Who wins, PAL DVD>NTSC DVD or NTSC LD>NTSC DVD?

[wozgo]

I'm curious to know what you video veterans think about this one. Which conversion, if done well at full resolution, would come out looking better:
PAL MPEG2 from a DVD>NTSC MPEG2 OR NTSC AVI captured from a LD>NTSC MPEG2?
Thanks for your time

[flaninacupboard]

assuming it's a 24fps film source, the PAL DVD would be a better start point than an NTSC LD. however, if it's an interlaced video source, the NTSC LD would be a lot better than the transcoded PAL DVD.

What are you looking at converting?

[wozgo]

Mostly music videos and concerts. The stuff I like usually has only been released in PAL on DVD, or in Japan on NTSC LD. Sometimes both, and I have a choice between the two, and that's when this question arises. The goal here is to get all this stuff in NTSC on DVD at the highest quality possible.

[likwid8]

The quality loss will be minor when your delaing with DVD conversion, especially if converting a DVD to another DVD. Just find the most reasonable way of doing it. The hardest way will always end up at best quality, and the easy will get you just a tad loss. But the difference cant be seen from the naked eye

[Xesdeeni]

If you have a choice, and your goal is NTSC, get the NTSC version. Unless you know that the PAL->NTSC conversion was done poorly, professional equipment will probably do at least as good, and possibly a better job than our home-brew processes. Almost certainly the conversion will be done before compression, so there won't be a decompression/recompression involved.

It's very unlikely that a music video will be shot on film, but if they are, you probably still want the NTSC version, since there is a chance the PAL version will have been sped up by 4%. This will be much more noticable for music.

Xesdeeni

[flaninacupboard]

yeah, music videos and live concerts will be recorded (if they're american artists) on video at 29.97, so a 29.97 LD source is better than a transcoded 25fps PAL source. And if it's music, i'd suggest you -definitely- go for LD, the PCM tracks on LD are very good, much better than the 192kbps track you'll get on the DVD

[wozgo]

Most of the artists I like are from Europe. So I have to deal with PAL sources. What I am gathering from you all so far is that a PAL DVD>NTSC DVD conversion would be a better choice than a PAL source>NTSC LD>NTSC DVD conversion.

[flaninacupboard]

if it's PAL video (25fps interlaced) transcoded to NTSC LD (29.97 interlaced) then that's an easy source for a 29.97 NTSC DVD, as the frame rate conversion has already been done for you!

Getting a professional company to do the PAL -> NTSC conversion will produce much better results than trying to do it yourself on the computer

[DJRumpy]

I disagree. Laserdisc would require a 'digital --> analog --> digital' conversion to get the files from a laserdisc player to computer for encoding, probably over a substandard SVCD cable (component if your lucky enough to have a capture device that has component inputs). DVD can simply be copied from source to computer with no conversion. In addition, the DVD source also has a higher resolution than laserdisc. Whether or not it's interlaced would seem to be irrelevant, since DVD handles both progressive and interlaced without issue. You can also telecine an interlaced PAL -> FILM 23.976 interlaced source to 29.97 fps without a problem. It will display on an NTSC television without issue.

[flaninacupboard]

Well, i find it highly unlikely a music concert would be shot on film, so it would have been shot on 25fps interlaced video. This will have been processed up to 29.97 for the laserdisc, and the quality of that conversion will be better than trying to convert from PAL interlaced MPEG2 to NTSC interlaced MPEG2 yourself at home. Also, the age of the material (if it's on LD it's probably at least 5 years old, possibly a lot older!) mean the ultimate difference in resolution between the two is not a lot. It's also offset by the fact the PAL source is compressed MPEG2.

As for the conversion being D->A->D this is true of the audio, but the video is already analogue on the LD, so it's just A->D, and results with an S-video cable are very good

[DJRumpy]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Remember that the 25fps to 23.976 fps conversion, done proprly is lossless. No frames are removed, using the slowdown method. That material, interlaced or not, can then be telecined to 29.97fps. The other point regarding LD is interesting. I had no idea that LD was already in analog format but the fact remains that it does an analog to digital conversion before it's even encoded, where DVD video doesn't require this step. It remains pure digital, without the associated loss converting between the two. As for resolution, even old videos look better when they are higher in resolution. DVD has a higher resolution than LD.

By the by, what format is used to store the data on the disc and how is it recompiled for output?

[flaninacupboard]

25fps to 23.976 fps conversion, done proprly is lossless

Yes, but would they do that for video? i don't think they would, especially if it's music concerts and music videos. far more likely it'd be transcoded to 29.97.

I don't know, maybe they would slow down and telecline, but i think they'd go for a transcode. Perhaps someone with some british tv series on NTSC DVD can tell us whether it's an interlaced transcode or a slowed down telecline?

The video on an LD is compostie 3.58mhz video. most players have a digital comb filter and an S-Video output. The PAL players and discs enjoyed much better 5Mhz video.

[DJRumpy]

Your side of the pond always gets better 'stuff'. Not fair! We're still stuck with NTSC and lower resolutions, although the FILM side of things isn't all that bad.

[flaninacupboard]

Ah, but on the flipside if i stick my finger in an electrical socket I'm 50% more likely to die than if you did!!

It always seems to be a big issue over the PAL 4% speedup, but i can't say i've ever noticed, even when watching a film with a piece of music i recognise. prehaps the next generation of movie goers will be better at noticing it, i've devolpoped in built ignorance after all my years of listening to worn out casette tapes

[DJRumpy]

The only way I can notice is by playing two clips, one sped up, and the other slowed down, one right after another. If I took the clip, burned it to disc, and dropped it into my player, I'd never know the difference.

[whatever]

I'd go for the PAL DVD, it will most likely produce a better result than a LD capture.