LOKAI of CHERON wrote:
Actually, no, no it's not. Umm, PAL is simply sped up by approximately 4% on 24fps material - facilitating playback at 50hz. If that's your definition of an "incorrect conversion" - again, you're wrong, it's quite correct for PAL. But, it seems you're now accepting PAL does run faster, which contracdicts your original assertion.
PAL (50i) runs faster than film (24 FPS = 24p = 48i).
PAL (50i) runs slower than NTSC (59.97i).
Also, I would argue that something which changes the runtime is
incorrect - simply accepted. If it were right, then all of the European Blu-ray releases wouldn't restore films to their original framerate, now would they?
The effect, as the viewer would see it on screen, is that PAL runs approximately 4% faster on 24fps material, and NTSC runs at pretty much the correct speed. That's what we've been discussing. If not, tomswift2002
was somewhat unclear in his posting IMHO.
OK, fine, by your argument, PAL DVD's are "incorrect" - but so is 24fps converted NTSC material, by virtue of the fact six repeated frames are added in every 24 (or twelve fields if you like). That's not strictly correct, now is it?
Thanks for reminding me about (most) European, and indeed, worldwide, film BD's restoring their original framerates, but I was aware. Actually, (most) film BD's are encoded at 23.976 - not quite the original.