Is There a Technical Difference in Quality

[nFury8]

Is There a Technical Difference in Quality Between Different DVD Codes/Regions?


I've done some searching and couldn't find the answer.
I was shop-browsing at a video store yesterday and I noticed a Code 3 DVD with a sticker stating "Quality Similar To Code 1".
I thought all Codes/Regions have basically the same quality?
How do they differ then? Are each mastered differently from the other?
But is there supposed to be a standard that needs to be followed in mastering DVD's for all Codes/Regions?
I know these are all dumb questions, so to the knowledgable folks here pls don't flame me, just point a useful link or any helpful info.

Thanks

[theReal]

PAL DVDs are 25 fps, NTSC DVDs are (mostly) 23.96 fps telecined to 29.97 fps and with a different resolution than PAL. That basically is the main difference between different regions.
But it also means that a region 2 DVD might be mastered by a German company while the region 1 version is mastered by an American company - they might do it differently (i.e. the Americans use edge enhancement, the Germans do not, or the other way round).

One example I know of is "Con Air" - I read reviews for the American version that stated the quality was really bad, below standard. I have the German region 2 version and I find it is one of the best quality DVD videos that I've ever seen!

Sometimes DVDs like Die Hard III are released in different versions even in one region: The first one supposedly was not so good, but the next release (maybe the director's cut, or "gold edition" or something like that) was significantly better.

--> it's just like with Divx videos: the guy who does the encoding can make a good job, or a bad job. Although commercial DVD releases should always be state of the art, this is just not the case...

[N_F]

To Illustrate:

I recently bought Superman I, II & III which were made somewhere in Scandinavia (not sure exactly where). The picture is really bad (I bought them very cheap, so it's no big deal)! Full of blended fields (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46936) and generally looks very blurry.

My older brother has the R1 Box with Superman I, II, III & IV and the picture on those looks great.

Conclusion: A specific movie may look great in one version, really bad in another

[nFury8]

So it all boils down to the skill of the guy thats mastering a specific release, yes?
Does this mean that he can pretty much have his own criteria in encoding the movie, like for example just throw a 2-channel audio at 384kbps for his specific Region/Code, instead of a 5.1 channel DD at 448kbps as in most R1 releases?
And likewise for the video bitrate? Am I right to assume this?
I was under the impression that these guys who do the mastering are given an industry-wide set of standards for MPEG2-encoding that they need to adhere to, regardless of what Region/Code they release it.
You know, in analogy, like those players in an orchestra where they are given a music sheet and the composer goes, "Here play this, this is how I want it to sound like".

Thanks for putting up with these retarded questions, guys. I appreciate your answers.:)

ps(How do I make my complete subject title fit the title box? It cut the subject heading short when I pressed the submit button)

[hakko504]

Originally posted by nFury8
So it all boils down to the skill of the guy thats mastering a specific release, yes?
YesDoes this mean that he can pretty much have his own criteria in encoding the movie, like for example just throw a 2-channel audio at 384kbps for his specific Region/Code, instead of a 5.1 channel DD at 448kbps as in most R1 releases? And likewise for the video bitrate? Am I right to assume this?Yes
I was under the impression that these guys who do the mastering are given an industry-wide set of standards for MPEG2-encoding that they need to adhere to, regardless of what Region/Code they release it.
Well, in a way there is, but it is so wide that they can basically do anything they want. I.e. as long as there is an audio track of min 192kbps and a video track, and the total bitrate is below 10Mbps, and it is either NTSC/FILM or PAL video at D1 or half D1, then the DVD is compliant with spec. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the work, where to put chapters (if any), number of channels of the audio, how to deal with NTSC/PAL conversions etc.

[N_F]

So it all boils down to the skill of the guy thats mastering a specific release, yes?
Does this mean that he can pretty much have his own criteria in encoding the movie, like for example just throw a 2-channel audio at 384kbps for his specific Region/Code, instead of a 5.1 channel DD at 448kbps as in most R1 releases?
And likewise for the video bitrate? Am I right to assume this?
Well, it's probably not a single guy who makes the decision. And it's not like they would do a bad mastering on purpose, I suspect it's more a question of budget (and perhaps if the guys in charge are complete idiots or not, sometimes it would seem they are to the laymans anyway).

Big known companies have the resources to release a movie "good" and we'll pay thereafter. Small companies may not have big resources so they make some kind of budget version of a movie and set the price thereafter.

I was under the impression that these guys who do the mastering are given an industry-wide set of standards for MPEG2-encoding that they need to adhere to, regardless of what Region/Code they release it.

I'm sure they do. But I doubt those standars take up the what we would call the quality of the release.

NOTE: I don't work with this or anything so don't take my words for "absolute truth"...

Edit: hakko504 beat me to it :) May be nice to have two separate answers anyway (though hakko certainly know the area better than me).

[nFury8]

Awesome. Thanks hakko and N_F

If I may poke my nose into this a little further, it's not hard to imagine then that cinematographers and consummate directors would almost always feel uneasy when a movie they've worked so hard for gets transferred to video. And though I don't have any idea of the details of film transfer to video, I understand enough that its pretty tough. This brings to mind one of the best cinematographies/movies I've seen: The Thin Red Line. Though I havent seen its video release yet, to me its got one of the best and hard-hitting cinematography I've seen, especially in the nuances of the lighting and atmosphere. Now these qualities of a movie would surely be very hard to transfer to film, if not impossible, but my point is if I were a cinematographer, I'd make sure that as much of the nuances as possible are captured in the film transfer. And this is where it all gets complicated when driving for a quality release, as you guys explained. More details included mean more effort exerted, and more money needed. Ahhh, what a tangled web.