NTSC or PAL ?

[jayosw]

Which is the better format and why ?

is it worth converting from one to the other ?

[whatever]

PAL is better since it has higher resolution and the framerate is closer to real film.

The only reason to convert from one format to the other is if your dvd player cannot play the other format.

Converting from one format to the other will always result in quality loss, since you will have to reencode the video.

[Gurm]

Actually the "framerate" of PAL is only closer to movies shot in Analogue. Films like The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars are shot in digital at 30fps. Thus NTSC high-speed is "closer" (at 29.97fps) to the "original" film.

But PAL does have more lines in it... although 16:9 enhanced NTSC has yet MORE lines. I dunno about 16:9 enhanced PAL - is there such a thing?

- Gurm

[whatever]

are you sure that movies like matirx are shot at 30 fps??

[Gurm]

Films shot digitally are, in fact, shot at 30fps. They might be at 29.97fps for all I know, but it's roughly 30... NOT the 24 that "normal" films are shot at.

Wanna see evidence? Watch LOTR in the theaters. Big pans are a little jumpy. Nothing terrible, but jumpy. Now watch the DVD. Smooth as silk. That's 'cuz they're downsampled to 24fps for normal theaters.

Next... I watched Matrix: Reloaded at both a digital theater AND an Imax theater. Imax was big, the seats rumbled, and a good time was had by all... but it was kind of blurred. The fight scenes were hard to follow. In digital, they were there, perfect and pristine. 24fps downsampling can account for this as well - motion blur is introduced to make things not look jittery.

I don't think digital will replace analogue any time soon. There are a lot of things you can do with analogue that you CAN'T do with digital. But for sci-fi epics and fast-action films, digital is the way to go.

- Gurm