DVD Voices by AnObjectinSpace

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

DVD Voices

POSTED BY: ANOBJECTINSPACE
UPDATED: Thursday, February 16, 2006 06:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3739
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 10:51 PM

So I got my DVD today in the mail. Cam inside put it in the DVD and played it.

On the DVD the voices sound much higher Pitched and Kaylee barely sounds like the Kaylee from the Series. Is this just something I missed when I saw it in the Cinema? Or have they changed the voices on the Aussie DVD's?

.....
"It's just an Object"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 11:50 PM

INKSWITHBRUSH

I'm guessing here since I have yet to see the DVD.

It could have something to do with the different frame rates between the theatrical release (24 frames per second) and the DVD (25 frames per second) The Compression process may have pitched up the voices a bit.

Another guess is that it was converted from the NTSC master that was used for the Zone 1 release. That means it was converted from 30 frames per second to 25.

I'm not mister 'Tecnical know all DVD guru man' I could be all wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1:15 AM

JYNNANTONNYX

Thank god somebody else noticed. I thought it sounded really strange too. I saw the movie yesterday for the first time (only got into Firefly after the movie was finished the cinema here in Australia :( )
Loved it, though i was a sobbing mess at the end ... don't wanna make any spoilers for other people who havn't seen it but ... the sad thing...near the end ... was over very quick which kinda upset me ... felt there should be more lamenting, if that's the right word.
But yes, in answer to your question, I thought the voices sounded a lot more high pitched than in the tv series, Kaylee was especially noticable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1:17 AM

ANOBJECTINSPACE

I ask to those who have the US editions, do the voices sound more high pitched or rather differant to those in the Series?

.....
"It's just an Object"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 1:50 AM

HUMBUG

I haven't heard (or seen) the region 2/region 4 DVD of Serenity. But I have the Region 1......

My brother only ever buys Region 1 DVD's because he says there's a difference between how PAL an NTSC pictures are played on TV's. They show a different number of pictures per second. I can't remember exactly how many (see Inkswithbrush's post above)..... but the upshot is that NTSC plays the right speed and PAL a little faster. My brother says only PAL DVD's/Videos marked with THX has the sound the same frequency as NTSC.

So, if you've noticed that the sound is a little higher, that's because the PAL copies were created from NTSC, and the sound was not converted using THX. Therefore, the pictures will be a little faster too!! Bummer for all of us with PAL!!!!!

But I read on www.3cd-wow.com that the Region 3 DVD (South Asia) has that extra that is on the Australian and British copies: A Filmmakers Journey, and the encoding is NTSC!!! R1 and R3 Serenity DVD's list the time of the film as 119 mins, but the R2 & R4 is only 115 mins.

So, if you really want it at US speed, and you have a multi-region player, try that!!!!

Oh yes. I have both regions of Firefly (NTSC 675 mins, PAL 625 mins), and the R1 is so cool, because the voices are deeper, and in moments of tension or suspense (or humour) just that extra beat (a second or two) makes all the difference.... And Jayne sound sexier with a deeper sounding voice!!! Gorram it, they all do!!!!! And River's accent in Shindig sounds almost British (well, originated from Cockney anyway). Hhhmmmm, I wonder if Spike and Drusilla sound better in R1??!! It's food for thought!!!

Humbug

"You know what the first rule of flying is?... Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home." Mal, BDM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:32 PM

DONCOAT

The region 1 version sounds the same as the theatrical release, as far as I can tell (and allowing for differences in sound systems).

The speed difference between NTSC and PAL is about 4%, so the running time difference is right on the money.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 8:32 PM

ANOBJECTINSPACE

I can understand that but the voices sound a lot differant at times. Especially Kalyee, her voice now sounds very high and Dtizy, when I first heard it I was shocked and thought maybe they dubbed it, but the Lips moved at the right time with the right sounds. But never the less it is kind of a a bummer on a brilliant DVD.

Are there any Other Aussies or people that have the Aussie DVD which have noticed this difference to the voices?

.....
"It's just an Object"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 3:36 AM

JYNNANTONNYX

Regions and coding is all very confusing. But I can't help wondering that if that were so, then wouldn't the Firefly dvd set sound different (...but then we wouldn't hear a difference anyway...oh god...brain hurts).

Maybe Firefly was recorded differently...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:04 PM

INDIANABANZAI

Just got my R4 Aussie DVD, and yeah, the voices, sounds, music ALL sound slightly sped up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:26 PM

ANOBJECTINSPACE

Thats a good point, shouldn't the voices on FireFly sound much like that of the Movie if they were both sped up. When ever I watch it now It makes me cringe at their voices.

Some bits seem a little fast on the movie... Could they have been encoded to Region 4 from differant types of Media or would that not make any differance?

.....
"It's just an Object"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:54 PM

DONCOAT

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:57 PM

NIKNAK

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:30 PM

DONCOAT

Quote:
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.

Things aren't quite so simple. (They never are...)

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:54 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:19 PM

DONCOAT

Quote:
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

Well, yeah... could be. It depends.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:00 AM

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 6:22 AM

DONCOAT

Quote:
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.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE