-2001, 14:24
I think as Roberto says it depends on the size of your screen.
At the moment I have a 36inch Panny... and I have to say I prefer NTSC.
The difference as far as I see it is that PAL is softer than NTSC. Like I say I prefer the harsher image.
And again as has been pointed out it depends on the transfer. For example Capricorn One on PAL R2 is an inferior transfer done by Carlton.
On Region One the picture quality is superb and it has added 5:1
I have 5th Element on Superbit and R2... Both are quality transfers, I can't honestly say it's worth buying the Superbit unless it's for DTS... or as I did because my Region 2 is a French release flipper.
I ahve a Philips WS (two and half years old now) and I've never really noticed any real difference between R1 and R2 pictures - both appear fine to me.
However when playing a R1 DVD with my Tosh 2109 the bottom left of the screen flickers slightly. Anyone know what could cause this? No flicker with R2 or normal TV.
SteveB
PAL pi$$es on NTSC - I cannot see how anyone can defend NTSC - the quality is almost as poor as videotape!! I suspect a NTSC superbit disk would probably come closer to PAL quality but would never better it because the resolution is so low as demonstrated by the lines you can quite clearly see across the picture when watching on an english tv.
PAL:)
NTSC:mad:
...the quality is almost as poor as videotape!!
As someone with both PAL videotapes and these oh-so-terrible NTSC DVDs of all the Pixar movies, I cannot imagine how anyone could seriously hold that view. Or were you being sarcastic...
No sarcasm - NTSC picture quality is terrible - I cant understand how anyone can defend it compared to PAL DVD picture quality :confused:
sarky!!
ok - I cant understand how anyone can defend it compared to PAL videotape either!! :confused:
Doesn't it all depend on what kit you are using though?
Some DVD/TV's sort out NTSC quite well so that there is no discernable difference.
I have a 100hz t.v and I don't notice any difference between the two.
I do however notice the difference in speed with regards to sound.
Chris Tucker on R2!!
No don't do it. He'll shatter your ear drums.
Doesnt that suggest then that NTSC is the inferior format?
Theoretically as already mentioned it (NTSC) is technically inferior.
What I meant was that I couldn't tell the difference.
Some people see the difference more, and have stronger views, whereas some didn't even know there was a difference until they came on this forum.
I am one of the latter. Therefore to some NTSC is better (due to correct speed sound) and to others PAL is better(due to better picture).
Michael Brooke
17-10-2001, 17:20
<U>Broadcast</U> NTSC is certainly dramatically inferior to PAL, and non-anamorphic NTSC is noticeably worse than non-anamorphic PAL - but when it comes to comparing anamorphic DVDs, the differences are far less marked, to the extent where I'm really not bothered.
Indeed i am a big PAL fan. (Actually the reason is not so much the the resolution, but the 3:2 pull down). But there have been a few cases where the R2 relase is so poor that i had to buy the R1 equvelant.
1. Prince of Eygpt - because of the blocking artifacts
2. Galaxy Quest - Sound fault at the begining and general lackture presentation.
3. Antz - Again, Sound fault at the begining and general lackture presentation.
But this would be the only reason i'd buy R1
daveyboy19
17-10-2001, 18:24
my TV is some JVC model that came with the house, and it has PAL,SECAM,NTSC4.3 and NTSC switches on it, did this come from the middle east? anyway when I watch an NTSC disc I notice 'Sound' coming from the TV but not on PAL ones,do I have dog like hearing, or is my TV just on the way out?
Originally posted by Lenny Nero
Jeez, there is no difference between Pal & NTSC... it's all in your head.
Plus it's a much sharper image so unless you're sitting so close to your tv that your nose touches it and counting the resolution lines, you're not gona notice anything.
And don't even bother trying to defend Pal, I'll just repeat, it's all in your head.
It's like saying you can see ultra-violet light or hear supersonic sounds. Doesn't mean they don't exist, you just cant really sense them. Jeez! I only asked no need to get all uppity about it
A it looks like quite a few are DEFENDING PAL.......Pal!:D
mysteriousjimmy
18-10-2001, 09:36
it all comes down to what you prefer, PAL or NTSC......
and I prefer NTSC.....
err, sorry to sound ignorant, but... what's 3:2 pulldown?
Sorry, thought I was in the Fifth Element Thread
Michael Brooke
18-10-2001, 14:40
<B>err, sorry to sound ignorant, but... what's 3:2 pulldown?</B>
The problem with converting theatrical features to video is that films normally run at 24 frames per second, while PAL video is 25fps and NTSC is 30fps (or 29.97fps, to forestall pedants).
When films are converted to PAL, they're simply run at 25fps, with the side-effects that they "lose" one minute in every 25, so a 100-minute film runs 96 minutes on PAL video (this led to all sorts of wild rumours about BBFC censorship before the reasons behind it were widely known!), and the sound pitch is raised slightly, but in most cases you simply don't notice.
Clearly, speeding films up to 30fps would be all too obvious, so NTSC conversion uses a process known as "3:2 pulldown", which essentially involves inserting duplicate frames every so often so that six phantom frames are added to every 24 real frames, thus bringing the rate up to 30fps without altering the running time or pitch. The downside, though, is that smooth movements are sometimes affected by the extra frames, producing a slight jerkiness that is more noticeable on some systems than others.
Originally posted by den
Sorry, thought I was in the Fifth Element Thread
Fifth what?!? :D
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
<B>err, sorry to sound ignorant, but... what's 3:2 pulldown?</B>
The problem with converting theatrical features to video is that films normally run at 24 frames per second, while PAL video is 25fps and NTSC is 30fps (or 29.97fps, to forestall pedants).
When films are converted to PAL, they're simply run at 25fps, with the side-effects that they "lose" one minute in every 25, so a 100-minute film runs 96 minutes on PAL video (this led to all sorts of wild rumours about BBFC censorship before the reasons behind it were widely known!), and the sound pitch is raised slightly, but in most cases you simply don't notice.
Clearly, speeding films up to 30fps would be all too obvious, so NTSC conversion uses a process known as "3:2 pulldown", which essentially involves inserting duplicate frames every so often so that six phantom frames are added to every 24 real frames, thus bringing the rate up to 30fps without altering the running time or pitch. The downside, though, is that smooth movements are sometimes affected by the extra frames, producing a slight jerkiness that is more noticeable on some systems than others.
Thanks for the explanation MB :)
btw, as a nod toward the origins of this thread, I definitely intend to pick up Fifth Element superbit (once solvent again)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.