DVD Quality
MovieBear1
Laserdisc collections in favor of any DVD version. I just want to point out
that in some cases ( HTWWW is a good example) they use the same Master that was
used to make the Laserdisc. When this happens there rarely is any noticabe
improvement over their Laserdisc counterpart.
JohnW248
(MovieBear1) writes:
>When this happens there rarely is any noticabe
>improvement over their Laserdisc counterpart.
Except: If the master is component (D-1) then the DVD will be better. Even if
a D-2 (composite) master, the filters used in creating the DVD will be better
than those in your tv set. At least in the NTSC world, DVD's viewed thru
component or S-Video connections will exhibit fewer NTSC problems than laster
discs.
John
Stephen Pickard
with DVD, on the basis that the DVD will look better than the LD,
regardless whether or not the identical master film and digital tape
sources have been used for both. If the title has been re-mastered,
there is no guarantee that the new transfer will be better. If it has
been made in a another facility and the functions of telecine such as
focus and color balancing are different or not as good as the previous
session, no improvement in the DVD mastering will help. The question of
the compression rate, whether high or low matters greatly. A studio may
go to the great expense of creating a new interpositive picture element
for the DVD release, when the laserdisc version which was released a
year or two ago, the studio would have been unwilling to go to the same
effort. Instead, where an interpositive would have proved to be in an
unusable condition an internegative or 'low con' print would have to be
used in it's place yielding inferior results.
When a laser and DVD master are prepared and scheduled for release at
the same time a more reasonable A/B comparison can be made, provided the
greatest effort is made to utilise the two formats to their fullest
potential. The DVD may show less video noise in certain colors than the
laser, but if the compression rate is high on the DVD, it will
potentially reveal ugly digital artifacts, then in that situation the
laser would definately prove superior. There are so many variables
involved that have to be taken into consideration. I personally plan to
invest in DVD in the near future, but will not give up my laser
collection. I look forward to the day when a high definition home video
format reaches the market, but even then, similar situations that have
been described above may apply.
Sincerely,
Stephen Pickard.
RICHVINCE
>Laserdisc collections in favor of any DVD version. I just want to point out
>that in some cases ( HTWWW is a good example) they use the same Master that
>was
>improvement over their Laserdisc counterpart.
I thought I was the last hold out for Laserdisc having just recently purchased
a DVD player.
I'm finding that there is an improvement in DVD over laserdisc when the disc is
a widescreen version "enhanced for widescreen" and shown on a 16X9 screen. When
this approach is utilized on DVD the balck bands at the top and bottom on a
letterboxed version are used to store data, thus providing more resolution than
Laserdisc. I'm noticing less artifacting than on my laserdiscs. I will have
to say the color resolution on DVD is improved, too.
Rich
Martin Hart
rich...@aol.com says...
> I'm noticing less artifacting than on my laserdiscs.
What artifacting are you speaking of? Laser discs are analog and there
is no inherent artifacting of the image. Digital artifacting can be
there as a result of a less than optimum digital transfer.
I recently acquired the 13 tape set of "Hollywood" by Kevin Brownlow,
from HBO Home Video. The tapes suffer from the use of some really poor
digital editing, looking in some scenes a bit like a bad AVI.
Additionally, the tapes are so loaded with Macrovision that even my best
equipment that just happens to defeat the system will still display
residue from the destructive copy protection. And this is a series that
has been shown on regular TV several times. One of the 13 tapes even
starts with a Macrovision logo and a comment that the copy protection is
there to guarantee that I'm getting the best picture. Boy, that's pure
horse shit if I've ever heard it.
Marty
--
Relive the panoramic past:
Visit The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.simplecom.net/widefilm/
Alen Koebel
>
> In article <19990803143206...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
> rich...@aol.com says...
>
> > I'm noticing less artifacting than on my laserdiscs.
>
> What artifacting are you speaking of? Laser discs are analog and there
> is no inherent artifacting of the image.
I'm afraid this is a laserphile myth that just isn't true. Analog
video on laserdisc contains many artifacts that are due to the
analog NTSC encoding process (and the subsequent, and inevitable,
decoding process) as well as to laserdisc technology itself. These
include chroma phase noise (most laserdisc players), color smear
due to severely limited chroma bandwidth (NTSC), luma-chroma
separation artifacts (NTSC), at al. It simply comes down to which
kind of artifacts you prefer - analog or digital. Digital artifacts
can look more "severe" and distracting than many analog artifacts,
it is true. But the digital system has the potential, now being
realized in many DVDs, of far superior performance when done right.
(snip)
> One of the 13 tapes even
> starts with a Macrovision logo and a comment that the copy protection is
> there to guarantee that I'm getting the best picture. Boy, that's pure
> horse shit if I've ever heard it.
This I cannot disagree with this. ;->
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alen Koebel Projection Systems Engineering Electrohome Ltd
Martin Hart
says...
> Martin Hart wrote:
> > What artifacting are you speaking of? Laser discs are analog and there
> > is no inherent artifacting of the image.
>
> I'm afraid this is a laserphile myth that just isn't true. Analog
> video on laserdisc contains many artifacts that are due to the
> analog NTSC encoding process (and the subsequent, and inevitable,
> decoding process) as well as to laserdisc technology itself. These
> include chroma phase noise (most laserdisc players), color smear
> due to severely limited chroma bandwidth (NTSC), luma-chroma
> separation artifacts (NTSC), at al. It simply comes down to which
> kind of artifacts you prefer - analog or digital. Digital artifacts
> can look more "severe" and distracting than many analog artifacts,
> it is true. But the digital system has the potential, now being
> realized in many DVDs, of far superior performance when done right.
First let me make it clear that I don't subscribe to any myths. Never has
any system been shrouded in myth like Digital Video. I'll believe what I
find to be true. The "artifacts" you speak of are NTSC artifacts, not
something created by or amplified by the storage medium, to any visible
extent. Digital storage must still enter the analog domain at the present
time, and in many cases it will pile its own shortcomings onto those of
the NTSC system required to display it in a large portion of this globe.
"Digital" is not a guarantee of quality, it can be, but it is, by its
very nature a compromise of the analog world. The benefits of digital are
legion, but so is the potential for shoddiness, cost cutting, corruption
beyond anything seen in analog, and a plethora of other ills. If it's
kept to high quality throughout whatever chain it is used in that we'll
all be happy as pigs in shit. Digital also makes it possible for me to
receive 30 pieces of spam e-mail each day.
Alen Koebel
Sure, "digital" is sold by the marketing types as if it's
automatically better. It is not. But if your dislike for
digital is as strong as the response above indicates, you're
in for a rough ride. All communication media are going that
way. Better to expend your energy campaigning for high quality
standards throughout the digital production chain than against
digital technology itself (not that you are actually doing the
latter). Regarding the laserdisc artifacts, most are due to
NTSC, yes, but some are due to the technology of reading the
FM-modulated signals off the disc (excessive, IMO, chroma
phase noise, for one -this is not inherent to NTSC). And you
can't discount the effects of NTSC itself. The prime advantage
of DVD (which is the subject of all this discussion) compared
to laserdisc is that DVD is a component format. No encoding to
NTSC is required, thus no loss of image quality due to NTSC
encoding/decoding. (Let's not argue that laserdisc could have
been developed into a component format. Maybe it could have,
maybe it couldn't. We have no choice but to compare what
exists now.)
Another laserphile myth you don't subscribe to, and one I see
expressed on newsgroups all the time, is that laserdisc is not
a compressed format. Well, if this was true it would be
storing an aggregate analog video bandwidth in excess of 15
MHz (5.X MHz times 3). In reality, it stores about a third of
that. NTSC encoding makes this possible by severely reducing
the bandwidth of the chroma components (to less than 1.5 MHz),
combining them, then "hiding" the combined signal within the
luma signal. That's a form of compression. Mild, yes. Faithful
to the original? Not really. I've seen uncompressed analog
video with full bandwidth components - NTSC is a pale shadow
of it. But quite good enough for smallish (19") TVs, which
is what it was designed for. So much for myths.
If you want to see what is possible when a good digital
transfer is done on DVD, pick up a disc of a new release
movie by Columbia/Tristar. They downconvert to 525-line
component format from HDTV transfers - the result is usually
extremely good. Of course, I'd prefer to see the HDTV transfer
itself, but we'll have to wait a few more years for that.
JohnW248
<ako...@electro.nospam.com> writes:
>If you want to see what is possible when a good digital
>transfer is done on DVD, pick up a disc of a new release
>movie by Columbia/Tristar.
For the present, DVD is the only home media which reflects what I've seen in
the telecine bay with the colorist or in the D-1 edit bay.
You sure get spoiled when you only view video in telecine and film and
lab/studio review rooms, but somebody has to do it.
John
Richard L. Lenoir
<ako...@electro.nospam.com> wrote:
>Martin Hart wrote:
>>
>> In article <37A7AA...@electro.nospam.com>, ako...@electro.nospam.com
>> says...
>to laserdisc is that DVD is a component format. No encoding to
>NTSC is required, thus no loss of image quality due to NTSC
>encoding/decoding.
Please excuse my candid question, but if no NTSC encoding is
required, why is it so NTSC is printed on all american and japanese
DVD and PAL is printed on all european DVD ?
And every european DVD player is also said to be PAL/NTSC compatible
because japan (zone2) is NTSC and Europe (also zone 2) is PAL.
I fail to understand why so much PAL/NTSC writing stuff, on
hardware and software, if no color encoding is nedded.
Please explain.
sprocketeer...@earthlink.net
> I'm finding that there is an improvement in DVD over laserdisc when the disc is
> a widescreen version "enhanced for widescreen" and shown on a 16X9 screen. When
> this approach is utilized on DVD the balck bands at the top and bottom on a
> letterboxed version are used to store data, thus providing more resolution than
> Laserdisc.
Er, no. A 16x9 DVD utilizes more picture height than simple letterboxing. If
you look at a 16x9 anamorphic picture with your DVD player outputting the
picture in anamorphic, that's what the picture REALLY looks like...all squished.
A 16x9 television stretches this picture sideways to the correct aspect ratio.
For a 4x3 television, you set the DVD player to output 4x3, and what it does is
discard some of the picture lines (every 4th line, I think), effectively squashing
the picture vertically to provide a letterboxed picture at the correct aspect ratio.
The reason 16x9 DVD's are so desirable to those of us planning to purchase
16x9 TV's is that a 16x9 picture need only be stretched sideways on a 16x9
display to fill it. A 4x3 letterboxed picture would have to be stretched horzontally
AND vertically to fill a 16x9 display properly, providing a good deal less resolution
than a 16x9 picture. The studios and distributors have been reluctant to support
16x9 for many reasons, such as their claim that many DVD players cannot properly
downconvert 16x9 pictures for 4x3 letterbox viewing without introducing objectionable
artifacts. That may have been true with early DVD players, but I understand that all the
players for some time now do the downconversion very well. Fox, Disney and
THX really need to understand this and support 16x9 anamorphic aggressively.
Myself, I have difficulty telling a DVD picture from laserdisc. They're both
damned impressive. The only problem with laserdisc is that it's a 20 year old
format, now obsolete. I'm sure glad I invested in it though, I've been enjoying
really good pictures for nearly a decade...screw VHS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So many ideas that sound crazy are indeed crazy, and if a busy man paid
equal attention to all of them he would never get anything done. The test
of a truly first-rate mind is its readiness to correct mistakes and even to
change course completely--when the facts merit it." --- Arthur C. Clarke
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMOVE THE "diespamdie" TO REPLY BY E-MAIL
sprocketeer...@earthlink.net
> Please excuse my candid question, but if no NTSC encoding is
> required, why is it so NTSC is printed on all american and japanese
> DVD and PAL is printed on all european DVD ?
>
American & Japanese televisions are NTSC. They only understand an
NTSC picture signal, which is a complicated mix of signals. In the
NTSC standard, the color signals and sound are all mixed together.
A television must use a "comb" filter to unmix this composite signal
back into its components. As with analog Dolby Stereo, if you
mix a bunch of signals together, transmit them, and decode them
again, you cannot entirely separate the signals from each other.
Each signal retains a little bit of noise from the other signals, hence
artifacts in NTSC pictures, and "crosstalk" in Dolby Stereo.
A DVD player stores red, green, blue and sound signals as discrete,
separate signals. Yes, it's capable of extremely good pictures because
of this, but only if you connect the red, green and blue jacks on your
DVD player to the corresponding red, green and blue jacks on your
TV. Chances are, you don't have these jacks on your DVD and TV
(not yet, anyway). Chances are, you have a single cable connecting
your DVD to your TV, either S-video (which looks almost as good
as using the separate red blue green cables, or so I am told) or a simple
RCA cable. If the latter, then your TV is receiving a composite NTSC signal
from your DVD player, which your player is capable of generating on
the fly. And it will suffer from the same NTSC artifacts as a laserdisc
picture.
Martin Hart
says...
Alen, you seem like a bright chap so let me suggest that you don't try to
make any assumptions about what I support or don't support. I have no
argument with much of anything you say. But I spent thirty years in a
technical sales position and I probably never made as much money as
possible because I would not tolerate hype from my employer or my
competitors.
In the case of "digital", I just about puke when I hear people use the
term to equate it to better quality. It's not inherently better quality
unless, as you suggest, the movers and shakers insist that it start that
way and end that way. My fear is that this won't be the case. Here's an
example: I've owned an ungodly number of still and motion picture
cameras over the years. I've been intrigued by the new digital models.
Being somewhat proficient at working in digital graphics I got real
excited about the possibilities. Never having played with a digital
camera, I borrowed a Sony Mavica and found it to be really fun to use.
Then I took the output and tried to do something with it. The images it
produces had the ability to be wonderful but what got stored on that
floppy disk was pure shit. And I think I'm being kind when I say that.
The optical system was up to what I was trying to do with it, and every
aspect of the little camera was more than adequate, but the whole thing
turned into a cesspool when digital compression was used to save lots of
pictures on the disk. I'm sold on the concept of a digital camera and
may well buy one in the next week or so, but it ain't going to be a
Mavica.
I'm not an audiophile that would rather listen to my 40 year old LPs when
the same material has been re-released on a new CD. (One exception is
Richard Rodger's "Victory at Sea" because it's a shitty mix, not the
fault of digital in any respect). I generally prefer the digital tracks
on a LD over the analog, but not always.
A friend has one of those little 18" satellite dishes and it does a
pretty good job when everything is okay. But let a rain cloud appear on
the horizon and the interruption in data causes things to go all to hell.
My old analog 10' dish didn't deliver better pictures but it delivered
them consistently.
I'm not in the least bit against digital anything, a walk through my
house would prove me to be pretty cynical if that was the case, but I
don't subscribe to any dictionary that says digital equals improvement in
quality. That's only true if the product is executed by people who want
to make that a fact. For once in the history of mankind I'd like to see
competitors warring over improved quality rather than lower cost.
Hardware costs will come down, but we need to worry about lower cost
firmware and software, that's where we get bit in the butt.
Alen Koebel
server yet. But no matter, I'll reply to both Richard and
"sprocketeer" here.)
sprocketeer...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> "Richard L. Lenoir" wrote:
>
> > Please excuse my candid question, but if no NTSC encoding is
> > required, why is it so NTSC is printed on all american and japanese
> > DVD and PAL is printed on all european DVD ?
Strictly speaking, NTSC and PAL refer to broadcast standards which
use a composite video signal containing a mix of black-and-white
picture information (luma), color information (chroma), and sync
(information to synchronize the TV's sweep to the signal). By
convention, and for convenience, we use the same name for any
signal (or set of signals, in the case of S-video or component
connections) that conforms to the same scan (sweep) frequencies
as one of these broadcast standards.
A "NTSC" DVD outputs the same number of lines of video at the
same scan frequencies as NTSC (from a NTSC player), so that is
what it is called. But, strictly speaking, only the signal from
the composite video output of the player is actually NTSC. The
player creates that signal by encoding the component video data
it retrieves from the DVD disc. (For PAL, substitute the word
PAL in the above sentences in this paragraph wherever I've used
NTSC.) All DVD players have a composite video output, but it is
provided only for backward compatibility with older TVs and
monitors that lack S-video or component inputs, which are far
preferable ways to connect the player to a TV or other display
device.
> American & Japanese televisions are NTSC. They only understand an
> NTSC picture signal, which is a complicated mix of signals. In the
> NTSC standard, the color signals and sound are all mixed together.
To clarify, sound is included only for transmission on an RF carrier
(terrestrial broadcasting, CATV, and, I assume, satellite). It is not
part of the the baseband composite video signal you get from a DVD,
laserdisc, VCR, etc.
> A television must use a "comb" filter to unmix this composite signal
> back into its components. As with analog Dolby Stereo, if you
> mix a bunch of signals together, transmit them, and decode them
> again, you cannot entirely separate the signals from each other.
> Each signal retains a little bit of noise from the other signals, hence
> artifacts in NTSC pictures, and "crosstalk" in Dolby Stereo.
>
> A DVD player stores red, green, blue and sound signals as discrete,
> separate signals.
Almost correct. A DVD stores information for luma and two color
(colour) difference signals, known collectively as YCbCr (in
digital form) or YPbPr (in analog form), among other labels. YCbCr
or YPbPr can be "trivially" converted to RGB. This is, in fact,
done in higher end European DVD players, which output RGB on the
SCART connector (something you already know, I realize - you may
even own one of these players.). Most North American and Japanese
players, on the other hand, output YPbPr and expect the display
device to convert to RGB.
> Yes, it's capable of extremely good pictures because
> of this, but only if you connect the red, green and blue jacks on your
> DVD player to the corresponding red, green and blue jacks on your
> TV. Chances are, you don't have these jacks on your DVD and TV
> (not yet, anyway). Chances are, you have a single cable connecting
> your DVD to your TV, either S-video (which looks almost as good
> as using the separate red blue green cables, or so I am told) or a simple
> RCA cable. If the latter, then your TV is receiving a composite NTSC signal
> from your DVD player, which your player is capable of generating on
> the fly. And it will suffer from the same NTSC artifacts as a laserdisc
> picture.
The same NTSC artifacts, yes, but this is not to say the pictures
will look the same. Assuming excellent transfers on both media
from the same master source, the DVD's composite video picture
will have less noise (ie., the DVD format has a much better
inherent signal-to-noise ratio, both for luma and chroma). This
is DVD's second major advantage (the first being the component
format). Let me add that all these considerations take nothing
away from laserdisc. When a high quality transfer is done, that
venerable format is still capable of an excellent picture - a
fact that is sometimes lost in all these (rather pointless)
DVD-vs-laserdisc comparisons.
Alen Koebel
>
> In article <37A850...@electro.nospam.com>, ako...@electro.nospam.com
> says...
>
> Alen, you seem like a bright chap so let me suggest that you don't try to
> make any assumptions about what I support or don't support. I have no
> argument with much of anything you say. But I spent thirty years in a
> technical sales position and I probably never made as much money as
> possible because I would not tolerate hype from my employer or my
> competitors.
Glad to hear that. I never doubted you were a straight shooter for
a moment.
> In the case of "digital", I just about puke when I hear people use the
> term to equate it to better quality. It's not inherently better quality
> unless, as you suggest, the movers and shakers insist that it start that
> way and end that way. My fear is that this won't be the case.
(snip)
I've snipped, for brevity's sake, a lot of good stuff containing
many points I agree with. I said you seemed to "dislike" digital
(which I assume is what rubbed you the wrong way) because that's
the way you came across to me with the limited information in your
posts in this newsgroup. You've now clarified your position on the
subject and that's great. But, if I may get back to the subject
of this thread, it doesn't change the facts of the capabilities
of the DVD format as I have tried to outline them - not just
theoretical capabilities, but being realized on many DVDs today.
Whether the overall quality of DVD product will degrade over time,
I cannot say. That is a discussion that, IMO, has little to do
with the merits and limitations of digital technology (and one,
frankly, I am not interested in participating in). My intention
in this thread has been only to clarify what DVD and laserdisc
technologies are capable of - something I am qualified to do.
It was not my intention to offend you in the process. If I have
done so, you have my apologies.
BTW, I've said it before and I'll say it again - you run an
excellent web site. My (virtual) hat is off to you.
Joe Zollner
: The prime advantage
: encoding/decoding.
Unfortunately, the component advantage is not being utilized to its
fullest potential. Many studios are still using *composite* video masters
for their DVD transfers.
There seems to be a big push to get as many titles out on DVD as possible,
so avoiding a completely new video transfer saves a lot of time (as well
as money). And what the heck--new *component* transfers can be done in a
few years so we can purchase the titles again!
Joe Zollner
jo...@execpc.com
--
sprocketeer...@earthlink.net
oversimplifying.
Alen Koebel wrote:
> The same NTSC artifacts, yes, but this is not to say the pictures
> will look the same. Assuming excellent transfers on both media
> from the same master source, the DVD's composite video picture
> will have less noise (ie., the DVD format has a much better
> inherent signal-to-noise ratio, both for luma and chroma). This
> is DVD's second major advantage (the first being the component
> format). Let me add that all these considerations take nothing
> away from laserdisc. When a high quality transfer is done, that
> venerable format is still capable of an excellent picture - a
> fact that is sometimes lost in all these (rather pointless)
> DVD-vs-laserdisc comparisons.
And you don't see me giving up my laserdisc collection. Besides,
I have a number of laserdisc titles, including those from "a long
time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." that I can't get on DVD yet,
and I rather enjoy reminding the johnny-come-latelies who wouldn't
buy laserdisc players for oh-so-many years because they "could
not record" of this fact. Well, DVD's cannot yet record, but they managed
to grab the attention that laserdisc never could. Laserdisc has always
been drastically better than VHS. DVD is even better than that. I guess
it required a format better enough to hit them over the head with to get
their attention.
--
Robert M. Bratcher Jr
sprocketeer...@earthlink.net wrote:
>Myself, I have difficulty telling a DVD picture from laserdisc. They're both
>damned impressive. The only problem with laserdisc is that it's a 20 year old
>format, now obsolete. I'm sure glad I invested in it though, I've been enjoying
>really good pictures for nearly a decade...screw VHS.
Yes I'm an LD fan too. Own two players the one I use is a Pioneer
combo LD/DVD unit. Only about 30 DVD's here though & several hundred
LD titles. Lately I've ben buying the sale discs of a local store &
Ken Cranes. If the format dies I'll keep playing the old LD's just
like I do records then buy movies in DVD.
VHS? It looks awful on a Runco front projection unit.....
Martin Hart
says...
> It was not my intention to offend you in the process. If I have
> done so, you have my apologies.
No, I've not been offended. I'm not even offended when someone moons me,
so what the hell. At any rate, I think my entire point is that quality,
in any medium, is subject to human weakness and avarice. I'm a bit
skeptical that we won't ultimately be getting short changed for the sake
of a buck. The built in Macrovision in DVD players is my first clue.
The fact that it's easily defeated by anyone that cares to do so further
reflects a lack of concern for optimal presentation.
> BTW, I've said it before and I'll say it again - you run an
> excellent web site. My (virtual) hat is off to you.
Well a (virtual) and real thank you.
Richard L. Lenoir
sprocketeer...@earthlink.net wrote:
>American & Japanese televisions are NTSC. They only understand an
>NTSC picture signal, which is a complicated mix of signals. In the
>NTSC standard, the color signals and sound are all mixed together.
>A television must use a "comb" filter to unmix this composite signal
>back into its components. As with analog Dolby Stereo, if you
>mix a bunch of signals together, transmit them, and decode them
>again, you cannot entirely separate the signals from each other.
>Each signal retains a little bit of noise from the other signals, hence
>artifacts in NTSC pictures, and "crosstalk" in Dolby Stereo.
>
Thank you for your kind explanations.
>A DVD player stores red, green, blue and sound signals as discrete,
>separate signals. Yes, it's capable of extremely good pictures because
>of this, but only if you connect the red, green and blue jacks on your
>DVD player to the corresponding red, green and blue jacks on your
>TV. Chances are, you don't have these jacks on your DVD and TV
>(not yet, anyway).
Yes I have. My DVD player (Sony 7700) has a RGB output
and is connected to my TV set (Sony Wega 32") which has a RGB input.
The connection is done using a 21 contacts SCART connector. It is
true the image is absolutely perfect.
PeterH5322
>>
In the NTSC standard, the color signals and sound are all mixed together.
>>
Not at all.
The pix is AM-moduated, while the sound is FM-moduated in a carrier 4.5 MHz
higher than the pix carrier frequency.
The 3.579545 MHz color burst frequency is specifically selected to avoid
interference with the 4.5 MHz "intercarrier" frequency, however.
There are about as any modulation schemes for videotape recording as there are
videotape format manufacturers.
The only one I am aware of which uses "direct color" is the method used in
Ampex's 2" Quadraplex machines. This machine provides very good results, given
its age (invented in 1956), but requires an exceptionally complicated time-base
corrector.
Time-base correcting a VHS tape is a piece of cake, in comparison to "Quad".
Luis Canau
...
>And every european DVD player is also said to be PAL/NTSC compatible
>because japan (zone2) is NTSC and Europe (also zone 2) is PAL.
That is correct, but I'm sure it's not "because" of that, since VCRs (VHS is,
er... zone free) able to read NTSC are very frequent around here (mine was
cheap and does read NTSC). And the same goes for TVs being able to handle
"NTSC on PAL TV", PAL/60 or whatever.
--
luis canau______
e-mail: not > net__________
http://home.EUnet.pt/cinedie