Excuse me, I'll get my coat...

[Mike T]

I'm like Mark -- overscan on the HDTV means they both look the same, so it's not an issue...and certainly not noticeable. But as I said, from reading a few tech-heavy (as well as know-it-all) forums about the interwebs, some people seem to treat the matter like some kind of crime against humanity. It's amazing how much shit some people talk when they're bored...

[Todd Jordan]

I probably wouldn't even notice it. Not sure if I ever have.

[Ian Jane]

With other aspect ratios it's obviously a much bigger deal, but since 1.78.1 and 1.85.1 are so close, I don't find it all that noticeable.

[Mark Tolch]

I think that if cropping to 1.78:1, the new "fullscreen" is accepted as the norm, that will get out of hand, though it's certainly no pan and scan. I hear what you're saying though...my TV essentially displays 1.78 and 1.85 the same way, thanks to the overscan....not a huge deal for me.

[Mike T]

...the 1.78.1 to 1.85.1 shift doesn't bug me.

Doesn't bug me either, as it's literally a sliver of onscreen information lost/gained. But as I noted, some people on movie-nerd forums act like it's the end of the world. Tossers...

[Ian Jane]

I understand the purist mentality that causes people to gripe about things like that, but personally, the 1.78.1 to 1.85.1 shift doesn't bug me.

[Mike T]

Another thought: Cropping a film from 1.85 to 1.78...what's the big deal? You're losing 0.07 of the frame, unless the picture is being opened up for 1.78. Why do movie nerds on internet forums carry on about this minor fact like someone's nicked their balls with a rusty razor and then rubbed the open cut with half a lemon? I am guessing some folks have no lives...

[Mike T]

Oh, I'm not saying that people don't hear the half a semi-octave increase in pitch. I'm sure a small percentage, yourself included (your music background would help), do.

But what I am saying is that, against supportable facts and figures, there's an awful lot of movie geeks out there on the internerd claiming a whole lot of bullshit just because they want to be seen as "experts" (such are their miserable existences). My suggestion is that many of those people are experts...but experts in having one off the wrist over anything else. It's like the old saying: just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true. ;)

[Mark Tolch]

I would say that I've never "seen" PAL speedup. And I'm not pitch-perfect. But for the most part, I WILL notice the audio difference almost immediately, especially if the actors have voices that I'm familiar with.

[Mike T]

Another thought: PAL speed-up increases a film's speed by 4%, which is imperceptible to the human eye, and increases audio pitch by half a semi-tone. Unless you have perfect-pitch hearing (or maybe have a background in music which would give you a greater sensitivity towards it), the increase of half a semi-tone is also virtually imperceptible to the human ear. Perfect pitch, or absolute pitch, is only found within approximately 1 in 10,000 individuals = 0.01% of the population.

If studies and figures are correct, then one could surmise that an awful lot of people with absolute pitch have home entertainment systems...if the numbers of posts on home theatre forums from people claiming to be able to both "see" and "hear" the effects of the imperciptible 4% PAL speed-up are anything to go by. If you take into consideration the 0.01% factor, then you could (almost successfully) argue that maybe 70 - 80% of those people post on home theatre/home entertainment forums.

Either that or there's an amazing amount of people on internet home entertainment forums TALKING OF OUT OF THEIR ARSES. ;)

[Mike T]

...a couple of people I think really, really know their stuff I'll mention Ian Jane and Mike T...

I am a looooong way off being anything close to a "tech expert", or even tech proficient. But I have learnt enough to call shenanigans when I see them... ;)

[Horace Cordier]

Horamce is a pro now.

Not even remotely.

I'm trying to learn and not make a fool of myself for the most part. What I have noticed (and NOT on this site I will add) is that some folks elsewhere get VERY opinionated and intense when their views are legitimately criticized. Just to throw out some quick props to a couple of people I think really, really know their stuff I'll mention Ian Jane and Mike T - I find their explanations concise and to the point when dealing with these issues. I have asked Ian a couple of times for info on something and his answers have been clear and easily understood.

That's enough ass-kissing for now.

[Mike T]

Without naming names I will say this: there are some reviewers who simply are not qualified to review Blu-ray or HD in general. Sometimes it has to do with their equipment, but it often has to do with not having a solid understanding of the various principles involved. Sadly, some of these reviewers are very good writers when it comes to talking about the artistic merits of a film. These really are 2 different skill sets so it can get tricky.

This is also a verifiable home truth. As an example, I know of at least one individual in the Asian fan community who has been very vocal over time about the faults and flaws in the Shaw Brothers library as commissioned by parent company Celestial Pictures via the IVL label in Hong Kong (whilst, I am guessing, deliberately neglecting to mention that they're a rabid supporter/advocate of the various bootleg labels that rip off the Shaw library and those very same transfers they criticise).

Well, imagine my surprise when this person posted pictures of their DVD library on one of those (sad) “show us your DVD collection” penis envy threads you find enmasse across almost every movie forum known to man and there, in the middle of two ridiculously large sets of shelves packed to max with DVDs and junk, was a big fat old 4:3 CRT TV, with a cheap DVD player balanced precariously on top of it!

No 16:9 HDTV, no amp, no speakers (surround or otherwise), no BD player, in fact no nothing that would even suggest the person had the remotest of clues what they were talking about. There was nothing on show to support their claims of being “tech-savvy”. It was then that I figured out that they had been “paraphrasing” stuff they'd read from whiny fanboys on various forums and patching it together as their own critiques.

Way to out yourself as a less-than-honest “expert” - I guess the penis envy of showing off/boasting about their collection clouded their judgement on that occasion.

On the flipside: I once used to correspond regularly with a guy who, outwardly, seemed really into Hong Kong movies (website and all). Like most, over time he branched out and dabbled in other Asian films. But it turned out he had picked HK/Asian films as a niche area to try and prove to a certain long-running DVD review site (as well as a couple of publishers) that he was a good writer and knew his stuff enough to tackle other areas and fields. And then...he slipped up badly.

He posted a review on his website that was, quite honestly, absolutely awful: it was poorly written, researched and thought out in general. I emailed him over the review and asked what was up with it - no response. So I waited a few days and, when there was no repsonse forthcoming, I posted a polite "this isn't up to your standard, what happened?" comment in the feedback under the review. In that medium, he replied in no time -- he claimed that he had only got a copy of the film because of the good rep it had around forums and the 'net, watched it, Hated it, and then SPENT HALF AN HOUR, on and off over lunch, GOOGLING INFO AND READING AN ASIAN NEWS SITE as research before he wrote one of his worst ever reviews.

I have to admit, the internet has given rise to some real half-arsed armchair "experts" (nee: keyboard warriors), as well as people who expect the Pulitzer without a scrap of journalistic skill or elbow-grease...

[Alison Jane]

Horamce is a pro now.

[Horace Cordier]

Without naming names I will say this: there are some reviewers who simply are not qualified to review Blu-ray or HD in general. Sometimes it has to do with their equipment, but it often has to do with not having a solid understanding of the various principles involved. Sadly, some of these reviewers are very good writers when it comes to talking about the artistic merits of a film. These really are 2 different skill sets so it can get tricky.

As for some of the stuff that Mike has alluded to - I agree. Some not-to-be-named labels have received remarkably generous write-ups from certain quarters despite SERIOUS screw-ups. It really does put into jeopardy the trustworthiness of certain writers (for whatever reason).

Honesty is key: for example BLUE UNDERGROUND do stellar work for the most part. I consider them one of the best companies around and Bill Lustig is a truly legendary figure in the industry. But that does nit mean that someone cannot point out the flaws in the UNCLE SAM or MANIAC Blu-rays.