|
|
Posted by P Pron on 10/20/05 17:50
One-Shot Scot wrote:
|| "P Pron" <paulatspambegone.pron@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
|| news:3rpgakFkdgu8U1@individual.net...
||| Joshua Zyber wrote:
||||| "anthony" <anthonyjhcnospam@netscape.net> wrote in message
||||| news:1129791845.632449.126230@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|||||| That's supposing, of course, that you have a multiregion DVD
|||||| player and a TV that can handle the superior PAL format
|||||
||||| PAL is only slightly superior in picture, and decidedly inferior
||||| in audio. But you knew that, of course.
|||
||| In what way is PAL decidedly inferior in audio?
|||
||| paul
||
||
|| The audio on PAL movies is sped up by 4%. Here's why:
<snip>
Yes - I'm aware of that. That's why the sound on most *movies* played on PAL
is arguably inferior. But it doesn't answer the question as to why Mr Zyber
believes that *PAL* (not just movies on PAL, which this thread isn't about)
is "decidedly inferior in audio."
But I'm not aware of there being anything inherently wrong with the audio on
PAL as a system, which is what Mr Zyber seems to think - and the Wallace &
Gromit programme in the subject heading was probably filmed at 25 fps
anyway, given that it was made in Britain for British television...
paul
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|