Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Off Topic OT: BD quality

Pal has 625 lines, I think. So is generaly accepted to be higher quality than NTSC in a TV viewing enviroment.

Cheers Chris

PAL is 50Hz, 576 displayed lines, 625 transmitted lines.

NTSC is 59.94Hz, 480 displayed lines, 525 transmitted lines.

For TV & DVD, PAL takes a film at 24Hz and speeds it up to 25Hz. 25 frames/sec are then interlaced to 50 fields/sec.

NTSC takes a film at 24Hz and applies telecine pull-up. Alternating fields are displayed/repeated in a 2-3 sequence that causes judder. Americans usually get used to judder and don't notice it, but Europeans hate it.

PAL also has better colour encoding than NTSC; so not many advantages with NTSC, really.
However, NTSC video is more easily de-interlaced, as the telecine cadence is more easily detected and decoded.

Nick

It used to be said:

NTSC = Never The Same Colour
PAL = Pictures At Last

But I am genuinely puzzled by this thread. I don't understand how people can think that the difference between DVD and Blu-ray and between standard and HD broadcast is not obvious, even in a PAL set-up. My experience is that the high definition formats are substantially better resolution than the standard formats - it's not a subtle thing. How can anyone have difficulty in discerning between them? I simply fail to understand why there is a question.

BTW, to the comment that screens are smaller in the UK because rooms are smaller, that also means viewing distance should be less. One should offset the other. However, I do think it's possible that the Which testers were simply at too great a viewing distance to see the difference, in which case they were testing their eyes, not the format.

I don't think discernment is the issue (albeit a far more modest difference on a 40" TV vs a 120" screen), it's the value appended to the difference that is the determining factor. The families whom I mentioned above can see the difference, but the response is still "so what?"

Cheers

George

Gotcha. My daughter and her partner initially had the same reaction to my Sky HD.

Having said that, a 40" 1080p panel at the correct viewing distance should yield the same detail as 120" screen fed with 1080p and the same material. Having a bigger screen doesn't extract more detail than is present in 1080p material and all the available detail should be discernible on a decent 40" screen at the appropriate viewing distance.

But if you read the Which reports they are not talking about the value attached to the experience - they are genuinely saying that they see little or no difference: "only slightly sharper", "not deemed to be a significant improvement", "no significant improvement", "the resolution didn't appear to have improved", "resolution not much better than DVD" and so on. Maybe the odd film is a poor transfer but 8 out of 17 showing little or no improvement? That's simply not my experience on a very similar set-up - not by a long chalk.

Then they go and give the Blu-ray version of the Untouchables 5 stars and the DVD version 3 stars (8.25 versus 6 points) and put the former in the category of only "slightly sharper" and "not a significant improvement". That's just bonkers - one subjective assessment at complete loggerheads with another subjective assessment. The same is true of Die Hard: 6.5 points for Blu-ray, 4.5 for DVD yet in the "not significant improvement" category. But From Russia With Love, 8.75 v 6.5 puts it in the super improvement category. We don't know what the points mean or how they were assessed or how they relate to stars. We don't know the viewing distances or if the panels were calibrated. One of the "experts" in the video talks about the white balance being "turned up too high" which is meaningless guff - he probably means the brightness but if he's an expert he should know the difference - and how do we know it's the source rather than the screen? It's arbitrary, contradictory and worthless silliness. It just confirms me in my prejudice that if Which "experts" weren't working for Which, they'd be salesmen at a big high street electronic retailer.

It's quite possible that some Blu-ray transfers are not as good as they could be, so to that extent, Which have a case. But their claim that half the Blu-ray discs are not significantly better than DVD? Nah.

Still Off Topic, but I know why Bluray isnt setting the world alight.

We just re-watched the Harry Potter Goblet of fire DVD with the "outlaw", bringing her up to speed for HP7A. At no point did anyone say, "I think the Picture and sound could be better".
It just didnt come up, wasnt mentioned, not a murmer, nada, nothing, nowt.

As a repsentative of ordinary folk, it tells its own tale.

Cheers Chris

P.S. I know Blu-ray IS better in every way if the transfer is done properly.
Just saying, most folks could care less.

That's probably right, but isn't it the same lack of caring that leads people to the view that MP3s played through �150 docks is as good as it gets?

The Picture and sound on my system is very good hecd2, a differant league from a �150 iPod dock, but not close to your league.lol

However your point is taken as it is that same indifferance at work here.

Thank goodness there are more fastidious in this world.
Cheers Chris

Oh dear - I didn't mean to imply your system is like a cheap dock. My point was about the fact that discerning the best takes some effort in all arenas of life which is often sadly lacking.

On the other hand, I do take your point about content being king having enjoyed quite a few films on that minute little display on the back of airline seats with the tinny sound that comes out of the armrests, whereas junk on Blu-ray through DSPs is still junk. Nevertheless, the experience is transformed with good picture and sound, which, I think, is why we're hitchhikers.

That is because, in my experience, most people don't have a critical eye (or ear) for detail. That's not a criticism, but as you say, just they way people are. I am extremely critical and wouldn't be any good at my software testing / quality assurance job if I wasn't. In general, I am very disappointed at the quality of the audio and video in cinemas and often leave them thinking how much better it would have been in my own HT. Ignorance is bliss...

Not only are most people lacking a critical eye or ear but also they simply don't care enough about quality: it simply is not an issue for them. And they see the money spent and time expended in set-up on our systems as a sign of unhealthy obsession.

All of the recent posts above perhaps explains Meridians dilema on not being more well known and/or desired by the general populas.
I am not sure how product placement in average movies will change things, but anything is better than nothing. I see their point about aiming at the well heeled in these straightened economic times. Shame I am not so well heeled, part of the squeezed middle I guess.

Cheers, Chris