Apparently PAL DVD's run 4% faster than NTSC DVD's ...?

[jimbobsyouruncle]

Just checking the FAQ page on Play.com and saw the following:

http://playcom.at/cookdandbombd?DURL=http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=dvdfaq&r=R2

Why are R1 runtimes longer than their R2 equivalent?

In simple terms, due to the nature of PAL/NTSC decoding standards, PAL titles run 4% quicker than their NTSC counterparts (see NTSC and PAL for further information).

The longer a film the greater the difference in duration between the two formats, even though the content of the movie may be exactly the same.

The implication here is that the movie actually runs faster on PAL than on NTSC.

Does this mean that we're watching things in some kind of 'fast forward' compared to NTSC viewers...  This sounds bizarre to me, can't be true can it ?

[Purple Tentacle]

It is absolutely true.

PAL runs at 25 fps, film runs at 24fps, NTSC runs at 29.97fps

To convert a film (24fps) to NTSC (29.97fps) they jigger around with additional frames, speeds, synchs etc. to get it to match this stupid, ungainly frame rate.

Because PAL is a nice round 25fps, they just crank it up a notch. Bish bash bosh a lot easier.

And yes, the difference is just about unnoticable, if you played the two simultaiously you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference.

The REAL crime was that the PAL SNES ran 17.5% SLOWER, with a drastically compressed screen compared to its ugly yank cousin.

God how I hate Nintendo Europe.

[Timmay]

The REAL crime was that the PAL SNES ran 17.5% SLOWER

Ahh, it's the VAT see. I got mine through a company, VAT free. Lovely and fast it were.

[jimbobsyouruncle]

So, to add to my confusion.

Are we watching films faster than normal

or are the NTSC viewers watching the films slower than normal

or is that another dumb question ?

[Timmay]

Depends what they are filmed in originally I guess. Purple T?

[elderford]

THREAD HIJACK

I've just been lent a Playstation 2 and it is near constantly Error messaging, after a brief Google I see there are class actions, web tips, and a Sony deal where they don't acknowledge the problem but will fix it for free.

Apparently it'll begin to stop playing dvds and cds and then games.

All this for just £139.

[Purple Tentacle]

NTSC viewers see the film the way god intended because time and effort has gone into optimising it for their imperial ass. However, I believe due to their stupid 29.97 frame rate they get a regular drop-frame to make up the decimal, a bit like a leap year.

We watch films 1/24th of a second faster because it's a lot easier that way.


There's a lot of guff about drop frames and 3:2 pullown which at this precise moment in time I can't quite remember the specifics of, I'm sure Ambient Sheep could fill you in on the more techy aspects of it.


Just comfort yourself knowing that PAL pisses all over NTSC from a great height. Yay us!

[Timmay]

Just a shame that HDTV isn't even on the horizon for us, like it is at least for the yanks.

[terrorist]

This is all lies:

[it should play back at the same speed shouldn't it?  it has to have a format conversion to change it from PAL to NTSC or other way but that shouldn't mean it's speeded up or slowed down so the runtime difference must either be bullshit, attributed to a different factor (ie different copyright warnings or some shit) or.......i don't know....it's not inherent in the PAL/NTSC conversion though as 1 second is still 1second regardless of how many frames you choose to split it into and frames can't be removed or added to the film cause you'd be able to see it.......it's all lies....]

[Purple Tentacle]

it should play back at the same speed shouldn't it?  it has to have a format conversion to change it from PAL to NTSC or other way but that shouldn't mean it's speeded up or slowed down so the runtime difference must either be bullshit, attributed to a different factor (ie different copyright warnings or some shit) or.......i don't know....it's not inherent in the PAL/NTSC conversion though as 1 second is still 1second regardless of how many frames you choose to split it into and frames can't be removed or added to the film cause you'd be able to see it.......it's all lies....

No! I'm not lying!

PAL VS NTSC
Many of you are probably wondering what the difference with PAL VS NTSC. It comes up quite a lot in game consoles, and is now also a big issue with DVD's, especially now that Warner Brothers has decided to release some movies here in NTSC format instead of going to the effort to converting them to PAL. Basically, PAL and NTSC are two different TV formats used in different parts of the world. While America and Japan adopted the NTSC format, Europe and Australia decided that the PAL format was the better option. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. The first difference is the resolution of the picture. PAL TV's run at a much higher resolution then NTSC resulting in a much sharper image. While the number of horizontal lines on a PAL picture is 625 the NTSC format is restricted to only 525 lines of resolution. The other major difference is the refresh, or frame rate. PAL TV's only run at 50HZ which means the picture refreshes 50 times per second (or 25 frames per second for a full screen refresh), while NTSC is 17% higher at 60Hz.

What does this mean for DVD's? Well in general the PAL DVD's have a better picture quality due tot he higher resolution the NTSC format doesn't suffer from speedup of the picture. This PAL speedup sees movies generally run 4% faster then then when the movie appeared at the cinema, and how the film was originally made. This speedup is due the PAL TV's display 25 frames per second while the theatre displays 24 frames per second. When watching a movie this slight increase in speed isn't really noticable. NTSC on the other had repeats every 5th frame to increase from 24 to 30 frames per seconds so the film will display a film in the following sequence:
Frames - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12 etc
These repeated frames keep the movie at it's correct length but is, to a very trained eye, noticable with an extremely slight stuttering (5 times per second).

Reportedly watching NTSC stuff is very painful at first if you're a video purist, but you get used to it after a few days, like if you switch from a round-screen monitor to a flat-screen one.

Oh yeah, and on my DVD-ROM card at home, which goes into the telly, I can't watch Region 1 DVDs because the stuttering gets on my tits so much. it's fine on the monitor though, presumably because of some refresh-rate gubbins.

[terrorist]

appologies:
that frame repeat thing sounds familiar now you mention it I know some people who work with DVD's but never manage to follow such conversations past the first few sentences.  You put it very clearly though, please ignore my previous jibberish my logic obviously doesn't apply to the world of video formats.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Films shown at the cinema run at 24 frames per second, so in fact neither Europe or America or anywhere else is seeing the film at the correct speed on video or dvd.
I would have appreciated them bumping up LOTR to 29.97 fps at the cinema, mind...

[Purple Tentacle]

appologies:
that frame repeat thing sounds familiar now you mention it I know some people who work with DVD's but never manage to follow such conversations past the first few sentences.  You put it very clearly though, please ignore my previous jibberish my logic obviously doesn't apply to the world of video formats.

No need to apologise, I sounded more pissed off than I was. I remember Ambient and I getting into a right broo-ha-ha about the amount of memory allocated to ROM in a ZX Spectrum, I insisted that the 48K was pure RAM, and he insisted otherwise. Turned out he was right in the end.

Ahhh, internet, bringer of war.



I quite like the way the article says "extremely slight stuttering...5 times a second".. that sounds like a whole load of stuttering to me.

I would be very interested to know if other whores have the same problem I do with R1 discs though, I imagine that proper DVD players get round this sort of thing.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I've never had any problems with Region 1 discs. In fact, the biggest problems I have are with REgion 2 discs, which play like shit on multi-region players here, constantly going out of sync, audio fading out, etc.
Incidentally, I've also converted PAL dvd's to NTSC with seemingly no difference in quality

[hencole]

What about multiregion? My video monitor tends too, though not always play these in NTSC (sometimes in PAL).

[Ambient Sheep]

Films shown at the cinema run at 24 frames per second, so in fact neither Europe or America or anywhere else is seeing the film at the correct speed on video or dvd.

Yes they are.  The NTSC countries see it at the same rate as in the movies (unless you count the tiny difference between 24fps and 23.98fps), albeit with horrible judder.  PAL countries really DO watch the film 4% faster than in the cinema.  Haven't the time to go into detail now, will come back later.  I did write a long post about this on the old board, I'll have to see if I can find it, and then add to it, as PT has mentioned "drop frame" which is another concept entirely and nothing to do with film transfer (which is another perversion called "3:2 pulldown").

Basically though Purple Tentacle's posts so far are more-or-less spot on.  Except for...

I remember Ambient and I getting into a right broo-ha-ha about the amount of memory allocated to ROM in a ZX Spectrum, I insisted that the 48K was pure RAM, and he insisted otherwise. Turned out he was right in the end.

Other way round!  *I* was the one who was saying it has 48K of pure RAM and 16K of ROM, you were the one arguing that it hadn't.... :-) :-) :-)

EDIT P.S.: Except that this bit he quoted:

Frames - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12 etc

is bollocks.  The idea of repeating frames is correct, but that's not how it's done at all.

[Purple Tentacle]

Hehehe, if we really want to get complicated we get into interlacing.


Strictly speaking, PAL TV shows 50 frames per second (50hz... do you see, do you see?), because at the dawn of television, TVs only draw half the picture at a time.... odd-numbered lines then even numbered lines. Of course it's so rapid you don't notice, until you take a freezeframe, and you notice the interlace lines and junk around anything moving. This is because of the staggered way that a full frame is displayed on a TV.

Standard TVs never show a full frame at a time. (Progressive scan cameras and TVs do, but they are expensive, and some progressive scan cameras only manage a shit 18fps. The £2,200 Sony VX1000 does anyway.)

Anyway. Film, as I'm sure you're aware, works very differently, with whole frames strung together on the film. So, to convert it to TV you have to effectively dice each frame into alternate strips, and show them at 50fps (or near-enough 60fps if you're NTSC... well, 29.97 x 2, I can't be arsed to calculate)

One day interlacing will be a thing of the past, but not for a while.

Anyway, because NTSC has fewer lines available, the picture always loses quality.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Yes they are.  The NTSC countries see it at the same rate as in the movies (unless you count the tiny difference between 24fps and 23.98fps), albeit with horrible judder.  PAL countries really DO watch the film 4% faster than in the cinema.  Haven't the time to go into detail now, will come back later.  I did write a long post about this on the old board, I'll have to see if I can find it, and then add to it, as PT has mentioned "drop frame" which is another concept entirely and nothing to do with film transfer (which is another perversion called "3:2 pulldown").
-)

NTSC is 29.97 fps

[Ambient Sheep]

Yes they are.  The NTSC countries see it at the same rate as in the movies (unless you count the tiny difference between 24fps and 23.98fps), albeit with horrible judder.

NTSC is 29.97 fps

Yes I know.  You're in dire danger of entering a granny-egg-interface scenario here.  :-)

Until I get some time later this evening, please consider the following pair of equations:

30 x 1000 / 1001 = 29.9700299700299700... = 29.97 to 4sf.
24 x 1000 / 1001 = 23.9760239760239760... = 23.98 to 4sf.

Sorry if I sound like an arrogant prick or something leaving it at that, but I really have to go now...

[Purple Tentacle]

EDIT P.S.: Except that this bit he quoted:

Frames - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12 etc

is bollocks.  The idea of repeating frames is correct, but that's not how it's done at all.

Ha, that was the first thing I could find on the net about the PAL speed up thing, it was from a PS2 website, I should have known better.

I've never really been arsed to learn too much about 3:2 pulldown as I just huffed and said "Bollocks, can't be bothered to learn this shit, I'll stick to PAL thankyouverymuch".

If I ever get a job in video transfer I'll brush up on it.


I DID hear quite an interesting story about why it's 29.97 and not 30, something to do with NBC, do you know what it is?

[Ambient Sheep]

I DID hear quite an interesting story about why it's 29.97 and not 30, something to do with NBC, do you know what it is?

Maybe.  Later.  :-)

<runs away, terribly fast>

[El Unicornio, mang]

How can they be seeing it at 29.97fps and 23.98 fps? I don't understand. My brain is hurting.

[hencole]

I don't believe any of you at all. The amount of conversations I've had about NTSC vs PAL on AV or console forums has brought me to the conclusion that know one knows the definitive answers to any of these questions.

[Purple Tentacle]

I don't believe any of you at all. The amount of conversations I've had about NTSC vs PAL on AV or console forums has brought me to the conclusion that know one knows the definitive answers to any of these questions.

Because you need a fucking degree in Pure Maths to understand it.

Which sort of explains why we just speed the film up in Blighty.

[jimbobsyouruncle]

So...

If they can fanny around the with movies to make it run at the right speed for the yanks why can'tthey do it for us too... ?  It is really hard/expensive to do, or do they just not give a damn about us PALviewers ?

I just had a debate with someone at work about how fast you would have to be accelerating away from your tv in order to be able to view PAL DVD's at the correct speed. Einstein and all that.

We decided that the answer was very very fast indeed.

[Garfield And Friends]

So.....a few questions (possibly simplistic/stupid, but hey):


1.) Is NTSC "betamaxing" PAL, due to US media dominance/distribution?

2.) Does HDTV come in 2 flavours (i.e. PAL or NTSC), or is it just a much improved version of NTSC?

3.) 'They' say that movies being distributed to film theatres will be done over the internet soon enough. Does that mean that the whole issue of framerates will be standardised to just one (24fps, 29.97fps, 25fps)?

[gazzyk1ns]

Does an NTSC picture contain the same amout of lines as a PAL picture? it's a bit different, isn't it?

Somebody clarify the refresh rate of TV sets vs framerate of different formats please, PT hinted that you watch TV at 50fps because that's the refresh rate. As I understand it that's not right, i.e. the refresh rate can be anything it wants to be and not affect the amount of frames - if the refresh rate is a billion times faster than the frame rate then it'll just refresh the same frame a billion times and not make any difference. From what I understand, the only implications refresh rates have in real terms is causing headaches, and when that raises above about 80hz then it's unnoticeable to 99.999% of people. With TVs I know it's a bit different though - they have that shitty 100hz plus thing which makes the picture look all pasty. I assume there's something goping on there... can they just not bump the refresh rate up without increasing the number of frames? In a similar way people do when playing games on their PC, i.e. they specify the refresh rate of their monitor but the frame rate is unnaffected and determined only by how fast your PC is.

A simplification of most of that would be the question:

Is my understanding of frame rates and refresh rates correct? Here is how I understand them:

Refresh rate: The "re-illumination" of your screen/monitor, performed by the screen/monitor. The same as how a lightbulb "refreshes", only slower.

Frame rate: The "updating", i.e. complete re-drawing of all graphics, of your picture on screen. With television and video this is broadcast to the screen from cassette or a signal, with the processing already done. With a PC game, your graphics card does the processing involved with the repeated re-drawing of all onscreen graphics.

Thus, someone can be watching a 25fps PAL Tv broadcast on their TV with a refresh rate of 50hz, and people can play Quake at 150fps on their monitor which refreshes at 85hz.

Confusion abound, somebody sort it out.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

So what are .BIN files?

:)

[Purple Tentacle]

So...

If they can fanny around the with movies to make it run at the right speed for the yanks why can'tthey do it for us too... ?  It is really hard/expensive to do, or do they just not give a damn about us PALviewers ?

Right, in the absense of Sheepy I'll try and clarify this.


We really do have the best possible solution, other than going back in time and telling John Logie-Baird to transmit at 24fps.

To bump up the frame-rate to 30fps, you have to either add in some frames and then squish them together(jitter), or make some/all of the existing frames a bit shorter (speed it up). Obviously speeding up from 24 to 30 fps isn't really a sensible option, far too big a jump.

4% really really isn't very much at all.... get your favourite song in Sound Forge, speed it up by 4% and you'll see what I mean... it doesn't make any difference. However start messing around with every few notes, making them increase in length, then you'll be tearing your ears out.


Off hand I don't have the exact figures, but the PAL picture has over 600 lines, and NTSC has around 580-ish lines., making the picture a lower resolution.*

Edit:: Got the figures now: PAL has 625 lines, NTSC has 525 lines. A bigger difference than I thought!

Now, as PAL transmits 50 half-frames a second, there really is no need to up the refresh rate.

A refresh rate is, literally, the amount of times the screen is re-drawn.

Now LCD screens don't strictly speaking have a refresh rate as such, as they only draw what changes, so let's concentrate on CRT monitors.

If you have an 80hz refresh rate on Windows, you could say that when you move your mouse, it's moving at 80fps.  I'm guessing that if you play Quake at 150fps, you'll still only see it at 80fps, not that it really matters, since motion is achieved by 24fps, after that it just gets smoother.


PAL TV transmits at 50half-fps, so while you COULD get a TV with a higher refresh rate, there would be little point. Of course if they changed the transmission rate you could get smoother pictures, but totally pissing off all the people with "old-fashioned" televisions.

However it's pretty obivous that this will happen sooner or later.

[Timmay]

I've got one of them new-fangled 100Hz tellys. Wot I do know is I can now see it flickering like a bitch whenever I switch it back to 50Hz, or watch anyone else's telly.

Can't go back now. They've got me trapped in the technological trap. Tsk!