Hey there MN....
(EDIT:I know there is another thread on this but I guess I was more interested in which player to go with...)
I was doing a little bit of research on the HI-Def issue. I have a HD ready TV now and I was wondering which direction to go. Is there one machine/player someone could recommend? I guess they don't make one player to handle both formats? (wishful thinking, me thinks). As far as formats which way to go?
Is there one Hi_def DVD version I should pick up as introduction to how good the other side is?


Interested in all your thoughts...

The other question I have is how is this format affected by the PAL/NTSC issue...is there a difference. I live in Europe...

I'm presuming you're not a games player, since I guess a lot of people are having the decision made for them by the type of games console they use – Xbox players are getting the HD-DVD add-on, while Playstation folk are obviously going Blu-ray. But the conseusus – certainly on this board – seems to be that HD-DVD currently has the best movies and the best chance of survival.

No idea about PAL/NTSC, I've not really read about that. I presume modern HD-ready TVs must be able to play both signals? And as for a standalong HD-DVD or Blu-ray player, Ben's probably the man to ask.

I am a gamer, but i am still in ps2 world and I only froth at the mouth every few months for a few days and then I forget I have it..until the next game.
I will look into the X-Box through Amazon.de. I think you are right about HD being the next universal format. I want to get a player. If it is not too much more expensive I will go the xbox with the add-on. Thanks...

Daniel,

A very good messageboard for information on HD and all other Audio/Visual topics is www.avforums.com

The Toshiba HD-DVD (HD-E1) player is, I think, the cheapest option for standalone HD players so far in Europer. It's had decent reviews thus far.

Thanks for the link and the tip bladesaw

Can a modern digital tv do PAL/NTSC conversion? Most likely it's able to. However, the greedy MPAA will make sure that it won't. I don't know if there are any hacked multiregion players yet, as neither format is established enough to be manufactured by the smaller companies. It's usually the small Asian companies' machines that are easily hackable, as they are made to be sold all over the world.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

By digital do you mean HD? As far as I know they can deal with anything that they have a tuner for or that a device connected to them can deal with. So my HDTV can't receive broadcast PAL but should be able to play when connected to a PAL DVD player. They are basically just big ol' monitors with tuners.

Sorry, came in late here. Let me clear up a couple of things:

PAL/NTSC doesnt exist in the terms of an HD signal - HD resolution is either made up of 720 lines progressive, 1080 lines interlaced, or 1080 lines progressive (the highest resolution), regardless of country of origin. This is the reason why take up of HD broadcasting has made a more dramatic difference in the US - as the step up from the vastly inferior NTSC signal is more dramatic than the jump from PAL to HD.

If you are referring to region coding then HD-DVD has no such encoding as yet (speculation says they may introduce it at a later date). However all current players are region-free and will remain as such regardless of what happens later. Blu-Ray is a different kettle of fish and has DRM up the arse - with a region coding system similar to standar DVD.

What is the whole attitude that PAL is so superior to NTSC? I hear this alot from the UK and it really isn't true. And considering the properties of vacuum tubes (something which I am much more familiar with than about anyone else you are likely to meet after years of high-end audio work for international recording acts) the ability to adjust tint makes a great deal of sense, even though most modern articles ingnore this.. The reason HD broadcasting has made a huge difference in the US is because it has become the nationally mandated standard. There are several reasons for this change that you will hear (including freeing up broadcast frequencies) but one of the major forces behind it are the DVD manufacturers who want to be able to bump up to a much more difficult format to pirate. If this was simply a quality issue the change would have been made in the late 80's like it was originally supposed to...

PAL has greater vertical resolution than NTSC, or am I missing something?

yep PAL has 576 vertical lines of resolution versus NTSC's 480 so there is a visible improvement in the sharpness of image, colour also suffers in NTSC picture.....there's a reason why UK broadcast engineers call NTSC, Never The Same Colour.

Yes, it does have more lines of vertical resolution. It also has a slower refresh rate and a different aspect ratio. I have dealt with many, many professionals who work in both systems (including my wife, who spent a year of college in the UK specifically to learn PAL broadcast systems) and they all say that the difference isn't really noticable. The combing system of NTSC tends to be superior, by the way, and the same engineers who termed NTSC "Never the same color" tagged PAL as "Picture Always Lousy," because of the (what? so it isn't so!) color problems (I've also heard "Pay Another License" but I think that has to do with the fact that you have to pay for each TV, which brings up the point that several of the internationally versed production people I know pointed out that alot of the PAL hype seems to rest with the UK government pumping up their decision to use it over PAL variants, NTSC and SECAM). I had a really, really nice NTSC TV that had an incredibly clear picture (because of the high end comb system) and really, honestly, can't tell much of a difference. I wouldn't say that the HD picture is that much better, if better at all. In fact, a great deal of stuff looks worse in the HD format than it did on the NTSC format. Granted, I only have a 768p TV but there was no way I could get a flat 1080 and it had to be a flat tv for mounting over the fireplace!

Haha - this is beginning to remind me of the frankly bizarre anti-widescreen brigade that was out there in the early days of DVD. Anyone remember the insanely deluded Bernard J Farber?

Here's some choice quotes:
"Widescreen is censorship."
"Widescreen violates the Americans with Disabilities Act."
"You don't really lose anything with a full screen."

Michael L. - I'm not for a minute suggesting you're in this league - it's just this debate here gave me a bit of a flashback.

Not at all! I actually love the widescreen aspect of HD, of course, I buy letterbox stuff, too... But what annoys me is that we have changed the entire broadcast standard of the country for no good reason. After all, most TV doesn't need to be in widescreen (just like so many movies don't use a widescreen... if your feature is one head shot after another, there is alot of wasted space)! Plus, very few people actually use broadcast TV (my only non-satellite TV was a battery operated portable) because satellite and cable connection is so common. And it is costing people money to keep up (my medium end HD flatscreen was over twice as much as my high end NTSC three years ago that still looks great) and is costing me, as a small business owner, a huge amount in equipment upgrades. I got three broadcast grade camcorders for what one decent HD cam will cost me. Oh crap, the headache is coming back again....