Yes, that second method you mention results in no speed up. Thing is though, that's not the technique used when creating commercial PAL DVD's. They're all transferred to video using the speed-up.
Yes, the subtracting method is the preferred one for transferring PAL video to film. The correction software involved has to solve many less problems than those converting 30 video frames onto 24 film frames. But if you do not have music involved, the PAL>film one frame per frame is the cheaper process of choice. No software involved to correct anything means less lab cost. Even if you have music, you can correct it later on, assembling the music after video transfer and going back to the editing room just for that. It's also advised to make a mix after that video transfer.
Sorry for the delayed reply, I haven't been watching this thread lately. Just wanted to add a few thoughts though. carlmart responded: "Yes, the subtracting method is the preferred one for transferring PAL video to film." But, this thread was about what happens when transferring film to PAL video, not the other way around. Completely different process in reverse. Also, it's by no means a consensus that the alternate methods of transferring film to PAL video (which avoid speedup) are preferred. There are tradeoffs (jumpiness) with each of the alternatives. The 4% speedup method of transferring film to PAL video is what's universally used for commercial DVD's. For better or for worse, that's what we live with. headborg's statement: "it's just that the movie runs 4% fast on video because of the conversion method.<---This is the PAL speed up techique..." Thank you. That was my whole point in this thread, from beginning to end. PAL transfers run faster than their NTSC counterparts. That a technique exists of transferring film to PAL video which avoids the 4% speedup is fantastic. But, the fact that in the real world no one uses it, leaves us back at square one. PAL transfers from film run faster (shorter runtime, higher audio pitch) than NTSC transfers.
