Classical Music Forum banner

DVD/Blu-ray equipment and media

6K views 33 replies 11 participants last post by  Almaviva 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Almaviva speaking, here:

Since we had a thread on NTSC vs. PAL and another one on brands of DVD+R, I thought that just like the Hi-Fi subforum, we need a space for discussions of the equipament we use to see or record operas on DVD and Blu-ray.

Here we'll ask technical questions, recommend models to buy, talk about pros and cons of players, inquire about the technology of high definition, etc.

----------------------------------------

I have started by moving Annie's thread about PAL vs. NTSC here. I had to edit her original post to do it in the right order, because anytime we move posts, they get arranged by chronological order, so, the only way to get this introduction here was to insert it into her post.

-----------------------------------------

Annie (sospiro) said:

-----------------------------------------

Would be grateful for a bit of advice.

This Mefistofele is NTSC Region Free & I got it new. It seemed a bit fuzzy but I put that down to age (1989)



In a couple of places it jumped a second or two but not enough to want to return it. The jumping got worse but by then it was too late to return. I love this opera & decided to get another copy & found this quite cheap on Market Seller. It's PAL & Region 2 & 5 only.



I played it through tonight to check for faults & it's fine. But what struck me was the vastly superior quality of the PAL version. Is this usually the case or was my NTSC version a poor quality edition to start with?

What I'm really asking in a round about way is - is there a difference in the quality between NTSC & PAL?
 
See less See more
2
#2 ·
Annie, the NTSC system uses 525 vertical lines versus 625 for the PAL system so yes, the PAL system has superior vertical resolution. However the NTSC system has faster refreshing rate and is better for fast moving images, since it refreshes 60 times per second while PAL, depending on the sub-standard used (M, N, L, etc) has a refreshing rate of 25 to 50 frames per second.

The bottom line is that each system has advantages and shortcomings, but yes, the PAL does have better resolution. However the difference is not huge, so if your PAL version is that much better, it may be a question of a better transfer to DVD, which will vary according to the company that produces the DVD.

In terms of your disc jumping, make sure you clean the surface very well with a microfiber cloth, sometimes this is enough to correct the problem.

And yes, it's a good opera, isn't it?
 
#3 ·
To add to Almaviva's very informative post, you can also suffer from judder if you choose a format that refreshes at a different rate than your display. For example, in the US all LCDs refresh at 60 fps (or higher multiples of the same). This is great for media recorded at 30 or 60 frames per second, since it divides evenly into it. However, American films and PAL media are not shot at 30 or 60 fps, so the problem becomes of how to fit 24 frames per second (film) or 25/50 frames per second (PAL) into the 60 frames that an LCD refreshes per second. For Film, they use what's called 3:2 pulldown, which means Frame 1 is displayed for 3 frames on the monitor, frame 2 for 2 frames, and so on. This allows you to map the movie correctly time-wise, but at the cost of smoothness and continuity in the image.

For PAL, I believe the issue is generally resolved by actually lowering the framerate to 24 and then using 3:2 pulldown. This not only introduces judder, but actually shifts the audio down by roughly a semitone. For the reverse (NTSC on PAL displays), the issue would be reversed -- the audio would be pitched up by about a semitone as they make each frame display for slightly less time so they can fit 25 frames of 24 fps media into one second.

In short: for best and most accurate picture and sound quality, find out how fast your display refreshes and then buy media appropriate for it.
 
#12 ·
I recently bought my first Sony 3D TV. I watched Tangled (Disney cartoon movie) and I was blown away. As far as I know, there are no operas in 3D. Anyway opera will not benefit as much as cartoons or sport from 3D. As for opera, I have only one blue ray (Traviata with Angela Gheorghiu). Most operas that are wide screen, are upgraded by my receiver to a crystal clear image and sound. Sometimes I wonder if it is worth buying opera in Blue ray. I have older productions I love and their image is 3:4 and quite poor by comparison, but they are better then other fancy new DVD.

PS: Imagine Anna in 3D!!!:lol:
 
#13 ·
Yes, there are operas in 3D. There was a recent Carmen in 3D. And more will come.
Yes, absolutely, it is more than worth buying opera on Blu-ray. Not only the image is far superior, but the sound is, as well.
I wouldn't start replacing one's collection, but if you want to buy a new product and it comes both on DVD and blu-ray, absolutely, buy the blu-ray! They are often the same price or a few bucks in difference, and the quality of a good blu-ray more than justifies a couple of dollars more.

Anna in 3D - you bet! The first time she gets an opera released in 3D, you can be sure that I'll rush to the store and upgrade my TV.

My problem is that I bought a fairly high-end TV right before the 3Ds were released and I think it's still early to upgrade, I'm still very satisfied with it. I'll wait longer when we get more 3D channels and more 3D media, especially opera. Then I'll upgrade. But yes, I can't wait for Anna Netrebko La Bellissima in 3D!!!:cool:
 
#14 ·
I also regret as I bought a 52 " Sony Bravia XBR LCD a few months before this 3D technology struck the market. Even on sale it was very expensive. "Regret" is not the best word, because the TV is simply awesome, only it's not 3 D.
The new 3D TV is "only" 40" but it has LED technology so it's almost like paper thin. I also love it.
Where did you find that Carmen 3 D?
 
#15 ·
The Carmen 3D was from either the Liceo or La Scala, I don't remember. It was broadcast to theaters, I assume it's just a matter of time until it makes it into a 3D disc.
 
#16 · (Edited)
I am a little confused, about this 3D technology and its marketing strategy. I have some hints that my non 3D TV is able to display 3D images, only it lacks some software that would allow 3D playing. I tried to play the 3D Blue ray DVD on my big screen non 3D. For a couple of seconds it displayed the Disney Castle (apparently 3D?) but that image was quickly replaced by a window saying "the DVD detected a non 3D TV, you should insert this disc in a 3D ....bla, bla.
I smell something fishy. I know the Sony guys say the 3D TVs have (I could not understand) whatever type of pixels... I also know the refresh rate should be over 120 Hz, and my TV is 120, but I lack some technical details. And I also realized Sony's 3D technology uses active polarized goggles (glasses). Anybody knows more?
 
#26 ·
I don't think a non-3D TV can display 3D images, sabrina. 3D technology relies on two simultaneous images filmed from slightly different angles that get isolated to each of your eyes by the polarized glasses - for the active kind polarization keeps changing several times per second and when it's on phase you see it, out of phase you don't. Thus, you can block certain images to the left eye, and certain others to the right eye, chosing what to show to each eye. This way, what your left eye sees is different from what your right eye sees (just like in real life - that is, the slightly differently angled image), creating the impression of field depth. The TV needs to communicate with your glasses to synchronize the polarization signals with what the screen is displaying, and needs to refresh the image several times per second to reproduce movement. Therefore it is not just a question of software, but also hardware. Since your non-3D TV doesn't have this piece of hardware that communicates with the glasses, it can't produce the 3D effect.
 
#17 ·
This is how the future looks: you all will be busy saving money for the 3D flatscreen, then you'll take the big decision, the even bigger flatscreen begoggles you completely, you buy a lot of Bluerays and you keep your 3D glasses on outside in order to begoggle the neighbours.
But... as soon as you have invested your money on this the industry will come forward with a 3D technology that doesn't need glasses and they will introduce the follow-up on Blueray as well, making all your discs soon obsolete. My advice: wait for 3D without glasses and don't loose too much money on blueray, because it is a dinosaur like betamax.
 
#27 ·
Thank you Almaviva for your answer. I know I need a transmitter that communicates with my active glasses to see the 3D images. I have the transmitter (from the new TV), only there is no "jack" in my "old" TV where I could plug it in. I also guess that jack may be connected to a piece of hardware on the TV motherboard. What I don't know is whether the screen with its pixels is the same or there is a real difference between a 3D TV and a non 3DTV screen. I guess the screen is identical. As I said, I had the image of the Disney castle for a few seconds on the non 3D TV. It looked identical (blurry) with the image on my 3D TV when you look without glasses. But the disc was wise enough to recognize the TV. If the screens are identical, and the TV refresh rate is at least 120 Hz, then any old TV can be easily (theoretical) turned into a 3D TV.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Good question, sabrina, and one that I don't know the answer for. Certainly 3D TV sets require additional software and hardware, but the display itself (the screen) may very well be identical in 3D-capable TVs and high-end 2D HDTVs. I believe the makers would not try to sell kits to adapt old TVs to the new technology because of course they want us to buy new TV sets.

By the way, the glasses-free 3D TVs already exist; one commercial model is being sold in China for $20,000, but Toshiba is supposed to release much less costly models worldwide by 2015 (they already have a small 12 inches model for single viewer for $1,400). They use, instead of phase polarization, a technology called Autostereoscopy in which the display itself sends different images to the viewer's eyes. Limitations include the need to stay put in a given position in front of the TV to be able to receive the images. Some are for one viewer only, and others shoot images to different points of the room, for multiple viewers. Fascinating, but tricky.

So, Auto3D TVs that are glasses-free definitely use different screens, but the more common technology, like you said, may very well use similar or identical screens.

There are still format wars and no standard technology.

It's nice that you're already enjoying your 3D TV, but I will wait until there is more definition in the market and lower prices.
 
#30 ·
The Carmen was actually from Covent Garden. Because they made a mess of the theatre to film it. I think that will be one of the issues with 3D opera. It seems that the cameras are quite intrusive in respect of the audience and the opera houses will need to do special shows to capture the performance. Covent Garden offered heavily discounted tickets for the 3D perfomance as they told people that they will get distracted by the cameras.

So it maybe that they slowly trickle for quite a while and not come in a flood like blu ray did when they fought off HD/DVD (remember that?)
 
#32 ·
I ended up buying a 3DTV. Content is terrible, though, there are mostly animations and Hollywood blockbusters. I think it'll be a long time until they start releasing opera blu-rays on 3D.

Together with this upgrade I bought an AV receiver "used, like new" from an Amazon.com marketplace vendor - a model with good features and a bargain price. I thought I was getting a pretty good deal. However, when it arrived I realized that the "like new" part was very optimistic. It had a broken part, it was bent on one side, and only certain features worked. I sent it back, of course. So, beware of buying electronics under the "used, like new" label from Amazon marketplace vendors. I can't generalize, of course, and this was my very first bad experience (although so far I had been only buying used books, CDs, and DVDs from these vendors and these are less subject to surprises) but from now on I'll be really weary of buying used equipment. I bought the very same model brand new (for a lot more money) from Amazon.com itself, and it arrived in great shape, with everything working. So, attempts to save money by buying used items are not always the smart thing to do.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top