Alight, you Brits are just making stuff up now...

[Vorticus]

*is so confused by the pyramid*

[C.w.]

again... too much useless information.

NTSC is lower resolution and looks much worse because of it. It also cannot display a pure red for some odd reason.

It may also surprise computer geeks to know that even PAL only runs at a resolution of around 320x200. It makes up for it with blurry, brick-patterned pixels and high colour depth.

PAL runs at 576 lines, NTSC at 480 (NTSC DVD spec is 720x480 i believe - not quite 320x200, but there is a half resolution spec that is close to that. Broadcast is generally of lower quality than dvd though.) PAL is 25 fields per second, NTSC is 30. While technically higher resolution, and while looking better, the average person usually doesn't notice much. Sort of like comparing 720p to 1080i - they both look great, and most people don't notice the difference.

NTSC, being an older standard replacing a black and white standard needed to take some color depth losses, because during its commision it was dictated that it would have to be backwards compatable with black and white TV sets - that meant that only a certain subset of voltages for color could be sent (aka NTSC safe, or broadcast safe colors - a big thing if you're doing any work in the RGB colorspace).

The most common arguments i've heard for the average person is how the systems convert 24p material. Some people absolutely despise NTSC 3:2 pulldown, some people can't deal with PAL speedup. They're both put to shame by the new(ish) japanese systems and any digital HD standard.

You don't like seeing the entire movie, then?

Widescreen isn't neccicarily showing all the video either (not even taking into account safe zones) - some movies shoot in 4:3 and then matte it to 16:9 or whatever other aspect they need. That isn't actually always a good thing - there was some steve martin movie a while back where he was supposed to be nude in a scene for comiedic effect, and they shot him from the waist up, but he only looked naked when they matted it. When it came out on DVD, you just saw him standing there wearing shorts.

Most of the time that isn't the case, and they just "pan and scan" the movie. That definitely sucks. There was a wonderful informational video on TMC a while ago that they would play between movies every once in a while that showed just how much they were cutting off - they had a red square showing what you would be seeing, and slightly darkened the rest. http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen.shtml is the closest i can find right now.

If you've ever wondered why your DVD player has a "zoom" button there is (IIRC) a tiny portion of the DVD spec which is supposed to allow movies to put both widescreen and pan n' scan versions on the same disc by simply zooming in on the widescreen version. I'm always surprised it didnt catch on at least a little bit, even if it did sacrifice some horizontal resolution.

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla i'll shut up now.

[Joel Fagin]

PAL runs at 576 lines, NTSC at 480 (NTSC DVD spec is 720x480 i believe - not quite 320x200, but there is a half resolution spec that is close to that. Broadcast is generally of lower quality than dvd though.)

I worked it out as a class exercise, calculating it roughly from the bandwidth. It came out just under 320x200 from that but it was by no means precisely accurate.

- Joel Fagin

[Spriteville, USA]

I thought the biggest difference between PAL and NTSC was that one of them was like 1/6 slower. Not sure if that had been said or not, I tried to read all that was said though.

[War]

PAL and NTSC are just standards. *shrugs* one is not better than the other. its like saying region 2 dvds are better than region 1.

The worst of the lot is "widescreen". Whoever came up with that should have been shot.

You don't like seeing the entire movie, then?

Widescreen ruined a generation of standards. Nobody seems to be quite sure what widescreen is, and they screw it up all the time.
HDTVs are all widescreen, and that's how they should have done it. Introduce a new ratio along with the new format. Not try and impose a new ratio on an old format. You can teach an old dog new tricks, but he won't be very good at them.

[Nyke]

Dammit, I try typing out something funny, and the discussion derails to DVD resolutions. I should stop trying to be funny.

[Dr Legostar]

Dammit, I try typing out something funny, and the discussion derails to DVD resolutions. I should stop trying to be funny.

it's for the best.

[Col]

*is so confused by the pyramid*

It's a quote from the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie.

[DJMayhem]

The worst of the lot is "widescreen". Whoever came up with that should have been shot.

You don't like seeing the entire movie, then?

Widescreen ruined a generation of standards. Nobody seems to be quite sure what widescreen is, and they screw it up all the time.
HDTVs are all widescreen, and that's how they should have done it. Introduce a new ratio along with the new format. Not try and impose a new ratio on an old format. You can teach an old dog new tricks, but he won't be very good at them.

Widescreen was made in the 1920's. Like they knew back then it would screw up TVs today.

[War]

You don't like seeing the entire movie, then?

Widescreen ruined a generation of standards. Nobody seems to be quite sure what widescreen is, and they screw it up all the time.
HDTVs are all widescreen, and that's how they should have done it. Introduce a new ratio along with the new format. Not try and impose a new ratio on an old format. You can teach an old dog new tricks, but he won't be very good at them.

Widescreen was made in the 1920's. Like they knew back then it would screw up TVs today.

And then it disappeared for 20 years because no one cared and tvs were 4:3. Then Hollywood trots it out again to make more money. Guess why it made it's way to televisions?
Ever seen a tv show or advert where the captions/logo/credits go off the edge of the screen? Blame widescreen.
Ever watched something and thought "the proportions don't look quite right here". Blame widescreen.
It's fine for cinemas. But they shouldn't have tried to impose a new format onto a pre-existing one.

[McDuffies]

Widescreen is simply a format for different purposes. It's a very effective, panoramic format that just looks plain great in theatres.
Those films used to be chopped up for TV, but they weren't ment to be shown on tv in the first place, so you can't blame filmmakers for choosing the format they thought would make their film look the best.
Generally, I'd rather see entire film even on tv or computer and try to get as big screen as I can afford.

[C.w.]

I'm just going by seat of the pants remembery, so my facts might be a bit off.

Widescreen was made in the 1920's. Like they knew back then it would screw up TVs today.

And then it disappeared for 20 years because no one cared and tvs were 4:3.

Very very early films were made in a square format, similar to 4:3. That was back in ithe day when films were silent and people were amazed at moving pictures. Later, most films used 35mm film, and it's associated format - i believe it's similar to the 1.81:1 used on the majority of films today. From then on, movies just started to get wider and wider - finally culminating in Cinerama (i say culminating because it was actually considered as a system for normal films, modern wrap around systems are almost never considered as such, and are generally just in theme parks), which was obnoxiously wide and required a special three lens system. Square movies have never been popular.

Square pictures are generally not that well liked in photography either, (save medium format and some oddball formats - and a great number of those simply shoot that way to have more cropping options). The reason you didnt see widescreen VHS is that it would have been expensive, VHS couldn't push the quality that DVD delivers in widescreen mode, and the studios thought no one would buy it. It didn't disappear for 20 years - you just couldn't get it for 20 years and no one knew better.

Then Hollywood trots it out again to make more money. Guess why it made it's way to televisions?

I wouldn't say they've trotted it out to make money - i can't really see how releasing the movie on video in the intended format (filmmakers never EVER think about how their movie will look on the tele unless it is being specifically produced for it.) makes them money - that's mostly attributed to the piling on of special features in bi weekly releases of the same movie. It's simply the first time it's been reasonably affordable for the studios to cater to the folks who like letterbox (basically, anyone who loves movies) because of how cheap dvds are to produce, and because the artists are generally sick and tired of having their baby chopped up. (Think of it like this - you have a comic beautifully laid out to work on normal comic book paper. Now cut it up so it fits on post it notes.) Widescreen televisions are simply a by product of television manufacturers noticing that letterbox DVDs are selling quite well.

Ever seen a tv show or advert where the captions/logo/credits go off the edge of the screen? Blame widescreen.
Ever watched something and thought "the proportions don't look quite right here". Blame widescreen.

Both are problems that crop (ha.) up when you try and take that movie that was meant for the cinema and shove it down to the format of the tube. Letterboxing is the nice solution to all the problems you list that shows the whole picture. Stuff gets cut off because the pan and scanner (who will never talk to the director, is not involved in any of the shooting, and basically sits in a tiny room and tries to basically "re-direct" (Scorcese basically says that in the TCM ad i mentioned earlier) the entire film) decides that something else in the frame was more important to the film at the time. That odd squeezing is deciding that two things are important, but they both don't fit. Pan and scanning leaves lots of people talking to noses, lots of people out of frame, and lots of context out of the scene. Letterboxing is the simple solution (though on tiny tvs, it makes sense to want pan n' scan.)

That all only applies to films being watched on televisions. Anything designed for television tends to be shot for television, and the whole argument becomes useless. However, you will still get directors who want widescreen - even if it's just a little - because it's far easier to compose for, and just generally tends to look nicer to the eye. The new battlestar is shot in widescreen for television and letterboxed - yes, they shoot in HD - but it's not because of that they keep the widescreen format - Firefly was shot in widescreen so that it would look good in both letterbox and widescreen, something BSG could easily do. When Firefly was released on DVD it came letterboxed.

It's fine for cinemas. But they shouldn't have tried to impose a new format onto a pre-existing one.

Widescreen ruined a generation of standards. Nobody seems to be quite sure what widescreen is, and they screw it up all the time.
...
HDTVs are all widescreen

Letterboxing is by far not trying to impose a new format on an old one, but trying to make an old format fit in a new one. Widescreen seems to be fairly well understood by the general public - it shows the whole movie, the other one fits on your tv. The real confusing duck has been HDTV, which is generally confused with digital TV, has far too many standards (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, 2k, 4k, bla bla bla). I have two friends with 4:3 HDTVs. It made sense for them because of obnoxious amount of 4:3 material, the room size, and the fact that they are big enough to see when materials are letterboxed (they even come with enhanced widescreen modes).

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla! letterbox good, pan scan bad!

[McDuffies]

Dunno, to me old Hong Kong action films aren't the same if they're not vertically stretched. Just like silent films aren't the same if they're not sped up.

[Malaika]

Suffice to say that at least when we have world series type competitions, we actually do play against OTHER COUNTRIES...

oh BURN...

[[AlmightyPyro]]

After being to England I have realised that not many things there seem to make sense at all... yet some how they do. Like the Tubes. Don't you dare tell me those things go by the laws of physics because I know that nothing that complex in a place that big should ever actually work. It's impossible!

[Rickford]

After being to England I have realised that not many things there seem to make sense at all... yet some how they do. Like the Tubes. Don't you dare tell me those things go by the laws of physics because I know that nothing that complex in a place that big should ever actually work. It's impossible!

Ah now y'see, there's the trick. The tube actually doesn't remotely follow any known laws of physics. To get round that, we simply pay the god of physics to look the other way.

That's why the damnest London Underground costs so much. £4 for a single fare my arse.

[EvilChihuahua]

Hey DarkMagician, what comic is your avatar pic from?

[[AlmightyPyro]]

After being to England I have realised that not many things there seem to make sense at all... yet some how they do. Like the Tubes. Don't you dare tell me those things go by the laws of physics because I know that nothing that complex in a place that big should ever actually work. It's impossible!

Ah now y'see, there's the trick. The tube actually doesn't remotely follow any known laws of physics. To get round that, we simply pay the god of physics to look the other way.

That's why the damnest London Underground costs so much. £4 for a single fare my arse.

Yeah. And c'mon... Left side of the road? That just breaks all the laws!

[Rickford]

Yeah. And c'mon... Left side of the road? That just breaks all the laws!

Shush now. We do it the correct way.

[[AlmightyPyro]]

Yeah. And c'mon... Left side of the road? That just breaks all the laws!

Shush now. We do it the correct way.

HA! I've seen your little bitty cars! That can NOT be the right way!