Posted by jd on 10/11/06 04:10

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:07:15 -0400, "Joshua Zyber"
<joshzyber@comcast.net> wrote:

><mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:I49b1FL1R$KFFwtJ@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
>> The fact is that PAL is hugely better quality than NTSC in all the
>> important facets including resolution, chroma fidelity and bandwidth
>> without the gated correction overlays that NTSC can't live without.
>
>The fact is that PAL cannot play film-based theatrical movies without
>SPEEDING THEM UP 4%. That's a fact.

Big deal. One hardly notices the longer running time. PAL is still
superior to NTSC in every way.

>PAL is an *incremental* improvement in resolution, chroma, and
>bandwidth, at the expense of having to watch your movies with the actors
>speaking in chipmunk voices. Both formats are left in the dust by High
>Definition. Debating whether PAL is better than NTSC is kind of like
>debating whether slop tastes better than gruel when there's a thick,
>juicy steak on the next plate over.
>

We're not talking about HD. Most viewers don't give a damn about it.

[Back to original message]