PAL is bigger resolution than NTSC....?

[snadge]

I have encoded some files and upon testing I noticed that if I encode in PAL the video seems to be bigger
than NTSC encodes... im aware PAL has more lines but it is also 'Wider' (though not out of proportion), it does this on ALL encoding programs as ive tried it... As im encoding HD to SD im now preferring to use PAL (even though the file is 23.97 NTSC) cos the picture being bigger on PAL looks more defined/better (as it has more pixels) on my HDTV than the NTSC version

Is there a program that will tell me the resolution of these VOB files? so i can post em in this thread

[mats.hogberg]

GSpot

/Mats

[guns1inger]

Both have the same width. The difference is in the number of lines (480 vs 576) and other technical factors.

[snadge]

yeah i know but as i said before all the apps I use also make them wider so the image is MUCH bigger (still in same ratio) and therefore as Im downcoding HD to SD the playback of the PAL version is MUCH better quality than NTSC on my TV as the PAL has more pixels used than NTSC and therefore looks more defined

[snadge]

GSpot reports:

NTSC version: 720x480
PAL version: 720x576

But when payback the PAL is wider and taller than the NTSC version and is in same ratio (doesnt looked stretched)...? so i cant understand why it reports the same amount of pixels for width?

I use VLC for playback

[mats.hogberg]

i cant understand why it reports the same amount of pixels for width?

Because it is the same width. what's harder to understand is why your TV shows it wider than the NTSC version. If both are 16:9, they should both play back full screen (on a 16:9 TV)

/Mats

[snadge]

im using VLC for playback on the computer....

[snadge]

VLC on the comp shows the PAL version to be much wider and taller (just a bigger version of NTSC really, but is VLC showing me the true size? experience tells me it is..... if its WAS the same length then it would look stretched up down as it has more lines but it doesnt

do you know what i mean?

VLC playsback in true size....
and the PAL + NTSC playback in same ratio but PAL is wider aswell as longer but in same ratio (no stretching)
I wish i could take a screenshot to show you....

its as if there is more than 720 pixels across in the PAL version during playback in VLC

[jagabo]

VLC on the comp shows the PAL version to be much wider and taller (just a bigger version of NTSC really, but is VLC showing me the true size?

No. VLC is shows the video at the height at which the video is encoded (480 NTSC, 576 PAL) and adjusts the width to achieve the proper aspect ratio. Both PAL and NTSC use the same frame width, 720 pixels. A 16:9 DAR source will be displayed at 854x480 (NTSC) or 1024x576 (PAL). So even though the PAL image is displayed much wider it has no more detail on the horizontal axis. It does have 20 percent more detail on the vertical axis (assuming the source had that detail). And it has about 17 percent less temporal resolution (25 fps vs 30 fps, again, depending on the source).

[snadge]

thanks Jagabo - thats cleared it up....

so if my source is 720p HD im best encoding in PAL (SD) as it does have the detail to put into that extra 20% vertical axis...

MY TV and DVD player handles both formats and PAL is standard for my location, but what would playback best quality on my DVD/TV...?

[JohnnyMalaria]

About the NTSC vs PAL resolution.

It isn't strictly true to say that they both have 720 horizontal resolution. Both are analog formats and the concept of pixels is meaningless. However, they are both 4:3 formats (originally). Where they differ is the number of scanlines per frame - 480 for NTSC, 576 for PAL.

Now, when the signal is digitized, if you want to end up with square pixels, you'd need to sample each horizontal line 640 times for NTSC and 768 times for PAL. (The 640 x 480 is where the VGA size comes from).

However, for various reasons, DV, DVD and other formats sample at what is known as the D1 rate which is 720 times per scanline. As a result, if you display the digitized image with square pixels, NTSC frames will look somewhat skinnier than they should and PAL frames will look somewhat fatter than they should. The NTSC frame would be shorter, too. A good media player will squeeze the frame into a rectangle with the correct 4:3 ratio (16:9 for widescreen).

Regarding your question about which format to use - if all your equipment can natively support NTSC, stick with it. Your original format is NTSC. Recoding as PAL will simply scale the image slightly vertically and when you play it back it will be squished into the same size space on the TV as it would be for NTSC. If anything you may lose some detail.

[snadge]

I understand what you mean about squished into same space but the thing is it doesnt?? when i Playback the NTSC or PAL versions on my 16:9 HDTV through my DVD player they look the same ratio and everything

[snadge]

....and its not zoomed or anything, everything is fit onto 16:9...no sides or top/bottom missing....

[jagabo]

so if my source is 720p HD im best encoding in PAL (SD) as it does have the detail to put into that extra 20% vertical axis...

In terms of resolution, yes.

MY TV and DVD player handles both formats and PAL is standard for my location, but what would playback best quality on my DVD/TV...?

PAL will give you the best resolution. But frame rate issues could cause jerkiness. What is the frame rate of your source?

....and its not zoomed or anything, everything is fit onto 16:9...no sides or top/bottom missing....

Of course. They are both 16:9 DAR. They are supposed to be scaled to fill a 16:9 display.

[snadge]

most are NTSC... but i Encoded (as a test) NTSC to PAL and there was the barely any jerkiness and what there was you coud see on NTSC aswell (the source isnt jerky) 1 frame replaced per second, they were an exact match except for size, now id rather have PAL for the extra resolution, whatever is output my HDTV makes it fit onto screen and id rather have 576 lines fit onto the screen instead of 480 that way the picture quality would be better

[jagabo]

most are NTSC... but i Encoded (as a test) NTSC to PAL and there was the barely any jerkiness and what there was you coud see on NTSC aswell (the source isnt jerky) 1 frame replaced per second,

You could also speed up the frame rate to 25 fps and adjust the audio to match. That will give you perfectly smooth playback.

[jman98]

most are NTSC... but i Encoded (as a test) NTSC to PAL and there was the barely any jerkiness and what there was you coud see on NTSC aswell (the source isnt jerky) 1 frame replaced per second,

You could also speed up the frame rate to 25 fps and adjust the audio to match. That will give you perfectly smooth playback.

Note also to the original poster that speeding up the frame to 25 fps will cause the audio to be about 4% faster. This is noticeable and results in a higher pitched sound. It is possible with certain audio editors to take the audio and drop the pitch back down to counteract this, but that's not easy for newbies to do.

[snadge]

i dont even know how to speed up a movie from 23.97 to 25fps....?
the playback is good enough for me anyway, you can only notice it in v. fast pans left to right