[QuadList] DVD vs Blu-Ray

[Steve White]

James,

Thanks very much for the details.

I'm certain the DVD originated as 16:9 and probably as HD because I've 
seen a reference to the fact that they were recording for release in 
both Blu-Ray and DVD.  I saw the show when it aired live on CBS a couple 
of weeks ago in some flavor of high definition.

I'm always impressed by the knowledge this group possesses, but suppose 
this is what you guys do, after all.  I managed to keep an RCA CT-100 
alive for several years in the early to mid-60s using components from 
the same chassis incarnated as a Conrac monitor. The two cost me $75.00 
and provided some serious fun and challenges...not the least of which 
was moving them from DC to Fitchburg, Mass and then to Charlotte, NC.  
Can't believe I didn't find a way to hold on to them.

I suppose I can claim partial credit for my recollections from those 
days regarding the color subcarrier?  To put a VERY fine point on 
things, were we using the term hertz/Hz when stating a frequency back 
then, or did that term work its way into common use sometime later?

Regards,
Steve


On 12/23/13 1:24 PM, James Snyder wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Strictly speaking, no DVD can be "NTSC" since NTSC was the 525 line 
> analog television standard and DVDs are, by their nature, digital TV 
> delivery media in the 480 line format in the former "NTSC" countries 
> (using MPEG-2 video compression), and 576 format in the former PAL & 
> SECAM countries.  However, "NTSC" has become a colloquialism for "480 
> line video" and is thus misused constantly.
>
> The difference between NTSC and 480 being that, since digital signals 
> don't need horizontal or vertical blanking intervals, the extra lines 
> used for those timing signals for analog CRTs are not included in 
> digital video.  There were 45 lines of blanking in NTSC.  Same with 
> 576:  the H and V blanking lines in 625 line video aren't needed in 
> digital TV and are thus not included in the digital signals.
>
> DVDs have the ability to reproduce 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio video, 
> so if the people on your Garth Brooks DVD don't look squished, most 
> likely the video was orginated in 16:9 480 line digital video.  I 
> can't imagine anybody creating anything in actual NTSC analog today. 
> It would look like crap with all the analog artifacts.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> James
> ------------------------------------------------
> James Snyder
> Senior Systems Administrator
> Library of Congress -
>   National Audio Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC)
> Motion Picture, Broadcasting & Recorded Sound Division (MBRS)
> Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation
> http://www.loc.gov/avconservation/packard/
>
>
>
>> Thanks for the opportunity to ask, can someone help me get a better 
>> grasp of DVD vs Blu-Ray formats?
>>
>> I recently received a video disc labeled as an NTSC DVD of the Garth 
>> Brooks "Blame It All On My Roots" performance in Las Vegas. Playback 
>> on my Blu-Ray deck displays as full screen on a new Panasonic plasma 
>> screen capable of 1080p without obvious aspect ratio distortions.
>>
>> Garth's performance is incredible; lighting, camera work, audio, 
>> direction all are great.  Apparently, there is currently no Blu-Ray 
>> disc available.
>>
>> - Is it technically correct to label the DVD as NTSC when the image 
>> displayed is 16:9?
>>
>> - What's the likely resolution/format?  Any suggestions on how I 
>> could have confirmed that without asking you?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> Steve
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://quadvideotapegroup.com/pipermail/quadlist_quadvideotapegroup.com/attachments/20131223/a12dec79/attachment-0005.html>