 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: There are so many variables one can't say for certain. However... posted by clarkjohnsen on May 02, 2004 at 11:59:15:
Modern European DVD are at least as good as US in picture quality AND sound.
Follow Ups:
Hi,
I find modern European mastering way behind NTSC.
Check out Rambo on region 1 compared to region 2,The region one has a more natural colour pallet and more of a "filmic presentation".
Region 2 has stark colour contrasts and more compreshion artifacts.
When i purchase a NTSC DVD i always feel i have the film in the colection for years to come,With pal i feel i have some sort of video game intro and just get fatiged watching them.
The picture seems very" hard" on pal,Edges being razor sharp and black and white tones being too vivid.
It was exactly the same with Laserdisk i felt,NTSC always were the favour of choice.As for my set up i have 6 projection systems,I still think you can see the differences even with a lower speck tv (Sony etc).
The same goes with the artworck and attention to detail,NTSC have more effort put into them,Pal are bland and "effortless".I recently bought the back to the future box set from Ebay on Pal and it was a real big mistake,I ended up selling it within 2 hrs.
I always think that Pal disks are like a chess board,Black and white and nothing in between.
NTSC seems to fill this void with image depth and correct contrast leading to a more "realxing" and enjoyable format.You only have to look at the American hi end players compared to the Uk ones,
We have only just put component output on players,USA had them for years...........
Hello,
If you describe so vividly your aversion with PAL it may be YOU the culprit, as everybody hear differentely we also see not the same. That would clear a lot of discussions and be a good answer for more tolerance at each other.
I still do find that I have some French DVD that are better, in a sharper way and having more vivid colours than ( one may like or not ) NTSC.
But with the coming of HD...
Hi,
I do still think that Pal are not very good pressings,But its only my 5$ worth and if you are happy with your system thats great.I have know 5 other collectors of films and they all share the same opinion of UK dvd pressings.
I have seen some French films before and they did impress me,the use of widescreen and concept were to a very high standard.Like you say one can only hope that the advent of HD will improve matters,Its such a shame that we in the UK dont get to see this format and others untill its done the rounds for a few years.
I think that DVD has a long future ahead of it,In terms of compreshion ratio which is still 100 -1.
Uncompressed would be a total new world all together?I.H.
s
Hello,
I spoke, of course, mainly from the French DVD, that I bought ( by the way I have quiet a few UK and they are not good, now that I think about ) so are German too of a very high standard!
Compression well done is ok, but they are still a lot of artifacs and from plasma tv too!
Still way better than LD for the picture, as for the sound it is another story!Patrick
a
Well, I have hundreds of films on DVD and I can only state what I see...and heard.
Some PAL have just a higher resolution than NTSC, and you can see it. As for the sound, it has the same quality.
But I would not make a big story about it. It depends of how much labor of love have been put in one production.
But to say that NTSC is generally better that PAL in picture AND sound is just not true.
In my opinion.
I have access to big-screen front-projectors of extremely high resolution, and there one may truly see the truth. Decisions made on measely 1m. screens like I own (and yourself?), are apt to be mistaken. Hence, unreliable.PAL des not have "higher resolution" although it does have more scan lines. Tell us what its horizontal capability is.
I never said NTSC had better sound, only that it was way ahead in incorporating stereo.
"Labor of love" might be the most critical factor withall.
clark
Question: Just what does the size of screen have to do with quality?Answer: nothing.
Not *because* it's larger, rather because defects are more readily seen on it and improvements undertaken. Most material looks fine on my 1m tube, but play it on a good projector and large screen and it's sometimes unwatchable.Thus, properly equipped, one may answer questions that cannot be addressed otherwise. For instance, how good is the ultimate NTSC experience?
clark
What matters is the viewing angle, not size. A 10 foot screen viewed from 20 feet will give you worse "quality resolution" than a 1m screen viewed from 1.5m.Also don't forget washng off with ambient light - tubes and plasma are far more tolerant of that, unless you have a completely dark room.
Of course viewing angle is held mutatis mutandis; that should go without saying.However, viewing a tube at 1.5m has other problems.
Dark rooms are standard in such evaluations.
My word stands.
clark
By the way I have access too. One of my friend has a studio with so I think the best stuff around in video, I just call him and ask him his opinion, well he said PAL is in theory better but factually in depend on the mastering...
Well, on my very limited system it is what I see. But there are also reviewers here wo said defintively, that PAL can be far better than NTSC. I must say with HD coming around this discussion is obsolete.
The best I ever have seen, half year ago, on video was the Digital VHS ( or what is it called? )
That HAD resolution!
...merely that it has more scan lines. That is only one item in the budget that determines resolution.clark
Right.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
