Visible flicker: PAL vs. NTSC

[showtaper]

It seems hollowman prefers frame blending to what he perceives as flicker on a better quality transfer.

As for watching frame-blended video on the throne -- that's just a fine definition of garbage in, garbage out.

An entirely appropriate place to watch Doctor Who........

[hollowman]

hello_hello, in #20 and 21, is that Genesis of the Daleks? If so , I have that on USA NTSC DVD orig, BBC video release ... and I will search for that for the holy upload you endoparasite hosts have been begging for.

Okay, for my 2006-released NTSC commercial shoplifted DVD ...

...I did cue and step-by-step thru the scene hello_hello posted. The image (print) quality is the same as the PAL version in reply #21 and the two consecutive frames are the same as the PAL sequence (IOW, no "blended" in-betweener). Note: that Dr. Who (same episode) has sequences shot on film (as in #20, 21) AND videotape (later in episode). Curiously, I did see the "frame-blend", illustrated in #20, in other film-shot scene-edit and videotape-shot scene-edit sequences. The displayed framerate for the above NTSC DVD is always ~30fps.
hello_hello: The phenomenon you note MAY be INTENTIONALLY introduced (by BBC in 1975; perhaps even for specific scenes) to smooth out edit-transitions--as I noted, for various film or videotape scenes, on my shoplifted 2006-released commercial USA NTSC dvd. But the phenomenon in #20 is NOT intentional; it's a result of poor or compromised PAL-to-NTSC conversion.

All above viewed on WMP-HC and VLC in Win. 7-based Dell 1764 laptop -- on the throne of course. I defecated and thought of all my new ... uh ... friends, here, replying idiotically to the orig. trolling query, which was also conceived of while ... uh ... on-duty. But this is a full-service station, right? So pls. come and flush the flotilla to the next port.

And, oh. ... btw ... y'all are outta TP again! Me-guesses manono will have to manual the next wipe jobs till the Charmins arrive.

[hello_hello]

If you post a few screenshots or upload a small sample it might be worth continuing the discussion, but going around in circles is making me a little dizzy. You probably have a newer release of the DVDs. Maybe they were converted from PAL differently.

[hollowman]

If you post a few screenshots or upload a small sample it might be worth continuing the discussion, but going around in circles is making me a little dizzy. You probably have a newer release of the DVDs. Maybe they were converted from PAL differently.

Search the 2nd (PAL) copy (which you posted about in #21) for the "frame-blend" you illustrated in #20. Can you find ANY? If so, effectively flushing your prev. theory down the crapper, are you man 'nough to admit they exists?

As far as your dizziness ... NOT staring at the you-know-whats as they swirl/"circle" down the toilet bowl helps.

[Island_Dweller]

If you post a few screenshots or upload a small sample it might be worth continuing the discussion, but going around in circles is making me a little dizzy. You probably have a newer release of the DVDs. Maybe they were converted from PAL differently.

Don't waste your time with this blithering idiot, he won't post samples or screenshots, might as well flush all his requests down the toilet from now on.

[hollowman]

If you post a few screenshots or upload a small sample it might be worth continuing the discussion, but going around in circles is making me a little dizzy. You probably have a newer release of the DVDs. Maybe they were converted from PAL differently.

Don't waste your time with this blithering idiot, he won't post samples or screenshots, might as well flush all his requests down the toilet from now on.

Wow ... you're upset enough to engage in ad hominem attacks! Ja ... let me write that in my psycho-log ... danke schon.
Please note that I've been a VH member since Oct. 2007, but with ONLY 41 total posts. Do you actually believe that "flushing my requests" are all that important to me?
As a general rule of thumb ... flushing out trolls -- whomever they may be -- only (and almost always) deepens their twisted, vulgar resolve as disruption engines.
What is worth it all was actually witnessing the disintegration of a putatively valid topic (or maybe it was just amusing ramblings and fecal stirrings) ... first with genuine quizzical (=dumb and random) speculation and, then, wild theory (most of everyone's responses to the orig. query), which finally/ultimately putrefied into digression (hello_hello) and virulent rage (Island_Dweller).
... ergo: experimental psychopathology advances.
Very refreshing; thank you, gentlemen

[Island_Dweller]

As a general rule of thumb ... flushing out trolls -- whomever they may be -- only (and almost always) deepens their twisted, vulgar resolve as disruption engines.

Says the guy who was just talking about his crap on a video forum

[hello_hello]

Search the 2nd (PAL) copy (which you posted about in #21) for the "frame-blend" you illustrated in #20. Can you find ANY? If so, effectively flushing your prev. theory down the crapper, are you man 'nough to admit they exists?

I've no idea what you're on about. The whole point of my posts was to show the NTSC version was converted from PAL using frame blending. Naturally, there's no frame blending in the original PAL version. Why would there be?

Don't waste your time with this blithering idiot, he won't post samples or screenshots, might as well flush all his requests down the toilet from now on.

Yeah, I'd pretty much decided to give up and let him waffle on to his heart's content. Maybe when he started the thread he should have simply stated the answer he wanted and let the rest of us guess as to what the question could be.
It generally takes an idiot less than a dozen posts in a thread to use the word troll, probably because they're still living in the 90's and don't realise nobody trolls any more. I wonder how long it'll take him to post a reference to Hitler or Nazi Germany?
He asks a question, won't accept the answers, won't upload screenshots or samples as requested, then waffles on about the thread degenerating after inflicting us all with a description of his toilet habits. That'd pretty much be the definition of an idiot, wouldn't it?

[hollowman]

Search the 2nd (PAL) copy (which you posted about in #21) for the "frame-blend" you illustrated in #20. Can you find ANY? If so, effectively flushing your prev. theory down the crapper, are you man 'nough to admit they exists?

I've no idea what you're on about. The whole point of my posts was to show the NTSC version was converted from PAL using frame blending. Naturally, there's no frame blending in the original PAL version. Why would there be?

Then be a cooperative little VideoHelper and ... go back to the PAL video you captured the frames from in #21 -- maybe later in the epi when they switch to videotape -- and frame-step thru that, keeping your eyes peeled during jump cuts. Do you see any transitory frame-blends? The question is THAT simple.
Keep in mind, I also could not find the frame-blend you posted in #20 on my USA NTSC DVD. It was the same as your PAL example. But I did find "frame-blends" in other scenes (i.e., edit cuts). And your LAZY response to that was: "You probably have a newer release of the DVDs. Maybe they were converted from PAL differently." WTF?
Now if y'all 'scuse me ... I'm about to give birth to some turds.

[hello_hello]

I'm not going to bother going back to anything.
My lazy response? It's called a guess, because that's all anyone can do while you're too lazy to provide samples. You must be an idiot if you think otherwise.

Just one more thread where a poster expects a magic fix/answer, while those responding are expected to do all the work......

[hollowman]

Ahhh, boyz and girlz, it's time for another delicious defecation...

I'm not going to bother going back to anything.
My lazy response? It's called a guess, because that's all anyone can do while you're too lazy to provide samples. You must be an idiot if you think otherwise.

Just one more thread where a poster expects a magic fix/answer [whaaaat... there are more? Could it be that no one was smart or honest enough for genuine fixes or honest answers?] , while those responding are expected to do all the work......

I don't have a PAL copy. You do. And you were very forthcoming in #20 and #21 to prove your pet theory. But your contradictory comments and refusal to commit to re-confirmation -- via your deflectory remarks, or ad hominem attacks ("idiot") -- are indicative of a person suffering from confirmation bias or chronic constipation. PM me and we can procure a proctological solution for you. You may also want to lay off the caffeine and switch to a high-fiber diet.

Sorry, I can't comment more. I currently only have Internet access on my toilet-side iPad. And I'm ... uh ... done for this sitting .... So until next time, friends ... [flush] ooops, one chunk came back up [repeat flush]...superb! ... [exhaust fan off].

[hello_hello]

I don't have a PAL copy. You do.

And I don't have your NTSC copy. You do. What's your point?

And you were very forthcoming in #20 and #21 to prove your pet theory.

Ever notice an increase in the use of capitals and highlights in forums posts invariably has a direct relationship to the speed at which the poster's argument is falling over?
Yes, I was very forthcoming. Not a claim you can make for yourself, is it?

[jagabo]

I don't know what you guys are going on about. Are there crappy PAL to NTSC conversions with blending and other artifacts? Of course there are. Are there good PAL to NTSC conversions without blending and other artifacts? Of course there are. End of story.

[hello_hello]

Unfortunately though, hollowman seems to prefer posting mindless waffle rather than upload samples of the NTSC video he has in order for the rest of us to take a look. Instead he seems to think others looking at the PAL discs they own will somehow magically reveal the way his NTSC copies were created, and why they look the way they do to him.

[hollowman]

I don't have a PAL copy. You do.

And I don't have your NTSC copy. You do. What's your point?

Post #20 ...you noted:

Here's an example of frame blending from a Doctor Who episode converted to an NTSC DVD.

The point -- sorry to all who are tired of having this repeated; it seems in-thread posters can't remember/track their own remarks ... chalk it up to cognitive dissonance and hemorrhoid flare-ups !! -- is that "frame-blends", as shown in post #20, may also appear (randomly) for edit(jump) cuts in pure/orig PAL copies (masters) because this "effect" smooths jump cuts. So this is a deliberate, editorial decision, by the directors (or whomever), made at the time of program production.

Oh ... btw ...a bit OT, but a superb, videographic example of pure NTSC excretion is here.

[jagabo]

I'm sure hello_hello knows the difference between an intentional cross-fade and PAL/NTSC field blended crap like this:

[hello_hello]

]Post #20 ...you noted:

Here's an example of frame blending from a Doctor Who episode converted to an NTSC DVD.

The point -- sorry to all who are tired of having this repeated; it seems in-thread posters can't remember/track their own remarks ... chalk it up to cognitive dissonance and hemorrhoid flare-ups !!

The point was, the frame blending which may or may not be present in the NTSC version you have, which at the time was still unknown given you were too lazy to look yourself or upload a sample so others could look at it for you, might be the cause of the apparent lack of flickering you see. That was the entire point, Nothing more, nothing less, despite any imaginings you might be having to the contrary, despite any of the theories you pulled out of thin air at the time, and despite the fact you appear not to be clever enough to get it.

-- is that "frame-blends", as shown in post #20, may also appear (randomly) for edit(jump) cuts in pure/orig PAL copies (masters) because this "effect" smooths jump cuts. So this is a deliberate, editorial decision, by the directors (or whomever), made at the time of program production.

And there might be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow too. There may be fade ins/outs between scenes but there won't be any frame blending as such. I don't even need to look to know that, once again despite any imaginings you may be experiencing to the contrary. Not that I'd bother looking now anyway, given you're a complete dick.

Oh ... btw ...a bit OT, but a superb, videographic example of pure NTSC excretion is here.

No need to look at a video to see pure NTSC excretion. I've only got to read your posts.

[hollowman]

I'm sure hello_hello knows the difference between an intentional cross-fade and PAL/NTSC field blended crap like this:

I'm sure. Thanks ... uh ... "hello_hello".
Earlier jagabo noted:

I don't know what you guys are going on about. Are there crappy PAL to NTSC conversions with blending and other artifacts? Of course there are. Are there good PAL to NTSC conversions without blending and other artifacts? Of course there are. End of story.

Whoa ... Nelly ...did we just read this right? Jagabo ... are you generalizing here? .... that we're "going on" about minutiae? Have you forgotten that this is a putative technical forum where geeks wax anal retentively about the most trivial of things ... a pixel here, a scan line there ... not quite right ... so let's create a thread. Probe that andoderm. Yeah!
Speaking of which .... just had a look at your stats, bub:
Total Posts: 31,329
Posts Per Day: 11.85 (since Dec. 2005)
I think this deserves a cash award and revised title ... not just "Member" ... but "Forum Lifer" Free room n' board...health insurance ... stock options ... VH owes you, man!

BTW .... thank you for using the term "crap" in both the above replies Now you're talkin' to me, chum.

[hollowman]

Not that I'd bother looking now anyway, given you're a complete dick.

Ad hominem remarks are refreshing. Find that PAL yet?