DS9 on blu ray?

^ I guess this problem, in reverse, is what has plagued the US releases of Law & Order: UK, amirite? (Everyone's voice sounds a little too low, and the doink-doink is also off pitch)

 

I'm kinda surprised they don't just pitch-correct everything nowadays. The Farscape S1 DVD masters came from the UK, but they still pitch-corrected most of the episodes so they sound fine.

 

One benefit of Blu-ray is that the PAL and NTSC standards are going kaput. Mostly everything on Blu-ray now is 23.976fps and works universally, unless there's a region code lockout.

The only exception are live performance releases, which tend to be 1080i at either 30fps (US) or 25fps (Europe).

I have the DVD for the Farscape Peacekeeper Wars miniseries which sounds pretty awful. I don't think that was corrected. Or if it was, it was overcorrected because everyone sounds off.

 

The whole PAL thing makes me glad I grew up in America where there was at least no 5% speed up in NTSC. So many films I grew up watching would be jarring to watch on blu-ray because I would've become too accustomed to the higher pitch. I know someone who loves FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and was watching it for the first time on blu-ray after having watched the PAL version for 30 years. He couldn't help but feel the sound was off or wrong. When explained that the blu-ray has the correct pitch as heard in theaters, he'd understand it but with the higher pitch having been imprinted in his memory, it's hard not to feel something is off when watching the original version.

Especially films dependent on brilliant music. I can't imagine watching STAR WARS in PAL.

 

^^ In case you refer to the "Special Manipulation" it's unwatchable, regardless whether it's PAL or NTSC.

(Frankly, if we had the theatrical edition in a higher SD resolution than "letterbox" - average anamorphic DVD quality - I'd just be happy with that, regardless whether it would be PAL or NTSC)

Bob

 

It's actually only a 4% speed up. And as I said earlier how many people actually noticed the higher pitch? If most people didn't notice it then it's not an issue. Sure you are more likely to notice the difference when you watch a different version but that's because you aare used to the other. But surely the counter-argument is that PAL had a higher picture quality than NTSC. Colour correction for hues/phase errors were handled autmatically by PAL.

So which would you rather have a lower picture quality and pitch perfect sound or a higher picture quality with a slightly higher sound pitch (that many might not even notice)?

Both PAL and NTSC had there advantages and disadvatnages.

 

Disney has to know the incredible demand for the original versions. They'd be stupid never to remaster and reissue those. I figure they'll do it to coincide with one of the movie releases.

Unless Lucas stipulated that they never get released again.

 

Seems like an easy choice: NTSC, of course.

 

Not so fast, you are forgetting the NTSC "judder" effect during horizontal camera pans.

I vividly remember how the Japanese manufacturers (used to NTSC, too) were irritated when the Europeans said they didn't want that kind of crap. That helped a lot establishing 24 frames per second (fps) as the quality standard for BD.

Bob

 

I never noticed the different in pitch of PAL material until I started watching stuff in 24fps but now I notice it all the time. I don't understand why they hardly ever bother to correct the pitch. On the other hand I can spot NTSC 3:2 pulldown a mile away and find it pretty distracting. I now use ReClock to play my old PAL DVD's at 24fps with the correct pitch.

 

Even with Blu-ray, I still have to put up with the 3:2 pulldown crap until I shell out for a TV that can handle 24fps. Any 60Hz adds NTSC judder in order to display on the screen.

Frames: 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 8, etc. Those duplicating frames look pretty nasty in steady panning shots.

 

I'm not up on the lingo, so please feel free to talk down to me like I'm a child. Does this have something to do with the herky-jerky effect I see sometimes on broadcast TV that renders some shows, IMO, unwatchable?

 

I do believe part of the process in transferring film from 24fps to NTSC 29.97fps can result in judder.

 

That's right. The jerkniess is due to that. Here's a link that explains 3:2 pulldown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3:2_pulldown , which is the term for stretching 4 frames into 5, created judder.

For NTSC, 24 (actually 23.976) frames are stretched into 30 (actually 29.97) frames, made up of 60 interlaced frames. There's no change in the speed, but the sacrifice is that the fluid motion is affected because the image literally starts and stops several times per second.

If you watch a DVD, pause it, and forward it frame by frame, you can see this in action. Every fifth frame is a duplicate of the fourth.

With digital taking over for analog, this is gradually becoming a thing of the past. Blu-rays are encoded at 24 frames a second, but if you are using an older TV that runs at 60Hz, that judder is added back in by your player in order for it to be compatible with your TV. To get rid of the judder, you need a 120/240Hz TV.

 

That's a bit inaccurate. You need a TV that will display at a multiple of 24 fps (72Hz and 96Hz are also acceptable in addition to 120Hz or 240Hz). Many plasma TVs use 96Hz when fed 24p content. Note that you also have ensure that 24fps mode is turned on in the player and an appropriate setting (if there is one) is turned on in the TV. Also, if you turn on the obnoxious frame interpolation (often enabled by default) with a 120Hz/240Hz LCDs you'll end up killing the natural 24fps frame cadence.

 

I was summarizing, but you're right. Not all 120+ Hz TVs can handle 24p content correctly.

Frame interpolation is garbage. All the TVs at Best Buy has it turned on, and it looks really bad. It turns films into uncanny valley cartoons.

 

Again, not up on the lingo... you're talking about the soap opera effect, right?

 

Yup. Another comparison is to that of a video game. It's one of those things where you know it when you see it.

 

It's a matter of perspective. I think it frees us from the 24 fps image capturing limitations and gives recorded images a much more realistic and natural feel. I could live without 3D, but not without frame creation / interpolation. YMMV.

Bob