14 May
2007
14 May
'07
10:27 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Jim Leonard wrote:
Since the MPEG-2 was mastered for (and on!) an NTSC DVD player connected
to an NTSC television, and since I am 100% happy with the quality of
that master, that's why I made that comment. It's not like there's a
ton of variables; if you play NTSC on NTSC, or PAL on PAL, it looks
good... if not, it looks odd or bad (or fine, if you can't notice that
sort of thing). It will either look perfect or most definitely not correct.
Broadcast standards aside, the video contains some single-pixel detail
elements that have been blended out or otherwise lost in all of the
other conversions, so that's another reason I mentioned it.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
from, if you have the bandwidth you should grab
the MPEG-2 version
(big) because it's DVD quality and best preserves some of the detail
necessary to properly appreciate the piece. (In fact, it looks best
burnt to a DVD and watched on a television proper.)
I've often wondered about claims like that. Surely it only looks best
watched on a TV proper if the TV is the same aspect ratio as the MPEG,
some factor of the framerate, and some factor of the frame dimensions?
Otherwise don't you get all sorts of strange image glitches?