Misguided guide.

[johns0]

Just curious when a guide posted here has something mentioned that will cause more problems such as the newly posted pal to ntsc guide where the writer says to use 29.97 fps instead of 23.976,whats wrong with this is its not mentioned that you have to check do not framerate conversion when using 23.976 fps so the conversion doesnt appear jerky plus choose 3:2 pulldown when playback encode mode.

Im sure people will get jerky conversions with the method described.

[Tommyknocker]

Did you say this on the guide's thread, or should we all tap into the power of the Force to see which guide you referring to.

[johns0]

I did say newly posted pal to ntsc guide,if you had of simply checked the new guides here you would have seen it there.
https://www.videohelp.com/guides.php?guideid=719#719

[jimmalenko]

[MrMoody]

-He also claims it's "normal" to have pillarboxing on 4:3 films, which is of course incorrect. 4:3 is 4:3. if it doesn't show up that way, you squished it. Caused by improper settings in TMPGEnc of course.

-If he's going to convert the frame rate (preserving the too-fast PAL speed), he could have kept the original AC3 track intact instead of reencoding to MP2 that won't play on some US players.

-Yeah baby, encode at 7000 CBR and use DVDShrink to make it fit.

Well, I guess this is one way to get people to hand him the right procedures & settings.

Aside, why don't guides have comments like software, players, media ...

[Tommyknocker]

I did say newly posted pal to ntsc guide,if you had of simply checked the new guides here you would have seen it there.
https://www.videohelp.com/guides.php?guideid=719#719

Had you simply posted a link like you did, it would have saved me the trouble.

[Baldrick]

removed the guide. i will read it after the holidays in february.

[lordsmurf]

-He also claims it's "normal" to have pillarboxing on 4:3 films, which is of course incorrect. 4:3 is 4:3. if it doesn't show up that way, you squished it. Caused by improper settings in TMPGEnc of course.

-If he's going to convert the frame rate (preserving the too-fast PAL speed), he could have kept the original AC3 track intact instead of reencoding to MP2 that won't play on some US players.

-Yeah baby, encode at 7000 CBR and use DVDShrink to make it fit.

Well, I guess this is one way to get people to hand him the right procedures & settings.

Aside, why don't guides have comments like software, players, media ...

Doesn't sound like a HELPFUL guide.

[AlecWest]

Hi everyone. The "smoking poll" forum was just closed by a moderator. And being a smoker (and therefore "forum leper"), I decided to see if there was somewhere else I could go to be abused ... and found this topic which, if you don't know by now, revolves around a guide written by me.

First, let me say this. Bad advice or good, I have next to me an NTSC DVD of the film in question ... and it plays just fine on my DVD player as well as the player of the friend I originally made it for. The audio and video are in perfect sync from the first frame to the last.

I'm neither a video expert nor an acoustics expert and I might have some of the terminology wrong. But, I admitted I was a "virgin" to this process and the guide mentioned it was my first conversion attempt. Still, I'm curious about something. If my guide/advice was so terrible, why did my conversion attempt succeed?

One other thing. I saw the link to my guide go up and I saw it go down ... and I sent feedback asking why. I got no reply ... and no one in this topic area (in fact, no one at all) bothered to communicate with me personally, telling me what the problems with it were. In fact, I've only received one email about my guide ... a note from a man who followed my guide to convert a Spanish PAL DVD to NTSC and succeeded as well.

But, I would be willing (in fact, eager) to hear criticism of the guide. I'd learn from it, I'm sure.

P.S. Due to the extensive use of graphics in the guide, I mentioned (at the time I submitted it for consideration) that it would be best if it stayed on my own space. And, it's still there (albeit slightly edited from its original look):

http://www.free-path.org/pal2ntsc/

[adam]

Film runs at 24fps, and PAL is just a slightly sped up version of this running at 25fps. NTSC, as you know, runs at 29.97fps but since this is such a large increase, it must undergo a telecining process to get here. The original 24fps is slowed down to 23,976fps and split into fields. These fields are repeated in a set pattern to create new frames. This increases the framerate but at a very small margin at a time, thus it is less noticable. Digital formants like DVD, SVCD, and VCD allow you to store the video at 23.976fps and allow the hardware/software decoder to do the telecining process in real time. This grants numerous quality benefits, and this is how the vast majority of commercial NTSC DVDs are made.

So, to go from PAL to NTSC it is much more efficient, and much higher quality, to merely slow it down to 23.976fps and allow the hardware player to do the rest of the conversion for you. If you look at the other PAL-NTSC guides on this site they pretty much all explain this.

Your method will introduce jerkyness into the picture because TMPGenc will be randomly, or maybe not so randomly, creating new frames to raise the framerate. The results might be acceptable to your eyes, but it will not be a proper telecine.

If you want to do this the correct way you need to set the output framerate to 23.976fps and enable the do not framerate conversion filter on the advanced tab. This sets TMPGenc to physically slow down the clip rather then decimage frames. Then you need to enable the 3:2 pulldown when playback option on the video tab. This inserts the pulldown flags which instruct the decoder on how to perform the telecine. If you got jerky playback before with 23.976fps output, then you probably did not set the pulldown flags.

You method does work, there are just better ways.

[AlecWest]

If you want to do this the correct way you need to set the output framerate to 23.976fps and enable the do not framerate conversion filter on the advanced tab. This sets TMPGenc to physically slow down the clip rather then decimage frames. Then you need to enable the 3:2 pulldown when playback option on the video tab. This inserts the pulldown flags which instruct the decoder on how to perform the telecine. If you got jerky playback before with 23.976fps output, then you probably did not set the pulldown flags.

You are absolutely correct. The advice I was given did not mention the 3:2 pulldown nor the "do not framerate conversion" (unless, at the time, I was having a "senior moment" and it didn't register). That explains the jumpyness I experienced on the RW I burned at 23.976fps.

You method does work, there are just better ways.

Thanks. You're a gentleman and a scholar. And, I've just edited my guide page to add a "warning" note at the top ... pending my full edit of the guide after I "try it again":

http://www.free-path.org/pal2ntsc/

[daamon]

Hi AlecWest,

I'd first like to applaude you for your strength of character in the face of (constructive) criticism about your guide, as well as encouraging such feedback so you can learn and refine your guide. It shows true character...

I'd like to offer you some advice based on my experiences - in my various jobs over the years I've quite often gotten involved in writing presentations and training courses.

For my first couple of attempts, I spent ages thinking about what to put in, how to lay it out etc. I thenk took this and did the presentation / course - both were embarrasing semi-disasters and could've been a lot better.

How could this have been avoided - get others with a knowledgeable and objective (i.e. not involved in the writing of the material) view to review your work.

Also, get a representation from the end users (i.e. those who are going to be using the guide) to review it from their perspective - can they follow it, do they understand it, is there jargon / assumptions in there? etc.

Then, when armed with all this feedback you can make changes so it's technically correct, in the right order, is easily followed by the unitiated and pitched at the right level with relevant tools, ideas, terms explained.

Then, when it's unleashed on Joe Public, it will only need minor tweaks or additions as is normal for anything like this.

Good luck, and I'm pleased to say that I don't think you'll be put off from this first experience of "guide writing" - but, rather, you relish the opportunity to learn from it.

[AlecWest]

How could this have been avoided - get others with a knowledgeable and objective (i.e. not involved in the writing of the material) view to review your work.

You are SOOOOOOO right. It was a gross lack of self-discipline on my part. When I went through the process of conversion and found that my copy was great, I was still sitting on pins and needles. But when my friend played it on her player and it was also great, I was in seventh heaven. And that is when I should have slapped myself in the face and said, "Snap out of it, NOOB." Instead, I did the worst thing possible. I was riding on a high of success and giving myself virtual "high-fives" when I started writing that guide. I spent a whole day off doing it, too. Writing it ... reading it ... doing rewrite and edit ... the whole nine yards (one of my former jobs was as a technical writer). And, still riding on the high, I had the audacity to submit it to VideoHelp.com for inclusion in their guides list ... certain I'd stumbled upon a quick-easy way to perform the process that even a NOOB could understand.

Ahem ...

Yesterday, in an off-topic forum area on New Year's resolutions, I posted mine:

1) To open my ears more and my mouth less.
2) Try to remember the importance of Resolution #1.

And, I really will try. Thank you for your kind words and, like adam, you too are a gentleman (unless you're female, hehe) and a scholar.