DVD Voices
POSTED BY: AnObjectinSpace
UPDATED: Thursday, February 16, 2006 16:22
VIEWED: 4792
PAGE 2 of 2
The issue is the PAL video standard that's used in much of the world except north america.
Film has 24 frames per second everywhere in the world. NTSC video (north america) has 30 frames a second (29.97, really) so each second, in effect, 6 of the movie frames are shown twice in a row. That's actually a bit simplified, since it's really done by fields rather than frames, but it amounts to about the same thing. The bottom line is that the speed comes out almost exact.
PAL, however, has 25 frames per second. There's no way to convert 24 film frames to 25 video frames smoothly -- if you doubled one frame a second it would be very noticable (and objectionable). So PAL transfers the frames one-for-one and just shows them faster. The difference is 4%. The audio playback is sped up to follow suit.
If they want to go the extra mile, the transfer company could digitally process the audio track to keep it the same pitch -- but it would still be 4% faster. This was not done on the Serenity transfer, or most other movies for that matter.
You'll notice the running time is 5 minutes shorter, too -- same reason.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They probably let the pitch go up because increasing the speed without increasing the pitch is more complicated and will cost more in fidelity.
It's not all bad for PAL regions - The PAL image is a higher resolution than NTSC (625 lines vs 525 lines).
I read somewhere that PAL and NTSC framerates were determined by the frequencies of the mains electricity in their countries (50hz in Europe, 60hz in US). Electronics were much more primitive when TV was invented and it was simpler to use the mains than have a built in oscillator.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Things aren't quite so simple. (They never are...)
Originally posted by niknak:
I read somewhere that PAL and NTSC framerates were determined by the frequencies of the mains electricity in their countries (50hz in Europe, 60hz in US). Electronics were much more primitive when TV was invented and it was simpler to use the mains than have a built in oscillator.
While I'm sure that the AC line frequency was an important factor, note two things: one, it's the broadcast that sets the field/frame rate; the receiver locks to it. That is, the cost is on the transmission side; the receiver doesn't need an expensive accurate timebase.
Second, the frame rate of NTSC is NOT exactly 30Hz (so not exactly related to the line frequency). This was done ON PURPOSE because it eliminates the problem of visible "beat" artifacts between the vertical rate and the line (which may drift a bit around 60Hz, though the long term average is carefully controlled to be exactly 60Hz). This small offset frequency allows NTSC to have simpler (read cheaper) power supply circuitry.
PAL, I believe, does use exactly 50Hz so it is potentially vulnerable to these artifacts; therefore PAL receivers must have more sophisticated (more costly) power supply circuits.
Today, electronics has become so much cheaper and more sophisticated that these historical considerations are more or less moot. Still, for mass market products, every fraction of a penny is important. I understand that NTSC sets are still marginally cheaper than PAL TVs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just had a thought. I always wondered why actors seem to have a higher pitch to their voices when they're acting but not when they're giving interviews and such.
I remember seeing an interview on tv with Sarah Michelle Gellar and thinking how much lower the pitch of her voice is compared to when she is playing Buffy.
Well, I think I just worked it out 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, yeah... could be. It depends.
Originally posted by JynnanTonnyx:
Just had a thought. I always wondered why actors seem to have a higher pitch to their voices when they're acting but not when they're giving interviews and such.
I remember seeing an interview on tv with Sarah Michelle Gellar and thinking how much lower the pitch of her voice is compared to when she is playing Buffy.
Well, I think I just worked it out
I assume you're in a PAL or SECAM country (SECAM is basically PAL). So the chances are good that you've seen mostly up-pitched transfers of movies.
Now when it comes to transfers from NTSC shot-on-video sources (like most American TV shows) to PAL, I'm not as knowledgable. I would guess that out of every 60 NTSC fields, 10 would be dropped to make the 50 PAL fields. That would keep the time scale correct. (There would also be interpolation to create the extra lines in each PAL frame.)
So you should only notice the pitch change in shot-on-film source material, but not in shot-on-video.
Another possibility is that the actors you're thinking about actually do use a higher voice timbre when playing their roles. I know for sure that Adam Baldwin does just the opposite -- his real-life voice is notably higher and softer than his rough, gruff Jayne voice. It's quite striking when you're talking to him in person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DonCoat:
that the actors you're thinking about actually do use a higher voice timbre when playing their roles. I know for sure that Adam Baldwin does just the opposite -- his real-life voice is notably higher and softer than his rough, gruff Jayne voice. It's quite striking when you're talking to him in person.
You've met him!? I'm jealous! I watched Independence Day recently and noticed how different his voice was in that - not as gruff, and a different accent.
It's probably a bit of both. But I've only ever noticed it in American actors. In Australian movies it sounds the same to me. It's all very interesting really. I might go watch Serenity again and see if I notice it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I got to meet all the BDHs except Gina at last December's Flanvention. Adam was one who I didn't get to spend very much time with personally, just a couple quick remarks. But he was on stage for several Q&A sessions.
Originally posted by JynnanTonnyx:Quote:
Originally posted by DonCoat:
that the actors you're thinking about actually do use a higher voice timbre when playing their roles. I know for sure that Adam Baldwin does just the opposite -- his real-life voice is notably higher and softer than his rough, gruff Jayne voice. It's quite striking when you're talking to him in person.
You've met him!? I'm jealous! I watched Independence Day recently and noticed how different his voice was in that - not as gruff, and a different accent.
Besides, it really doesn't take long to notice the difference in his voice. Like maybe three words!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME