So will UK viewers notice more of a difference with the Blurays...

[The Squire of Gothos]

...than those in the US?

I'm up to season 3 of the CBS Action repeats here in the UK and the show looks so damned fuzzy, like an old VHS tape. I read somewhere it was due to the conversion from NTSC to PAL.

Any truth to that? Are we in the UK due an extra treat?

 

[RAMA]

...than those in the US?

I'm up to season 3 of the CBS Action repeats here in the UK and the show looks so damned fuzzy, like an old VHS tape. I read somewhere it was due to the conversion from NTSC to PAL.

Any truth to that? Are we in the UK due an extra treat?

Nope. PAL is usually 576i and NTSC 480i in 4:3 resolution. Because it's being taken from 35mm film, and converted to 1080p we'll both be seeing the same thing.

RAMA

 

[Rarewolf]

I think that's what the Squire means. We will get the same this time round, instead of a converted version, which we are used to. So we might notice the improvement more.

 

[RAMA]

I think that's what the Squire means. We will get the same this time round, instead of a converted version.

I assumed he meant because the PAL version is better...might seem bad to someone used to seeing regular PAL, but would probably look better to someone used to NTSC. I know there are reasons PAL is better other than resolution, though for most casual viewers, they wouldn't notice the difference between PAL and NTSC.

RAMA

 

[Sho]

What Squire meant is that NTSC->PAL conversions often look worse than the NTSC original, and PAL DVD releases are frustratingly often conversions instead of both versions being created from a single source superior to both (in which case PAL is superior to NTSC due to the higher resolution). I don't know if this actually the case for TNG (i.e. whether the PAL DVDs were created as upconversions from the NTSC DVDs, or whether both the PAL and the NTSC versions were encoded from the same source), but Squire assumes that it is, and if so, speculates that for PAL audiences the new HD version will be an even bigger step up in quality than for NTSC audiences.

Of course in truth the HD version will be so much better than either NTSC or PAL as to make any difference between NTSC an PAL negligible.

 

[RAMA]

What Squire meant is that NTSC->PAL conversions often look worse than the NTSC original, and PAL DVD releases are frustratingly often conversions instead of both versions being created from a single source superior to both (in which case PAL is superior to NTSC due to the higher resolution). I don't know if this actually the case for TNG (i.e. whether the PAL DVDs were created as upconversions from the NTSC DVDs, or whether both the PAL and the NTSC versions were encoded from the same source), but Squire assumes that it is, and if so, speculates that for PAL audiences the new HD version will be an even bigger step up in quality than for NTSC audiences.

Of course in truth the HD version will be so much better than either NTSC or PAL as to make any difference between NTSC an PAL negligible.

The conversion looks worse I am sure, probably because of a cheap up-rezzing as you say, but all the STNG versions extant look "fuzzy". Regardless, we are all in for a revelation.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The Blu-ray episodes will also probably seem slower to us as the conversion from NTSC 60fps to PAL 50fps sped the episodes up by 4.2%. The video quality of the DVDs looks just as soft to me as the original broadcasts (repeated most recently on Virgin 1, IIRC). I haven't seen the NTSC versions for comparison. I expect a notable improvement.

 

[Start Wreck]

The Blu-ray episodes will also probably seem slower to us as the conversion from NTSC 60fps to PAL 50fps sped the episodes up by 4.2%.

Slowed them down, surely?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Nope, it sped them up. The filmed episodes were shot at 24 frames per second, and converted to NTSC 60 fields per second by using one film frame for every two fields and duplicating one field every four fields. The conversion to PAL removes the extra fields, producing a source with 48 fps, and this is sped up by to 50 fps. It's a bit more complicated than this because NTSC is actually 29.97 frames per second.

 

[Start Wreck]

Ah yes, I thought it would be a more complicated explanation than that in my head.

 

[ATimson]

I don't know if this actually the case for TNG (i.e. whether the PAL DVDs were created as upconversions from the NTSC DVDs, or whether both the PAL and the NTSC versions were encoded from the same source), but Squire assumes that it is, and if so, speculates that for PAL audiences the new HD version will be an even bigger step up in quality than for NTSC audiences.

The PAL DVDs may have not been created directly from the NTSC DVDs, but they were definitely created from an NTSC source; that's the resolution the master tapes were created at, there is no higher resolution film version available (or at least, there wasn't until the HD project was kicked off).

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

The only problem with NTSC and 24fps material is 3:2 pulldown, causing "juddering" which is highly noticeable to me - all praise Blu-ray (and capable monitor) for true 24hz support. Having said that, all my Star Trek DVD's are the imported US versions, I'd go with juddering over PAL speed-up every time. I'm not certain, but I think the speeding up equates to something like a semitone raise in pitch on the soundtrack.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

This link has examples of the speed up for TNG.

http://sandbox.slysoft.com/palspeedup/comparison.mp3

 

[Balok's Head]

This link has examples of the speed up for TNG.

http://sandbox.slysoft.com/palspeedup/comparison.mp3

Wow, they are different. Although I think the NTSC version actually sounds lower than it should be, it doesn't sound like Picard as much as the PAL version does. Also, what's the reason for this change?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

This link has examples of the speed up for TNG.

http://sandbox.slysoft.com/palspeedup/comparison.mp3

Wow, they are different. Although I think the NTSC version actually sounds lower than it should be, it doesn't sound like Picard as much as the PAL version does. Also, what's the reason for this change?

I'm tone deaf so it hardly makes any difference to me. Of course, if Jean Luc were squeaking like a chipmunk, I'd object.

See http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5258479&postcount=9 for the background. It's a ubiquitous problem with NTSC to PAL conversion. The problem goes away with HD as many different frame rates are supported.

 

[Deks]

Lol... one can definitely notice the difference in speed.
I think the same thing was obvious for most Trek shows.
The early seasons sounded as if the actors had a higher pitched voices, but then after a couple of years, it would subside.

 

[ATimson]

The problem goes away with HD as many different frame rates are supported.

It goes away for people in the PAL regions, but since North American equipment isn't required to support 50Hz frame rates, any "PAL" material needs to undergo pulldown or conversion.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The problem goes away with HD as many different frame rates are supported.

It goes away for people in the PAL regions, but since North American equipment isn't required to support 50Hz frame rates, any "PAL" material needs to undergo pulldown or conversion.

That's true. From reading comments on Amazon, I believe people have been caught out when importing Blu-ray discs from the UK.

 

[Trek Survivor]

To the original poster - whatever CBS Action is broadcasting is far worse quality than the show appeared on BBC, Sky One and definitely the DVD sets. Nothing to do with PAL/NTSC.

And what's with the Trekologist at the start of every show!?

 

[beamMe]

This link has examples of the speed up for TNG.

http://sandbox.slysoft.com/palspeedup/comparison.mp3

Wow. I'd never have thought the difference would be this extreme.