ufoclub said:

unique said:

but wtf has any of this got to do with anything? your just typing a load of irrelevant shite

and you didn't even notice your flaw earlier. SD analogue pal material converted to 24fps would take up more data than 25fps. thus whilst you said your figures would take up more space as 25fps and i agreed with you to see what you would say, it's wrong

and you just ignored the fact that the bluray standards allow for a number of different video options and SD 50i to 1080i/p would just be a waste of time thus a pointless example. so if you really know your stuff, do the math on the different options if you can

and furthermore, you also said that 4:3 material on dvd stretches across the screen pixel wise, which is complete shite. an anamorphic encoding would "stretch" the image down the screen, but you don't get anamorphic 4:3 material, so fuck knows wtf you are on about there

do you really work for a video company or are you just talking absolute shite?

i know all about pulldown methods, i could bore ppl 2 sleep with it, but it has absolutely fuck all to do with the type of SD video conversion we are talking about

What do you mean? 24 is less than 25. You can learn that on Sesame Street. A video file of 24 frames is less then a video of 25 frames. Less information. The reason that DVD's and Blu-rays were encoded with a 24p file as opposed to a pulldown derived 29.97 file is because the file size is smaller. There's less video frames.

Give me an example of a common blu-ray in a different format to 60i or 24p (or 23.976fps)? Do you have one? Are there any new releases you can cite? Just name one. I really want to know.

And you have completely proven yourself to be ignorant if you don't know that a 720 x 480 pixel DVD in 4:3 still has the same number of pixels as a 720 x480 DVD in widescreen. Same goes for a PAL widescreen to a 4:3 DVD. The pixels are stretched. I have to deal with that all the time when you author DVD's with graphics. Just google it. Or better yet, why don't you rip the video off of a dual sided DVD where the movie is wide on one side and 4:3 on the other. You will find the same pixels dimensions. Try it.

Really, to get back to proving your point, can you just bring up one example of an SD video put to blu-ray with improved quality?

Why are you getting so mad. Don't cuss. It's only video tech stuff.

[Edited 7/18/11 15:15pm]

wtf? you really don't have a clue do you?

if you take video at 25fps and run it at 24fps, you still have the same number of frames, only played slower. if you take 24fps film and run it at 25fps you have the same amount of frames, only they will be viewed quicker. 4% quicker approximately. and if you take 24fps film with audio and run it at 25fps you will have less data in total as the audio will the timeshifted and thus run quicker and thus take up less data

that's pretty basic mathematics

so getting back to the original point, do your math and prove that SD material can look better on bluray as a result of the higher bitrate and confirm i'm correct. and stop making irrelevant points

TheFreakerFantastic said:

^ Based on what I know, I believe UFOclub is right on this, it looks like unique is talking out of his ****.

You can't magically improve the quality if the source is the same but the medium is better. Just because Blu Ray is higher quality makes no difference if the original is limited quality- ie limited resolution and limited aspect ratio. You can't upscale stuff if the original is poor...there's nothing to improve upon.

The only way around this would be as ufoclub rightly is if they took at 35mm film transfer, unfortunately it wasn't shot on film.

well fortunately we aren't asking you

this is simple for you to understand

you have source material. you have to author that to the viewing format. when you do so you typically lose something in the encoding. as dvd has lower specs than bluray you loose more in the conversation to dvd than you do when converting to bluray

it's like taking a shitty photo and scanning it. if you scan it at 400dpi you are going to have more detail than if you scan it at 300dpi. overall the photo might still look shitty, but the higher scan will have more detail

in video it's not just about the pixel resolution, but bitrate. faster moving action requires a higher bitrate to stop it from looking blurry or pixelated. bluray has a higher bitrate and a number of different pixel resolutions (as does dvd, but many less options). you could put SD material on a bluray disc in the same resolution as a dvd but with a higher bitrate and it would look better. of you could find a slightly higher resolution and upscale to benefit from increased horizontal pixel resolution (as analogue video is in lines there is a limit to the vertical resolution you can get) and increased bitrate

ufoclub knows this as he did the original sum based on unnecessary upscaling to 1080p so he could do the same math on the other options and confirm what i said is correct, but he doesn't want to prove himself wrong

the end result will be a minor improvement in picture and sound. nothing dramatic. and that's why SD tv shows don't generally get released on dvd as there is little benefit. but it's a different story with a music concert. as time goes on i'm sure some/more SD video sourced material will be released on bluray, but it's still early days yet

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

GeminiCalling said:

OK, here we go....

I, personally, would LOVE to see Lovesexy OFFICIALLY released on DVD/BLURAY (maybe with some extras such as tracks taken from other nights of the tour, rehearsal footage, etc.)

I know it's not going to happen (Prince's views about swearing/sex, etc are different now and who DOES own the rights to the footage now?)

Anyway, if you agree with me about wanting it released, please sign below.

(Maybe, if enough people sign, who knows?)

Thanks,

David

Absolutely!

But how do we sign on a website though and how is Prince going to see it?

ufoclub said:

unique said:

you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. PAL doesn't have a pixel resolution and neither does film

you can get higher quality picture and sound on blueray from SD and film sources

Funny, I make my living dealing with these formats and rendering out stuff for this type of media, authoring DVD's, blu-rays etc. Dealing with PAL vs NTSC...and dealing with frame pulldown for film to NTSC...

But if you say so,

(And of course film is a chemical process, but the estimation of resolution can be made and in reality, the average grain size of the film stock can also be translated to a numeric pixel value.. You should research it out.)

Sorry to say UFO, you are wrong here. I make my living out of this as well. I'm a commercial/features director. Tv resolution broadcast material is of a higher quality than traditional DVD. Just go and compare a Standard-def beta tape with a DVD. Putting it out on Blu-ray would NOT make it High-def as the additional information doesn't exist, what it would do is allow the best possible version of the existing Pal/Beta/SD recording. Which is better than DVD can handle. I know because I also worked in television for 7 years. And I used to copy any Prince promos which came in on Beta.

24fps vs 25fps.

No difference in quality. I shoot both in the US at 25fps and in UK at 24fps. It's about the playback machinery NOT the picture quality. Infact the American 25FPS broadcast system used to be quite inferior due to NTSC. Which has fewer lines per inch on screen.

[Edited 7/19/11 3:24am]

unique said:

ufoclub said:

What do you mean? 24 is less than 25. You can learn that on Sesame Street. A video file of 24 frames is less then a video of 25 frames. Less information. The reason that DVD's and Blu-rays were encoded with a 24p file as opposed to a pulldown derived 29.97 file is because the file size is smaller. There's less video frames.

Give me an example of a common blu-ray in a different format to 60i or 24p (or 23.976fps)? Do you have one? Are there any new releases you can cite? Just name one. I really want to know.

And you have completely proven yourself to be ignorant if you don't know that a 720 x 480 pixel DVD in 4:3 still has the same number of pixels as a 720 x480 DVD in widescreen. Same goes for a PAL widescreen to a 4:3 DVD. The pixels are stretched. I have to deal with that all the time when you author DVD's with graphics. Just google it. Or better yet, why don't you rip the video off of a dual sided DVD where the movie is wide on one side and 4:3 on the other. You will find the same pixels dimensions. Try it.

Really, to get back to proving your point, can you just bring up one example of an SD video put to blu-ray with improved quality?

Why are you getting so mad. Don't cuss. It's only video tech stuff.

[Edited 7/18/11 15:15pm]

wtf? you really don't have a clue do you?

if you take video at 25fps and run it at 24fps, you still have the same number of frames, only played slower. if you take 24fps film and run it at 25fps you have the same amount of frames, only they will be viewed quicker. 4% quicker approximately. and if you take 24fps film with audio and run it at 25fps you will have less data in total as the audio will the timeshifted and thus run quicker and thus take up less data

that's pretty basic mathematics

so getting back to the original point, do your math and prove that SD material can look better on bluray as a result of the higher bitrate and confirm i'm correct. and stop making irrelevant points

You are correct Unique.

Rorywan said:

ufoclub said:

Funny, I make my living dealing with these formats and rendering out stuff for this type of media, authoring DVD's, blu-rays etc. Dealing with PAL vs NTSC...and dealing with frame pulldown for film to NTSC...

But if you say so,

(And of course film is a chemical process, but the estimation of resolution can be made and in reality, the average grain size of the film stock can also be translated to a numeric pixel value.. You should research it out.)

Sorry to say UFO, you are wrong here. I make my living out of this as well. I'm a commercial/features director. Tv resolution broadcast material is of a higher quality than traditional DVD. Just go and compare a Standard-def beta tape with a DVD. Putting it out on Blu-ray would NOT make it High-def as the additional information doesn't exist, what it would do is allow the best possible version of the existing Pal/Beta/SD recording. Which is better than DVD can handle. I know because I also worked in television for 7 years. And I used to copy any Prince promos which came in on Beta.

24fps vs 25fps.

No difference in quality. I shoot both in the US at 25fps and in UK at 24fps. It's about the playback machinery NOT the picture quality. Infact the American 25FPS broadcast system used to be quite inferior due to NTSC. Which has fewer lines per inch on screen.

[Edited 7/19/11 3:24am]

Rory - in the UK we use 25fps PAL, the US uses 29.97 fps NTSC for TV broadcast.

24fps refers to film not TV.

NTSC is inferior to PAL, it was an earlier TV format adopted by the US and Japan. PAL came later and is used in Europe, Australia and some parts ofSouth America. In VT circles NTSC is jokingly referred to as 'Never Twice the Same Colour'

[Edited 7/19/11 3:32am]

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Rorywan said:

Sorry to say UFO, you are wrong here. I make my living out of this as well. I'm a commercial/features director. Tv resolution broadcast material is of a higher quality than traditional DVD. Just go and compare a Standard-def beta tape with a DVD. Putting it out on Blu-ray would NOT make it High-def as the additional information doesn't exist, what it would do is allow the best possible version of the existing Pal/Beta/SD recording. Which is better than DVD can handle. I know because I also worked in television for 7 years. And I used to copy any Prince promos which came in on Beta.

24fps vs 25fps.

No difference in quality. I shoot both in the US at 25fps and in UK at 24fps. It's about the playback machinery NOT the picture quality. Infact the American 25FPS broadcast system used to be quite inferior due to NTSC. Which has fewer lines per inch on screen.

[Edited 7/19/11 3:24am]

Rory - in the UK we use 25fps PAL, the US uses 29.97 fps NTSC for TV broadcast.

24fps refers to film not TV.

NTSC is inferior to PAL, it was an earlier TV format adopted by the US and Japan. PAL came later and is used in Europe, Australia and some parts ofSouth America. In VT circles NTSC is jokingly referred to as 'Never Twice the Same Colour'

[Edited 7/19/11 3:32am]

Yes, I know? I don't think we are in disagreement. I said the american NTSC system USED to be inferior. Because of the lines per inch?

But now it's mostly HD in US so there is no longer a difference. Even though something is shot (Film or HD) 25fps. You can obviously shoot at whatever frame rate you want on film over/under cranked/Multiples of safe frame rates. I was refering to film because thats the source quality. Apart from recent HD cameras (Viper, Red etc which try to mimic film) The only source for HD material has to come from film, there was nothing else to capture these resolutions at. Beta/SD never had the resolution. The point I was making is this: the higher frame rate does not effect quality, the lines per inch & screen resolution does. UFO seemed to be suggesting that 25fps was better than 24fps. It's not.

And back to the main point: This was shot for TV broadcast, right?

Well, then it was most likely shot & mastered on Beta. Broadcast from beta tapes. This is of higher quality than DVD. So you would see some definition improvement on Blu-ray, though obviously not anyway near HD.

You just have to look at some recent Blu-ray releases which include SD extra features. They can be of slightly better quality than their previous SD/DVD versions.

This all seems to be going a bit off topic...

pepper7 said:

This all seems to be going a bit off topic...

Rorywan said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Rory - in the UK we use 25fps PAL, the US uses 29.97 fps NTSC for TV broadcast.

24fps refers to film not TV.

NTSC is inferior to PAL, it was an earlier TV format adopted by the US and Japan. PAL came later and is used in Europe, Australia and some parts ofSouth America. In VT circles NTSC is jokingly referred to as 'Never Twice the Same Colour'

[Edited 7/19/11 3:32am]

Yes, I know? I don't think we are in disagreement. I said the american NTSC system USED to be inferior. Because of the lines per inch?

But now it's mostly HD in US so there is no longer a difference. Even though something is shot (Film or HD) 25fps. You can obviously shoot at whatever frame rate you want on film over/under cranked/Multiples of safe frame rates. I was refering to film because thats the source quality. Apart from recent HD cameras (Viper, Red etc which try to mimic film) The only source for HD material has to come from film, there was nothing else to capture these resolutions at. Beta/SD never had the resolution. The point I was making is this: the higher frame rate does not effect quality, the lines per inch & screen resolution does. UFO seemed to be suggesting that 25fps was better than 24fps. It's not.

And back to the main point: This was shot for TV broadcast, right?

Well, then it was most likely shot & mastered on Beta. Broadcast from beta tapes. This is of higher quality than DVD. So you would see some definition improvement on Blu-ray, though obviously not anyway near HD.

You just have to look at some recent Blu-ray releases which include SD extra features. They can be of slightly better quality than their previous SD/DVD versions.

i cant tell you know what you are talking about. if you watch the SD extras on bluray or hd-dvd you can see the quality is better than the dvd. of course on the dvd the extras are typically compressed to fuck to squeeze 72 hours of bonus features that no-one has the slightest inclination to watch

lovesexy was actually broadcast live on tv in the UK as far as i recall, however i'm not sure if it was time delayed or not. i'm not sure exactly how that worked (recorded to tape and played back whilst still recording?). it was on channel 4 who were still broadcasting TFI friday proper live years later so it could have been without timedelay. i vaguley recall it starting about 8pm (which would be 9pm in dortmund, a typical concert start time), which would mean the swearing would all start after about 9pm

it was released on pal VHS and laserdisc (i think mine is PAL), i don't think it was released on ntsc for some reason. sott was released as a convert movie because of the cancelation of the UK shows

and no-one was arguing about pal vs ntsc. and there are umpteen different versions of pal and ntsc just to fuck you up anyways. then you have secam. and the old 405 line system

unique said:

ufoclub said:

What do you mean? 24 is less than 25. You can learn that on Sesame Street. A video file of 24 frames is less then a video of 25 frames. Less information. The reason that DVD's and Blu-rays were encoded with a 24p file as opposed to a pulldown derived 29.97 file is because the file size is smaller. There's less video frames.

Give me an example of a common blu-ray in a different format to 60i or 24p (or 23.976fps)? Do you have one? Are there any new releases you can cite? Just name one. I really want to know.

And you have completely proven yourself to be ignorant if you don't know that a 720 x 480 pixel DVD in 4:3 still has the same number of pixels as a 720 x480 DVD in widescreen. Same goes for a PAL widescreen to a 4:3 DVD. The pixels are stretched. I have to deal with that all the time when you author DVD's with graphics. Just google it. Or better yet, why don't you rip the video off of a dual sided DVD where the movie is wide on one side and 4:3 on the other. You will find the same pixels dimensions. Try it.

Really, to get back to proving your point, can you just bring up one example of an SD video put to blu-ray with improved quality?

Why are you getting so mad. Don't cuss. It's only video tech stuff.

[Edited 7/18/11 15:15pm]

wtf? you really don't have a clue do you?

if you take video at 25fps and run it at 24fps, you still have the same number of frames, only played slower. if you take 24fps film and run it at 25fps you have the same amount of frames, only they will be viewed quicker. 4% quicker approximately. and if you take 24fps film with audio and run it at 25fps you will have less data in total as the audio will the timeshifted and thus run quicker and thus take up less data

that's pretty basic mathematics

so getting back to the original point, do your math and prove that SD material can look better on bluray as a result of the higher bitrate and confirm i'm correct. and stop making irrelevant points

You don't know much about this stuff? If you have one second of film composed of 25 frames and one second of film composed of 24 frames, the 25 frame version has 1/25th more information. It has one more frame. Just like if you had one second of sosmething shot at 60fps it would take more than twice as much room on a hard drive.

here's the math: 24/1 < 25/1

understand? Or are you shifting back and forth over which one is bigger? I'm saying the more frames per second you have, the bigger the file size if it's digital, or the longer the strip of film if it's film. I've worked with real film too. Super 8 as kid, and then 16mm and 35mm.

But back to the point of the blu-ray. Can you name one instance of a blu-ray containing a better looking master of an SD video?

I already did the math about the bitrate, and the DVD came out on top. Remember? If you have the same true resolution picture encoded on a DVD vs on a blu-ray (wich would be letterboxed on all sides with black), the DVD has potentially more information per the screen size.

Rorywan said:

ufoclub said:

Funny, I make my living dealing with these formats and rendering out stuff for this type of media, authoring DVD's, blu-rays etc. Dealing with PAL vs NTSC...and dealing with frame pulldown for film to NTSC...

But if you say so,

(And of course film is a chemical process, but the estimation of resolution can be made and in reality, the average grain size of the film stock can also be translated to a numeric pixel value.. You should research it out.)

Sorry to say UFO, you are wrong here. I make my living out of this as well. I'm a commercial/features director. Tv resolution broadcast material is of a higher quality than traditional DVD. Just go and compare a Standard-def beta tape with a DVD. Putting it out on Blu-ray would NOT make it High-def as the additional information doesn't exist, what it would do is allow the best possible version of the existing Pal/Beta/SD recording. Which is better than DVD can handle. I know because I also worked in television for 7 years. And I used to copy any Prince promos which came in on Beta.

24fps vs 25fps.

No difference in quality. I shoot both in the US at 25fps and in UK at 24fps. It's about the playback machinery NOT the picture quality. Infact the American 25FPS broadcast system used to be quite inferior due to NTSC. Which has fewer lines per inch on screen.

[Edited 7/19/11 3:24am]

You're minutely right about resolution, (the difference in terms of pixel if only 6 on the horizontal scale). I've worked at 2 network stations and the only thing that approached pristine DVD quality (in terms of color bleed and similar analog issues associated with tape and heads) seemed to be the big reel to reel video tapes. I had to load one of those for some Ross Perot election commercials once in 1992. And it looked beautiful, but still not really better resolution than DVD has. I've been working with video and film before DVD and digital editing was even taught in school. I used to load the "hot" Beta tapes right out of the reporters hands during the live newscast, and had to dub reel to reel masters to beta... etc.

If converted to absolute pixels, NTSC betacam is 720 x 486 vs DVD 720 x 480. If Lovesexy were shot with digicams in PAL format, then maybe for those few extra pixels you could argue that (even though you cannot tell by one tiny sliver of gained screen), a Blu-ray could contain that frame more accurately within a wraparound letterbox. But the difference of these few pixels is because of compression calcuations. And it cannot be noticed by the human eye unless you had some kind of few pixel wide stripped line that as on the edge of the screen that was important.

Here's the explanation: NTSC SD formats that use 486 lines per frame (such as Digital Betacam, D-1, and D-5) and formats that use 480 lines per frame (such as DV, DVCPRO, and DVD). Why is there this subtle difference? The reason is simple: 480 is divisible by 16, and 486 isn’t. Divisibility by 16 is convenient for certain block-based codecs because each frame is broken into 16 x 16 pixel blocks (known as macroblocks) during compression.

And here's the difference between 24 fps and 25 fps (not resolution but file size). If you shot a feature movie of two hours it would equal 172800 frames at 24 fps and then or 180000 frames at 25 fps. So the difference in just one frame per second equals 7200 frames. Normally movies used to be converted to 29.97 fps with the pulldown for analog videotape, but with digital technology, where it's all about finding ways to shrink the file size, they encode it with the orignal 23.976 fps movie, and your player actually applied the pulldown live on the fly as it outputs the image to your 60i television. Of course some televisions have the ability to uncode the pulldown on the fly and display 23.976 progressive frames in their "cinema" mode.

Now I hope you don't think I'm a DVD proponant. I just bought 6 movies on blu-ray in the last month and enjoy tuning up my tv to videophile standards to watch them. I'm the type who had tons of laserdiscs when that was the high end shit. I just think it's quite erroneous to believe that SD video can be effieciently improved piggybacking on Blu-ray as opposed to DVD.

this thread is really informative we're getting an education on this topic! LOL

Rorywan said:

unique said:

wtf? you really don't have a clue do you?

if you take video at 25fps and run it at 24fps, you still have the same number of frames, only played slower. if you take 24fps film and run it at 25fps you have the same amount of frames, only they will be viewed quicker. 4% quicker approximately. and if you take 24fps film with audio and run it at 25fps you will have less data in total as the audio will the timeshifted and thus run quicker and thus take up less data

that's pretty basic mathematics

so getting back to the original point, do your math and prove that SD material can look better on bluray as a result of the higher bitrate and confirm i'm correct. and stop making irrelevant points

You are correct Unique.

Rorywan, you are wrong. 25 frames is always more frames than 24 frames. Just like 25 eggs are more eggs than 24 eggs. If you push 24 eggs through a hole in one second it's less eggs than pushing 25 eggs through a hole in one second. You need more room to hold 25 eggs. Understand? And the theoretical calulation about bitrate was not for upscaling or anythng like that. It was the per pixel bit rate of each medium. Apparently, (dual layer : one sided) DVD is encoded with more bitrate per pixel of visual information than blu-ray is.

Rorywan said:

ufoclub said:

Funny, I make my living dealing with these formats and rendering out stuff for this type of media, authoring DVD's, blu-rays etc. Dealing with PAL vs NTSC...and dealing with frame pulldown for film to NTSC...

But if you say so,

(And of course film is a chemical process, but the estimation of resolution can be made and in reality, the average grain size of the film stock can also be translated to a numeric pixel value.. You should research it out.)

Sorry to say UFO, you are wrong here. I make my living out of this as well. I'm a commercial/features director. Tv resolution broadcast material is of a higher quality than traditional DVD. Just go and compare a Standard-def beta tape with a DVD. Putting it out on Blu-ray would NOT make it High-def as the additional information doesn't exist, what it would do is allow the best possible version of the existing Pal/Beta/SD recording. Which is better than DVD can handle. I know because I also worked in television for 7 years. And I used to copy any Prince promos which came in on Beta.

24fps vs 25fps.

No difference in quality. I shoot both in the US at 25fps and in UK at 24fps. It's about the playback machinery NOT the picture quality. Infact the American 25FPS broadcast system used to be quite inferior due to NTSC. Which has fewer lines per inch on screen.

[Edited 7/19/11 3:24am]

Check out this article I found on comparing the DVD standard (same resolution as DV) to analog betacam:

http://www.flyingpictureslive.com/cameras/DV-BetaSP.html

"DV formats are recognised to be equal to or slightly better than Betacam SP and MII in terms of picture quality. DV also holds up better over repeated play cycles, where BetaSP shows noticeable dropouts. The DV formats are a just below Digital-S and DVCPRO50, which are themselves a (largely imperceptible) just below Digital Betacam, D-1, and D-5. The DV formats are significantly better than 3/4" U-matic, Hi8, and SVHS."

ufoclub said:

Rorywan said:

You are correct Unique.

Rorywan, you are wrong. 25 frames is always more frames than 24 frames. Just like 25 eggs are more eggs than 24 eggs. If you push 24 eggs through a hole in one second it's less eggs than pushing 25 eggs through a hole in one second. You need more room to hold 25 eggs. Understand? And the theoretical calulation about bitrate was not for upscaling or anythng like that. It was the per pixel bit rate of each medium. Apparently, (dual layer : one sided) DVD is encoded with more bitrate per pixel of visual information than blu-ray is.

It's not visable to the naked eye UFO? Therefore there is no difference in quality to a human being.

If anything the fielding issues compensate for the lack of frame per second.

I transfer from 24 & 25fps all the time as I use a lot of post production in my work. When transfered to HD masters, I can categorically say there is no visible difference. Thats on high end barco monitors.

Anyway thats not my point. My only point in all this is that if the Livesexy gig was recorded onto BetaSp as it was happening there would be a marginal improvement in quality on Blu over Dvd. Would it be worth it? No.

I understand your eggs analogy, but imagine a factory process line with thousands off eggs a minute travelling at high speed.

Would you be able to tell there was one missing every second?

And then imagine the mess involved if the same conveyor belt went waaay too fast...

[Edited 7/19/11 7:02am]

Rorywan said:

ufoclub said:

Rorywan, you are wrong. 25 frames is always more frames than 24 frames. Just like 25 eggs are more eggs than 24 eggs. If you push 24 eggs through a hole in one second it's less eggs than pushing 25 eggs through a hole in one second. You need more room to hold 25 eggs. Understand? And the theoretical calulation about bitrate was not for upscaling or anythng like that. It was the per pixel bit rate of each medium. Apparently, (dual layer : one sided) DVD is encoded with more bitrate per pixel of visual information than blu-ray is.

It's not visable to the naked eye UFO? Therefore there is no difference in quality to a human being.

If anything the fielding issues compensate for the lack of frame per second.

I transfer from 24 & 25fps all the time as I use a lot of post production in my work. When transfered to HD masters, I can categorically say there is no visible difference. Thats on high end barco monitors.

Anyway thats not my point. My only point in all this is that if the Livesexy gig was recorded onto BetaSp as it was happening there would be a marginal improvement in quality on Blu over Dvd. Would it be worth it? No.

I understand your eggs analogy, but imagine a factory process line with thousands off eggs a minute travelling at high speed.

Would you be able to tell there was one missing every second?

And then imagine the mess involved if the same conveyor belt went waaay too fast...

[Edited 7/19/11 7:02am]

Wait what are we talking about? I was talking about file size, not resolution, and how bitrates efficiency is defined by file size at a certain rate and the quality that results. Unique said a while back that 24fps was somehow bigger then 25fps. And this is false. That's what I'm saying.

ufoclub said:

unique said:

wtf? you really don't have a clue do you?

if you take video at 25fps and run it at 24fps, you still have the same number of frames, only played slower. if you take 24fps film and run it at 25fps you have the same amount of frames, only they will be viewed quicker. 4% quicker approximately. and if you take 24fps film with audio and run it at 25fps you will have less data in total as the audio will the timeshifted and thus run quicker and thus take up less data

that's pretty basic mathematics

so getting back to the original point, do your math and prove that SD material can look better on bluray as a result of the higher bitrate and confirm i'm correct. and stop making irrelevant points

You don't know much about this stuff? If you have one second of film composed of 25 frames and one second of film composed of 24 frames, the 25 frame version has 1/25th more information. It has one more frame. Just like if you had one second of sosmething shot at 60fps it would take more than twice as much room on a hard drive.

here's the math: 24/1 < 25/1

understand? Or are you shifting back and forth over which one is bigger? I'm saying the more frames per second you have, the bigger the file size if it's digital, or the longer the strip of film if it's film. I've worked with real film too. Super 8 as kid, and then 16mm and 35mm.

But back to the point of the blu-ray. Can you name one instance of a blu-ray containing a better looking master of an SD video?

I already did the math about the bitrate, and the DVD came out on top. Remember? If you have the same true resolution picture encoded on a DVD vs on a blu-ray (wich would be letterboxed on all sides with black), the DVD has potentially more information per the screen size.

fuck sakes. we aren't talking about film. we are talking about video

and it you take film at 24fps and run it at 25fps the video is going to contain the same data. you wouldn't fucking add extra frames or fields like you would with an NTSC conversion would you?

one instance of bluray containing better looking master of SD video - 2001 a space oddyssey. checkout the extras. it's the same on hd-dvd

i fucking know you did the math on 1080p, but do the fucking math on the other resolutions and you will find i'm fucking right. fuck sakes, how many fucking times do you need to be asked the same fucking question? what fucking shite are you going to come up with next to avoid answering it?

ufoclub said:

Rorywan said:

Sorry to say UFO, you are wrong here. I make my living out of this as well. I'm a commercial/features director. Tv resolution broadcast material is of a higher quality than traditional DVD. Just go and compare a Standard-def beta tape with a DVD. Putting it out on Blu-ray would NOT make it High-def as the additional information doesn't exist, what it would do is allow the best possible version of the existing Pal/Beta/SD recording. Which is better than DVD can handle. I know because I also worked in television for 7 years. And I used to copy any Prince promos which came in on Beta.

24fps vs 25fps.

No difference in quality. I shoot both in the US at 25fps and in UK at 24fps. It's about the playback machinery NOT the picture quality. Infact the American 25FPS broadcast system used to be quite inferior due to NTSC. Which has fewer lines per inch on screen.

[Edited 7/19/11 3:24am]

You're minutely right about resolution, (the difference in terms of pixel if only 6 on the horizontal scale). I've worked at 2 network stations and the only thing that approached pristine DVD quality (in terms of color bleed and similar analog issues associated with tape and heads) seemed to be the big reel to reel video tapes. I had to load one of those for some Ross Perot election commercials once in 1992. And it looked beautiful, but still not really better resolution than DVD has. I've been working with video and film before DVD and digital editing was even taught in school. I used to load the "hot" Beta tapes right out of the reporters hands during the live newscast, and had to dub reel to reel masters to beta... etc.

If converted to absolute pixels, NTSC betacam is 720 x 486 vs DVD 720 x 480. If Lovesexy were shot with digicams in PAL format, then maybe for those few extra pixels you could argue that (even though you cannot tell by one tiny sliver of gained screen), a Blu-ray could contain that frame more accurately within a wraparound letterbox. But the difference of these few pixels is because of compression calcuations. And it cannot be noticed by the human eye unless you had some kind of few pixel wide stripped line that as on the edge of the screen that was important.

Here's the explanation: NTSC SD formats that use 486 lines per frame (such as Digital Betacam, D-1, and D-5) and formats that use 480 lines per frame (such as DV, DVCPRO, and DVD). Why is there this subtle difference? The reason is simple: 480 is divisible by 16, and 486 isn’t. Divisibility by 16 is convenient for certain block-based codecs because each frame is broken into 16 x 16 pixel blocks (known as macroblocks) during compression.

And here's the difference between 24 fps and 25 fps (not resolution but file size). If you shot a feature movie of two hours it would equal 172800 frames at 24 fps and then or 180000 frames at 25 fps. So the difference in just one frame per second equals 7200 frames. Normally movies used to be converted to 29.97 fps with the pulldown for analog videotape, but with digital technology, where it's all about finding ways to shrink the file size, they encode it with the orignal 23.976 fps movie, and your player actually applied the pulldown live on the fly as it outputs the image to your 60i television. Of course some televisions have the ability to uncode the pulldown on the fly and display 23.976 progressive frames in their "cinema" mode.

Now I hope you don't think I'm a DVD proponant. I just bought 6 movies on blu-ray in the last month and enjoy tuning up my tv to videophile standards to watch them. I'm the type who had tons of laserdiscs when that was the high end shit. I just think it's quite erroneous to believe that SD video can be effieciently improved piggybacking on Blu-ray as opposed to DVD.

so snipping all the irrelevant shit that has fuck all to do with what we are talking about, which is a PAL SD analogue video to bluray conversion, wrapped up in all your bullshit you are basically saying that i was fucking right in the first fucking place and you can get better quality on bluray

jeezuz fuck

ufoclub said:

Rorywan said:

You are correct Unique.

Rorywan, you are wrong. 25 frames is always more frames than 24 frames. Just like 25 eggs are more eggs than 24 eggs. If you push 24 eggs through a hole in one second it's less eggs than pushing 25 eggs through a hole in one second. You need more room to hold 25 eggs. Understand? And the theoretical calulation about bitrate was not for upscaling or anythng like that. It was the per pixel bit rate of each medium. Apparently, (dual layer : one sided) DVD is encoded with more bitrate per pixel of visual information than blu-ray is.

fuck sake. can't you fucking read?

we are talking about taking something thats 24fps and running it at 25fps. you don't get any more or any less frames. likewise if you take something at 25fps and run it at 24fps. you don't get any more or any less fucking frames. you just get the same amount of fucking frames running at a different fucking speed

is that simple enough?

it's like me explaining that a car drives on petrol and goes from a to b and then you say, but a boat sails on water and holds more people. two totally different things

unique said:

ufoclub said:

Rorywan, you are wrong. 25 frames is always more frames than 24 frames. Just like 25 eggs are more eggs than 24 eggs. If you push 24 eggs through a hole in one second it's less eggs than pushing 25 eggs through a hole in one second. You need more room to hold 25 eggs. Understand? And the theoretical calulation about bitrate was not for upscaling or anythng like that. It was the per pixel bit rate of each medium. Apparently, (dual layer : one sided) DVD is encoded with more bitrate per pixel of visual information than blu-ray is.

fuck sake. can't you fucking read?

we are talking about taking something thats 24fps and running it at 25fps. you don't get any more or any less frames. likewise if you take something at 25fps and run it at 24fps. you don't get any more or any less fucking frames. you just get the same amount of fucking frames running at a different fucking speed

is that simple enough?

it's like me explaining that a car drives on petrol and goes from a to b and then you say, but a boat sails on water and holds more people. two totally different things

Are you crazy? The pixels are joke, that's why they don't put SD video to blu-ray as long as there is DVDs.

And I've proven you wrong on all counts!

Once again, just name an SD video mastered well to blu-ray? Why can't you answer the question? That's what you're arguing, right? Name one and I will compare it. I'll post the frames in full rez.

ufoclub said:

Rorywan said:

It's not visable to the naked eye UFO? Therefore there is no difference in quality to a human being.

If anything the fielding issues compensate for the lack of frame per second.

I transfer from 24 & 25fps all the time as I use a lot of post production in my work. When transfered to HD masters, I can categorically say there is no visible difference. Thats on high end barco monitors.

Anyway thats not my point. My only point in all this is that if the Livesexy gig was recorded onto BetaSp as it was happening there would be a marginal improvement in quality on Blu over Dvd. Would it be worth it? No.

I understand your eggs analogy, but imagine a factory process line with thousands off eggs a minute travelling at high speed.

Would you be able to tell there was one missing every second?

And then imagine the mess involved if the same conveyor belt went waaay too fast...

[Edited 7/19/11 7:02am]

Wait what are we talking about? I was talking about file size, not resolution, and how bitrates efficiency is defined by file size at a certain rate and the quality that results. Unique said a while back that 24fps was somehow bigger then 25fps. And this is false. That's what I'm saying.

i didn't fucking say that at all. you said some shite, i agreed with you to see your reaction and if you picked up on your own error, you didn't so i pointed it out. you still didn't fucking understand so i explained again about 15 fucking times

if you have a source at any frame rate and run it at a different speed, you don't get more or less frames, the running time changes. if you want to keep the same or similar running speed then you need to add extra frames, but the whole fucking point of this converation is about some SD pal video that needs no frame rate conversion, so any talk about changing frame rates is irrelevant

Unique, I think you need a hug or something.

And you don't have to thank me for helping your side of the argument. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

And yes, SD blu-ray extras are a good example, which is why I mentioned them earlier.

And no need to thank me for also for drawing the conclusion out of UFO that indeed your were correct with your initial comment.

..calm now..calm, calm..

Need some eggs?

ufoclub said:

unique said:

fuck sake. can't you fucking read?

we are talking about taking something thats 24fps and running it at 25fps. you don't get any more or any less frames. likewise if you take something at 25fps and run it at 24fps. you don't get any more or any less fucking frames. you just get the same amount of fucking frames running at a different fucking speed

is that simple enough?

it's like me explaining that a car drives on petrol and goes from a to b and then you say, but a boat sails on water and holds more people. two totally different things

Are you crazy? The pixels are joke, that's why they don't put SD video to blu-ray as long as there is DVDs.

And I've proven you wrong on all counts!

Once again, just name an SD video mastered well to blu-ray? Why can't you answer the question? That's what you're arguing, right? Name one and I will compare it. I'll post the frames in full rez.

read what the fuck i said. the extras in 2001 are SD video to bluray or HD dvd

you haven't proven a fucking single thing i've said wrong because i've always been fucking right as per fucking normal and you've ever been wrong or not understood a simple fucking question and waffled on about some other irrelevant shite instead

unique said:

ufoclub said:

Rorywan, you are wrong. 25 frames is always more frames than 24 frames. Just like 25 eggs are more eggs than 24 eggs. If you push 24 eggs through a hole in one second it's less eggs than pushing 25 eggs through a hole in one second. You need more room to hold 25 eggs. Understand? And the theoretical calulation about bitrate was not for upscaling or anythng like that. It was the per pixel bit rate of each medium. Apparently, (dual layer : one sided) DVD is encoded with more bitrate per pixel of visual information than blu-ray is.

fuck sake. can't you fucking read?

we are talking about taking something thats 24fps and running it at 25fps. you don't get any more or any less frames. likewise if you take something at 25fps and run it at 24fps. you don't get any more or any less fucking frames. you just get the same amount of fucking frames running at a different fucking speed

is that simple enough?

it's like me explaining that a car drives on petrol and goes from a to b and then you say, but a boat sails on water and holds more people. two totally different things

Trying to say that 24 = 25 is WRONG. 25 a little bit bigger. If you had a movie that was 60 fps, then that information takes up twice as much room as a movie that is 30 fps even in digital format. If you have a strip of film that is 60 frames long, it is twice as long as a strip of film that is 30 frames long, regardless. You have to push that film twice as fast through the projector to see the same one second of motion, and you need twice as much room on a reel.

Can't you understand that?

....or not.

Have fun!

Rorywan said:

Unique, I think you need a hug or something.

And you don't have to thank me for helping your side of the argument. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

And yes, SD blu-ray extras are a good example, which is why I mentioned them earlier.

And no need to thank me for also for drawing the conclusion out of UFO that indeed your were correct with your initial comment.

..calm now..calm, calm..

Need some eggs?

I AM FUCKING CALM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unique said:

ufoclub said:

Are you crazy? The pixels are joke, that's why they don't put SD video to blu-ray as long as there is DVDs.

And I've proven you wrong on all counts!

Once again, just name an SD video mastered well to blu-ray? Why can't you answer the question? That's what you're arguing, right? Name one and I will compare it. I'll post the frames in full rez.

read what the fuck i said. the extras in 2001 are SD video to bluray or HD dvd

you haven't proven a fucking single thing i've said wrong because i've always been fucking right as per fucking normal and you've ever been wrong or not understood a simple fucking question and waffled on about some other irrelevant shite instead

Okay let me extract a frame from the blu-ray vs the DVD. It will take me a little while, I'm in post on 3 videos/animations that are due and because I have to actually install a blu-ray drive into the computer (luckily I happen to have had one sitting around for a year), but once I do I can rip a frame off of both to compare a frame. If you're right than you're right! I think it would be hilarious if they actually just included the same size mpg on the blu-ray which is then upscaled by your player.

I'll post the frame comparison right here when I can get them. If the blu-ray looks better, then you won.

ufoclub said:

unique said:

fuck sake. can't you fucking read?

we are talking about taking something thats 24fps and running it at 25fps. you don't get any more or any less frames. likewise if you take something at 25fps and run it at 24fps. you don't get any more or any less fucking frames. you just get the same amount of fucking frames running at a different fucking speed

is that simple enough?

it's like me explaining that a car drives on petrol and goes from a to b and then you say, but a boat sails on water and holds more people. two totally different things

Trying to say that 24 = 25 is WRONG. 25 a little bit bigger. If you had a movie that was 60 fps, then that information takes up twice as much room as a movie that is 30 fps even in digital format. If you have a strip of film that is 60 frames long, it is twice as long as a strip of film that is 30 frames long, regardless. You have to push that film twice as fast through the projector to see the same one second of motion, and you need twice as much room on a reel.

Can't you understand that?

i fucking know that and i fucking understand that. but it's not got fuck all to do with anything we've been talking about

don't you fucking read what people are saying to you before you answer?

ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HAS ANYFUCKINGTHINGWHATSOEVER TO DO WITH FILM

and nothing we've been discussing has anything to do with converting running speed, frames, fields or anything like that at all. we aren't talking about converting 24fps film to 25 fps. and if we did, we would STILL HAVE THE SAME FUCKING NUMBER OF FRAMES, they would just be runing through the motherfucking machine a bit fucking faster whilst the audio plays a bit fucking faster. approximately 4% faster which is approximately a half semitone increase in pitch. but as we aren't talking about a film master, this has fuck all to do with what we are talking about