Thanks sooooooo much 2099net!
The first time I uploaded your post I couldn't read the text (because of the quirky way my [now obviously obsolete!] browser arranges pics on posts) as the images covered it up, being all on top of each other. So I merrily fished the jpegs out of the cache and went directly ahead to compare them with my PAL disc. All this time I was thinking the HD captures were uprezed from the PAL disc cus the PAL disc really looks good!* Then afterwards I uploaded your post without the pics and finally read your text!
So this HD caps are from a real 720x1280 HD source?
(*Actually, I think pixel by pixel the PAL disc looks better than the image on the HD captures! I'll explain: Since that big close up of Belle on PAL's 576x720 is smaller than the HD's 720x1280 I first looked for a scene that had Belle's head about the same size as the HD capture's close up . Like the scene where Belle tells the baker where she's off to: "The bookshop. I just finished the most wonderful story..." (Around 1 minute into chapter 2 on my disc). The head sizes being around the same size, PAL Belle looks sharper than HD Belle.
Thunder and lightning, I even think that comparing the exact same (but smaller) frame in PAL as the one in the HD close up, actualy looks better too! (must be my eyes playing tricks on me, doesn't it?
) So the intrinsic quality of the PAL dvd transfer seems to be excellent if not superior?)
The NTSC capture of that close up looks hopeless with a soft image, little resolution or edge sharpness, and lots of video enhancement. And I think the PAL almost looks 4 times as good, as in 4 times the negative area: Like a 16mm vs Super8 mm comparision, or 35mm vs 16mm. (Well those "sound" like "twice" the format but it's actually 4 times the data) There's no reason for a format being 80% of the other looking more like 25%. It seems they used a lot of video filtering to shave off high frequencies, then added video enhancement to compensate. And used worse compression on it?
There's one advantage to the NTSC image: Because the frequencies being enhanced are lower and they've been "enhanced" at a higher amplitude, on some TV's, especially when watched from a large distance, the NTSC will actually look sharper but that's an illusion. Watching closer and/or on a bigger monitor (In effect "blowing up" the image) will make it obvious the NTSC transfer is inferior and has lots of less definition.
Maybe the NTSC transfer and compression was targeted at a less "videophilic" market? like 20-25 inch (51-69 cm) run of the mill NTSC TV's in the middle of the familie's living room?
On those it probably looks good enough if not better
The "castle attack" frame seems to have been chosen as an example cus it's a worst case. The exact same PAL frame shows compression artifacts too. (But they seem less obviuous and the PAL image is larger and sharper too.) But of that sequence, it's the worst lookin frame. (Maybe cus it's the last frame before changing into another sequence? Does mpeg compression go way up there because with the sudden change of image it won't show up as visibly due to the eye's motion adaptation characteristics?
If the R1 looked like that all the time I think I would cry.
2099net wrote:As you can see each example has various MPEG artifacts around the edges. Personally, all of these screengrabs seem to be worse than how the R1 copy looks on my system
Even if you look at a real 35mm film-still frame (or if you hit still/step or even slow motion while viewing a DVD)* a still frame (or screen cap!) always has much more grain or noise than a moving image because the eye's blending of the summation of motion in the frames works kind of like a temporal noise reduction filter. Each individual spec of random grains/noise is just visible for about 1/24th second (1/25th in PAL's case) To make a frame grab look as grain/noise free as a moving image you'd probably need to sum and blend maybe 2 or more successive still frames in Photoshop.
*You can see this effect by comparing how the visibility of grain/noise increases or decreasses as you start to slow down or speed up the images in slow motion up to normal speed. Do this motion blending of grain comparison with DVD's that are progressive frame encoded not interlaced video encoded as most players show slow motion or step frame of video encoded images discarding half the video field and doubling the remaning one, so you can't really compare the effect fairly with those discs) (Most of my Pal discs are video field encoded btw. Only a few are film frame encoded). Grainy films showcase this effect more. I read Douglas Troumbull said that one of the reasons he chose 60fps as Showscan's speed is cus at that rate grain basically dissapeared.
The "entering the bookshop" scene looks the most similar to my PAL disc, butjust as a larger 4.5x6cm negative looks better than a 35mm negative, which is in effect what PAL is compared to NTSC, the PAL looks sharper more defined and less grainy with richer smoother gradation. The NTSC looks, for lack of a better word, fuzzy.
2099net wrote:I think some of the issue is not just how the disc was encoded, but also how the player displays the image (On my old cheap APEX player, the UK Prisoner discs looked terrible, especially in large areas of dark colour, but on my Pioneer the discs look almost perfect - well I suppose they do look perfect for a 60's television programme transfer!). I also think the player issue is behind the "colour banding" on the Brother Bear disc (in this case the video DAC). However, all this rambling doesn't alter the fact that the PAL disc seems to he a much better transfer (or perhaps its more accurate to say much better encoding).
First I must tell you my DVD player IS an old cheap APEX!
(And its 8bit DAC output goes into the 8bit ADC input of the computer which then goes out of a 16bit LUT to the puter CRT) I'm sure if I had a 16bit full DVI connection I would drool a lot more about BatB
) But i've found that this happy combination of hardware gives me better image than many systems. Maybe I should splurge for Sony's 1.6:1 wide CRT computer monitor or a 50"(127cm) or bigger Panasonic/Fujitsuo HD Plasma to get an even better image but those monitors costs 80 to 300 times more than my current one so... I think I'll buy more PAL Disney DVD's instead
but I disgress
I've found that on 8bit players the black level setting of a monitor can make it look much different specially on the shadows. This also affects the colour banding visiblity in some extent. Different players and decoder's handling of mpeg conversion etc do affect how things might end up looking. (for example I really dislike how some progressive players fuzz up interlaced shot-on-video programs by using the simplest "bob" method) So you might have your system correctly optimized while others might have it a little out of whack
(On US NTSC-land we have the evil 7.5 IRE black level set up to conted with... eeevill
)
But I agree, the R2 PAL transfer looks much more better than the R1 NTSC one than to be just player or set up issues. Higher fidelity to the source and better encoding of it (in addition of doing it onto a larger format) for sure.
Anyone who loves Beauty and The Beast and has multizone and true PAL playback capabilities (with that I mean: not a player/display that downconverts PAL to NTSC but one that shows full PAL) should consider getting one of those red bookcase editions in my opinion. Especially if you don't own the disc yet. I'm very satisfied with it. it's one of the best looking discs I have. Almost looks like looking at the moving cels live. (Yeah I know its from digital data, but still...)
this has been a long but very satisfying exchange
thank you so much
(when I talk about PAL (or transfers) to my friends i feel like Belle talking to the baker
)
I think I owe you a free rental 2099net
