Technical Issues and Questions

[dx23]

I don't know if this is the right place for the question, but here it goes: does anyone know of a device similar to Apple TV that works for PC and tablets? I got a Lenovo x200 Tablet PC with Windows 7 and I'm looking for a way I can stream video and audio content to my LCD TV wirelessly.

[Perkins Cobb]

You'll notice if you have perfect pitch and/or a good memory - ideally both. Which is why most people don't.

I'm not aware of anyone convincingly claiming that they notice the speedup visually - it's such a tiny increase that you'd really need to run a 25fps and 24fps version side by side, and even then it wouldn't be obvious which was running at the wrong speed.

No, I can see it -- not often, but when there's sudden movement within the frame, it goes a little too fast. I don't know about UK television, but reruns on American TV are often time-sped to make room for more commercials; the effect is similar to PAL speed-up but more extreme, and I think it trains you to notice when something's artificially sped. There are some PAL discs, presumably the cheaper ones, where I'm very aware of this and others where I never or barely notice, and I don't really understand why. (For instance, I never have a problem with Masters of Cinema DVDs, but -- and here's an obscure example from recent memory -- the Spanish DVD of Counterpoint exhibited an unnatural quality to the motion that I associate with PAL.) A lot of people who are mad about MOD technology are seeking out European DVD releases of films released in the Warner Archive (or Sony, etc.), and I think that's dumb -- all other things being equal, I'll take an NTSC master over PAL. Although as I get older I grow more and more impatient, so maybe someday I'll come to value watching the same movie in four less minutes.

However, I'm "lucky" enough to be effectively tone-deaf, so I'm never bothered by the difference in pitch.

[Rob]

I'd say that a PAL transfer is to be preferred over an NTSC transfer for the following reasons:
(1) PAL speedup interferes less with the film than the NTSC process of 3:2 pulldown
(2) PAL running speed is closer to film speed than NTSC, so a more authentic presentation is achieved
(3) PAL frame size is larger than NTSC (720x576 vs 720x480) so more picture information is stored
(4) PAL colour is better than NTSC colour
But thankfully Blu-ray is makes all of this obsolete.
Also, with Blu-ray we might even see the possibility of watching silent movies at their proper speed, as we should remember that 24fps is only the standard for sync-sound films. Pre-sync-sound, films were shot at a variety of speeds (frequently around 18fps).

[MichaelB]

For me, both systems are compromised but PAL is less compromised - for the reasons given above.

That said, I think PAL colour and NTSC colour are pretty much equivalent when it comes to recorded media - it's just broadcast PAL that's far, far superior to broadcast NTSC ("Never Twice the Same Colour"). When I spent three or four months in the US, I couldn't believe how good British telly looked when I got home.

[David M.]

I'd say that a PAL transfer is to be preferred over an NTSC transfer for the following reasons:
(1) PAL speedup interferes less with the film than the NTSC process of 3:2 pulldown
(2) PAL running speed is closer to film speed than NTSC, so a more authentic presentation is achieved
(3) PAL frame size is larger than NTSC (720x576 vs 720x480) so more picture information is stored
(4) PAL colour is better than NTSC colour
But thankfully Blu-ray is makes all of this obsolete.
Also, with Blu-ray we might even see the possibility of watching silent movies at their proper speed, as we should remember that 24fps is only the standard for sync-sound films. Pre-sync-sound, films were shot at a variety of speeds (frequently around 18fps).

Hey Rob,
There are some inaccuracies in what you posted.

2. NTSC with 3:2 pulldown results in an effective film frame rate of 23.976fps. That is closer to film's 24fps than PAL's 25.

4. Was largely true in the days of composite video being broadcast over an antenna; PAL held up better under those circumstances and was immune to hue errors. For digitally stored formats like DVD, there's basically no advantage. Although the colour gamut used for mastering in PAL territories was arguably better than that used in most NTSC ones (although most TVs wouldn't reproduce it accurately anyway, so it becomes moot).

Blu-ray, sadly, is not any more suited to films with less common frame rates than DVD is. The lowest frame rate it supports is 24fps. An 18fps movie on BD would require the same retiming/frame duplication techniques as on DVD.

[Rob]

Thanks David, that's really interesting. I hadn't realised that the NTSC colour issues were mainly confined to broadcast - I had assumed that it was a permanent problem with the way that NTSC worked. Also, it's interesting to note that Blu-ray won't support lower frame rates - that's a real shame, as I can't see that there would be any major tehnical reasons why it wouldn't. I guess that there's not enough in it for the big media companies to make it worthwhile - I suppose that the head of Sony doesn't lose too much sleep over not being able to watch 'Nanook of the North' at exactly 21.5 fps.
Regarding point (2) - I agree with you there. I was thinking about 25 being closer to 24 than 29.97, but you're right - it's fairer to use 23.976 than 29.97. Interesting that no-one ever mentions NTSC slowdown though - although it is only 3.6 seconds per hour, as opposed to PAL speedup, which is in the region of 2.4 minutes per hour.
3:2 pulldown does make a mess of slow tracking and panning shots though. The beginning of Jim Jarmusch's 'Down by Law' is somewhat spoiled by it, although hopefully Criterion will release it on Blu-ray soon!
Thanks again for your reply - much appreciated.

[David M.]

3:2 pulldown does make a mess of slow tracking and panning shots though. The beginning of Jim Jarmusch's 'Down by Law' is somewhat spoiled by it, although hopefully Criterion will release it on Blu-ray soon!

Yes, it's a real pain.

Fortunately, you can get DVD players which can extract 24p out of an NTSC Film DVD (Panasonic's Blu-ray players can do it).

[Sam T.]

I'm looking to buy a new tv, and need advice. I realize this is not a home theater forum, but the online places actually devoted to that stuff are dominated by people primarily interested in the superbowl and the latest 3D blockbuster, and I kind of want advice from people who... you know?

[swo17]

Not knowing anything about what you're looking for, I'd recommend a Panasonic Viera.

[HistoryProf]

i'll second the Panny Viera - I absolutely love mine. best tv i've ever owned by a mile, and I think it's better than my father's much more expensive and larger Samsung (though I have liked other samsungs).

The Viera just seems to have not only a high bar for quality standards, but a great reputation for longevity and very few bugs. They are simply fantastic tvs that don't require much fiddling with to get them calibrated to your preference. And it makes life better.

And for what its worth, just because we like movies doesn't mean we also don't like football - and the Viera is the best TV i've personally seen for HD football broadcasts. Personally, I could not live without it on weekends in the fall.

[MichaelB]

I bought a Viera three years ago (a 42" plasma), and can honestly say that I've had no regrets whatsoever - which is very unusual for me after all this time.

[Michael Kerpan]

We have a Samsung plasma TV -- and are quite pleased with it.

[denti alligator]

After all, how many people really found Kind of Blue unlistenable for the first forty years of its existence?

I heard an interview with Teo Macero who basically suggested that he had purposefully sped up those first couple (few?) tracks, and that the "corrected" versions (for which--like all of the Miles reissues--he was NOT consulted) simply "don't swing right."

[Zot!]

Woah, that is pure sex. Definately a conversation piece, and would look great in my fictional Soho loft space. I guess Vizio is going to offer the 21:9 displays in the US! Though I wonder outside of the novelty how often this would actually be useful depending on your viewing habits. Any films less wide would just wind up being even smaller. Just as a matter of curiosity, how many Criterion movies would actually benefit from this aspect ratio?

Upon further review, from what I understand, unless subtitles on a particular disc are formatted to stay within the 21:9 image only, they will get cut off, as Blu-Ray is natively 16x9. This renders what was a cool idea into useless junk.

[James43]

I recently noticed vertical stripes in the picture when watching certain BDs on my Panasonic DMP BD80. They appear like some sort of permanent grid and do not seem to be part of the transfers. This occurred with "Vengeance is mine" (MoC) and "Some like it hot" (MGM). Can anybody help?

[Perkins Cobb]

Try switching, or fiddling with, your HDMI cable?

[Emak-Bakia]

I've got an extremely frustrating problem with my TV that I haven't been able to figure out. I'm embarrassed to say that my only TV is an Emerson 32" flat panel, one of those Black Friday deals from a year or two ago. It was gifted to me and was better than what I had at the time, so I couldn't very well turn it down.

So, here's the problem: when I've got the TV switched to the HDMI input (which is pretty much always), I'm not given the option to change the screen mode to "sidebar," which is odd since this is an option with other inputs. This really becomes a problem when I'm trying to watch 4:3 films, since every mode stretches the picture to fill the screen. Higher quality discs like Criterion or Masters of Cinema seem to display correctly, but most others are an abomination.

I fear that this is some inherent flaw with the TV, but I was hoping someone could help until I can upgrade.

[David M.]

I recently noticed vertical stripes in the picture when watching certain BDs on my Panasonic DMP BD80. They appear like some sort of permanent grid and do not seem to be part of the transfers. This occurred with "Vengeance is mine" (MoC) and "Some like it hot" (MGM). Can anybody help?

How visible are the stripes? Blatant, or subtle?

So, here's the problem: when I've got the TV switched to the HDMI input (which is pretty much always), I'm not given the option to change the screen mode to "sidebar," which is odd since this is an option with other inputs. This really becomes a problem when I'm trying to watch 4:3 films, since every mode stretches the picture to fill the screen. Higher quality discs like Criterion or Masters of Cinema seem to display correctly, but most others are an abomination.

I fear that this is some inherent flaw with the TV, but I was hoping someone could help until I can upgrade.

It's not really a flaw. High Definition is specified as being 16:9, so it's understandable that TV manufacturers don't account for other ratios. The aspect control should be controlled by the BD/DVD player - it's its job.

[swo17]

I've got an extremely frustrating problem with my TV that I haven't been able to figure out. I'm embarrassed to say that my only TV is an Emerson 32" flat panel, one of those Black Friday deals from a year or two ago. It was gifted to me and was better than what I had at the time, so I couldn't very well turn it down.

So, here's the problem: when I've got the TV switched to the HDMI input (which is pretty much always), I'm not given the option to change the screen mode to "sidebar," which is odd since this is an option with other inputs. This really becomes a problem when I'm trying to watch 4:3 films, since every mode stretches the picture to fill the screen. Higher quality discs like Criterion or Masters of Cinema seem to display correctly, but most others are an abomination.

I fear that this is some inherent flaw with the TV, but I was hoping someone could help until I can upgrade.

This is probably a setting you can change on your Blu/DVD player. When you say Criterions don't get stretched out, are you talking about Blu-rays? Criterion's Blu-ray transfers for films less than 1.78:1 include the sidebars as part of the frame, so they'll never automatically be stretched out.

[Emak-Bakia]

This is probably a setting you can change on your Blu/DVD player. When you say Criterions don't get stretched out, are you talking about Blu-rays? Criterion's Blu-ray transfers for films less than 1.78:1 include the sidebars as part of the frame, so they'll never automatically be stretched out.

Yes, I know that Blu-rays definitely weren't stretched. Thanks so much to both of you for the quick responses. It did occur to me that it could be my blu-ray player, but I was too quick to blame my cheap TV. My player and I will certainly have a nice, long talk when I get home.

[Roger Ryan]

I'm constantly changing my Blu-ray player's output to 480p whenever I want to watch a 4:3 DVD; it's the only way to adjust the TV setting to the appropriate aspect ratio.

[Drucker]

Since this is active, I had a real quick question. On my TV, I always hear random cracks and clicks coming out. I assume it's totally normal sounds emitting from any electronic device, but I still worry. Do other people hear similar stuff?

[David M.]

I'm constantly changing my Blu-ray player's output to 480p whenever I want to watch a 4:3 DVD; it's the only way to adjust the TV setting to the appropriate aspect ratio.

Are you sure? What player is this?

Some of them hide it in the Screen Format menu, e.g. they have a "16:9 Full" and "16:9 Normal" option, one of which doesn't distort the video.

[David M.]

Since this is active, I had a real quick question. On my TV, I always hear random cracks and clicks coming out. I assume it's totally normal sounds emitting from any electronic device, but I still worry. Do other people hear similar stuff?

It's probably the plastic in the cabinet expanding due to heat.

[Drucker]

So not a really big deal, I assume?