R1 or R2... what is the best??

Comments

• Options

  [Deleted User] Posts: 10

  Forum Member

  23/08/00 - 15:33 #2

  Woah, that's a hugely sweeping question as it depends on a number of factors. If you go from the technical specifications then Region 2 should have the best picture quality as PAL (R2) has a superior resolution to NTSC (R1), but in reality, the following all play a part;
  
  1) The quality of the master that the DVD is pressed from. A bad quality, scratched master will result in a bad quality DVD. If R2 is taken from a bad master and R1 from a good, chances are the R1 will look better.
  
  2) The quality of the encoding on the disc. A badly encoded R2 disc will look much worse than a well encoded but lower resolution R1 disc.
  
  3) Whether the title is anamorphic or not. Again, an anamorphic R1 will look better than a non-anamorphic R2.
  
  All in all it varies from disc to disc. As it stands, the two regions are pretty much on a par with each other although each region has its gems. One other important factor to bear in mind is the 3:2 pull down NTSC discs suffer from. To cut a long story short, pans are much smoother on PAL titles than on NTSC and this has been known to get on some people's wick.
  
  One final thing to remember is that you can get R2 NTSC discs (Japan mainly), so the real question should be, "Which are better, PAL or NTSC discs?" And the answer is, "It depends."
  
  [This message has been edited by CarlP (edited 23 August 2000).]

  0
• Options

  [Deleted User] Posts: 90

  Forum Member

  ✭

  06/09/00 - 23:26 #3

  AS the post says above it depends on several things
  
  However for content I would say Region 1. Region 1 discs do not have to have their content rated, whereas DVD's in the UK have to have content rated by the BBFC

  0
• Options

  [Deleted User] Posts: 3,304

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  19/09/00 - 16:56 #4

  I think _that_ is a bit of a sweeping generalisation though - just because R1 discs don't have the extras rated doesn't in and of itself cause the quality of the discs to be higher. It is from time to time the case that the R2 will have fewer extras than the R1 (unfortunately this often seems to happen on higher profile discs - The Matrix is the first one that springs to mind) but there are equal numbers of R2 discs that are better than R1 in terms of extras.
  
  Each of the regions has it's star discs - some discs are the same all over, some aren't. Matrix for example - although the R1 is better than the R2 because of the extra content, the best version of the disc is actually to be had from Australia which has better picture quality of PAL, combined with all the extras.
  
  On the subject of picture quality I would have to fall on the side of R2/PAL for the vast majority of cases, although the gap is closing of late. In the earlier days of DVD support for anamorphic transfers on region one discs was nowhere near the levels it is now, wiht Fox, Paramount, Buena Vista and many others not even providing anamorphic for their best films. In region two however anamorphic has got much greater support (because more of us have widescreen TVs here, and so more of us can take advantage of the extra resolution) - this has lead to scores of discs which are anamorphic here and not in R1.
  
  Having said all that, as CarlP says, it is dependant on a number of factors - but the rule of thumb is usually that if a clean high-def master exists of a film (as most special editions coming out now have - Jaws, MIB, Jurrassic Park, all new films) then the PAL downconversion will look better than the NTSC downconversion.
  
  Phew! That's a long reply.

  0