|
|
Posted by Jukka Aho on 11/16/06 06:58
Toby wrote:
> Yes, this is true. I wonder why all the NTSC->PAL conversions I have
> seen look better than the PAL->NTSC ones. Perhaps it is just a
> question of the quality of the converters used.
Would that have been frame-based (non-interlaced, "progressive",
possibly even 24 fps film-originated) material, or fields-based
(interlaced) material?
When standards conversions are discussed, things are often a bit muddled
by people don't specifying (or even knowing) the original format. It may
then turn out the processed material was, for instance, telecined film
(originally 24 fps), instead of "real" interlaced 50 Hz or
60(*1000/1001) Hz video.
You might want to take a look at this PDF which has some helpful
illustrations (pages 5 to 12 - especially 12 - and page 40):
<http://www.snellwilcox.com/community/knowledge_center/engi
neering_guides/emotion.pdf>
(I must say I haven't seen a single technically good-looking, televised
NHL game here in PAL land. They have always been awful blurry mess,
supposedly because of the field-blending standards conversion techniques
that have been applied. :P Or at least used to be the case a couple of
years ago when I last checked.)
--
znark
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|