which dvd is better pal or ntsc

[classical]

i heard that pal ha higher uality than ntsc and i have a multiregion dvd player
so if i want to buy an american movie will the pal version which is region 2 has higher quality than the american ntsc version which is region 1
though it's an american movie or both have the same quality?

[SaSi]

Comparing PAL DVDs with NTSC DVDs yields the same result as comparing PAL TV with NTSC TV.

What's the result?

Don't know!

Just two different systems from two different continents. Ask Americans and they will say NTSC is better. Ask Europeans or Australians, and they will say PAL is better.

On the other hand, I have read distinguished 8) members of this forum originating from the USA state that PAL country members are "lucky".

PAL is simpler compared to NSTC. 25 fps (integer) compared with 29.976 (or is it 23.976) or is it 29.976 after pulldown .

Basically, if your TV is PAL then buy PAL DVDs. If your TV is NTSC buy NTSC. If there is a conversion on the fly, the quality deteriorates.

Also, buy the DVDs with the language options (soundtrack and subtitles) close to your region. I wouldn't consider alternate soundtracks, but a local subtitle option is welcome, for some movies, especially if they are not English speaking (at least for me).

Also, one reason that makes me "hate" Region 1 DVDs (aka NTSC), is that the FBI warning is at the beginning of everything you try to see and cannot be bypassed. In most Region 2 DVDs, the warnings (not FBI this time), are after the credits, so you will most likely miss them and not even know about it...

[bugster]

When it comes to R1 V R2 DVD's, its not simply a matter of PAL Vs NTSC either. (Though I agree with what Sasi said). Often, the transfer from the original source (be it film or video) to DVD is performed by different companies for different regions. Therefore quality can vary simply due to the transfer process/mechanism/equipment/techniques used. Also extras are sometimes (often?) different too, so you may want to take that into account as part of your purchasing decision.

This site has a forum where differences between DVD releases are reviwed and discussed.

[Nilfennasion]

We're pretty spot-on so far, but I thought I would reduce it to Q&A form, just for a laugh.

Do you consider the correct audio pitch to be so important that you'll tolerate jerky motion and less resolution? Then pick NTSC.

Do you consider smooth motion and resolution to be so important that you don't mind the audio being a semitone higher in pitch? Then go with PAL.

On some titles by a certain director, I often buy both whenever possible. However, it is really an individual decision, and apart from the aforementioned times when one disc might be significantly better than the other, it is really your choice to make. However, the more discriminate I get with my own cash, the more and more I find myself importing NTSC discs.

Ask Europeans or Australians, and they will say PAL is better.

I happen to be a Scotsman living in exile in Australia. :P

[classical]

if u r saying that pal picture is more smooth,may be its right , but the american movie is shot by ntsc camera so the ntsc dvd will give u the same quality as it's shot and pal gives u the same resolution,not better coz the movie is shot by ntsc cameras,this is what i think,is this right or wrong?

[Nilfennasion]

No film is shot in NTSC unless it was a telemovie that was never intended for theatres, but instead meant for TV broadcast.

Films are shot (usually) using 35mm film, similar to that which is still in heavy use for everyday still cameras. As a result, films have a resolution of about 1.85 or 2.35 times 4000 by 4000. Or to put it in TV terms, 4000 lines. By comparison, NTSC has about 525, and PAL 625.

When you convert from this 4000p source to NTSC, you wind up with 525i resolution and six redundant frames every second. The upside is that you get the proper audio pitch. The downside is that you wind up with jerky motion.

In PAL, you wind up with 625i resolution and the film running at 25 frames per second instead of 24. The upside of that is that motion is smooth. The downside is that the onscreen action is running 4% faster than it should be, and the audio is 4% higher in pitch. Until someone introduces a standard that runs at twenty-four frames per second, there is no way around either of these.

To reiterate, feature films are not, never have been, and never will be, shot using an NTSC camera. Feature films are rarely shot with video because when you project it onto a feature film screen, it looks like crap.

[junkmalle]

if u r saying that pal picture is more smooth,may be its right , but the american movie is shot by ntsc camera so the ntsc dvd will give u the same quality as it's shot and pal gives u the same resolution,not better coz the movie is shot by ntsc cameras,this is what i think,is this right or wrong?

You are right for live video feeds -- things like sporting events and news. But movies are almost always shot on film at 24 frames per second. The previous replies were refering to that.

[sacajaweeda]

The vast majority of the stuff I capture and put on DVD is live broadcast stuff. NFL football games, NBA & NHL playoff games, etc. Also a lot of the stuff they broadcast on C-SPAN. So I guess it really doesn't matter much for me here in NTSC land.

[adam]

When you convert from this 4000p source to NTSC, you wind up with 525i resolution and six redundant frames every second. The upside is that you get the proper audio pitch. The downside is that you wind up with jerky motion.

There are no redundant frames added during a conversion to NTSC. The frames are split into fields and some fields are duplicated to create new frames. Its basically a form of interpolation. Yes new frames are added but they are an estimation of what those extra samples would have looked like if taken. Basically, they fit right in between their surrounding frames and its virtually impossible to tell the difference. Technically, yes PAL is smoother then NTSC but in no way can you call NTSC jerky. As far as the smoothness of PAL and NTSC, they are basically identical when viewed in motion. The real disadvantage of NTSC is its quirks regarding color, (Never The Same Color.)

The audio pitch change and the video speed up of PAL is almost always negligble. There is no way you'd ever notice except on very unique sources like audio with very slow tempo's, or audio which changes tempos drastically.

I'd tend to disagree with some of the other posters in this thread. I'm of the opinion that PAL is a superior format all around. Its very close to FILM and its very accommodating to NTSC sources. The added resolution is nice too. But when it comes down to it, the formats are similar enough in quality that the real determining factor, assuming your hardware supports both, is how good the individual region's releases are (ie: quality of transfer, audio/extras available, etc..)

To reiterate, feature films are not, never have been, and never will be, shot using an NTSC camera. Feature films are rarely shot with video because when you project it onto a feature film screen, it looks like crap.

Its certainly not the industry standard but plenty of full length feature films have been shot in NTSC.

[crusty]

PAL 625 scan lines of resolution
NTSC 525 scan lines of resolution which would you prefer?

ntsc=

Never The Same Colour twice

[junkmalle]

There are no redundant frames added during a conversion to NTSC. The frames are split into fields and some fields are duplicated to create new frames. Its basically a form of interpolation. Yes new frames are added but they are an estimation of what those extra samples would have looked like if taken. Basically, they fit right in between their surrounding frames and its virtually impossible to tell the difference. Technically, yes PAL is smoother then NTSC but in no way can you call NTSC jerky. As far as the smoothness of PAL and NTSC, they are basically identical when viewed in motion.

It's quite simple really. NTSC video is 60 fields per second. When you watch it you see 60 pictures per second, you never see two fields at the same time. 24 fps film is usually telecined by alternating between 3 and 2 fields per film frame. Using single digit film frame numbers, the list of fields would look like:

1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6...

Ie, the first film frame is displayed for three video fields, the second film frame is displayed for two video fields, etc. On average each film frame is displayed for 2.5 fields -- 2.5 * 24 = 60. (Just as a note, other patterns are possible but 3:2 is the most common.)

There is a visible jerkiness when film is telecined. If you look closely you can see very small jerks, six times a second, when objects move "steadily" across the screen.

I've never actually seen PAL video but 24fps movies must have smoother motion since every film frame is displayed for two video fields. (Actually I have seen PAL video since I've been to Europe and watched a little TV there -- but I wasn't paying any attention to that sort of thing at the time.)

The audio pitch change and the video speed up of PAL is almost always negligble.

I suppose that's true for most people. The 4 percent increase in pitch is about a semitone (ie, one fret on a guitar, white key to black key on a piano). Most people probably wouldn't notice. Many musicians will. Not to say that they would care.

Its certainly not the industry standard but plenty of full length feature films have been shot in NTSC.

Just out of curiosity, can you name some? Obviously, Hollywood shoots on film. In my experience most made-for-tv movies are shot on film. I only know of a few non-theatrical Japanese horror movies that were shot on video. I think some porn is shot on video -- not that I've ever seen any!

[Gillies]

many tv shows use film as well, then convert to ntsc or pal. if a movie is shot in video, it's often a low budget film. for the quality question, i do notice a difference when they show american footage on australian tv, i can always tell. the colours are weird and the picture isn't as sharp. however, im sure that some quality is lost in the conversion. when it comes to what dvd's are better, it generally comes down to extras.

[Nilfennasion]

Technically, yes PAL is smoother then NTSC but in no way can you call NTSC jerky.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I can. I have approximately two dozen discs that are NTSC, and particularly during panning shots, motion is incredibly jerky. I'm not saying that PAL is awesome and should be on every DVD, but you're giving NTSC far too much credit.

What I was trying to impress upon this guy is that no conversion is absolutely perfect. Conversion of any kind, whether it be from 24 to 30 or 25 fps, or even 23.97 from 24 to 29.97 fps, by definition introduces artefacts. It's the same whether you go from 4000p to 1080i, 720p, or 576i or 480i. Or even simply P to I. In fact, the vast majority of the artefacts that you see in any transfer come from conversion from progressive to interlaced. Remove interlacing, and you remove most of the artefacts. If NTSC were to go from 480i to 480p in the next five years, it would win out as the superior standard simply because all the interlacing artefacts would be gone. It is technically feasible using current-generation equipment, in fact.

(NOTE: The artefacting inherent in NTSC is introduced by 3:2 pulldown, so removing this artefacting is indeed as simple as removing the requirement that the displayed image be 29.97 frames per second.) So if we were to introduce a standard that was 720p and 24 fps, eventually there would be a lot less artefacting involved in converting to it. The trick is in hiding the conversion artefacts.

Gillies, you've hit upon what I was trying to tell the guy from the start. In a perfect world, there'd be no conversion. The best way to view film is as film. The best way to view NTSC is as NTSC, and the best way to view PAL is as PAL. I'm not knocking any system, just the conversions involved.

[Nilfennasion]

I suppose that's true for most people. The 4 percent increase in pitch is about a semitone (ie, one fret on a guitar, white key to black key on a piano). Most people probably wouldn't notice. Many musicians will. Not to say that they would care.

What I should have said is "until you notice", because a lot of people tend to dismiss the effect of the speedup too lightly. It also entails sounds effects happening for 4% less time, which reduces the amount of LFE used (as does the 4% reduction in the depth to which sounds go). Again, if you're not musically trained, or as lightly trained as I am, it takes a while for this effect to become apparent. But when it does, well, suffice to say that all they have to do is remove 3:2 pulldown from the NTSC standard and I won't ever buy PAL again.

[adam]

I disagree junkmalle. I understand how a telecine works, but just because fields are repeated that does not mean it creates a visible pause in the action. As I said, the effect of repeating fields in a sequence is that the new frames fall within the points in time in which the surrounding ones were sampled. NTSC does not have any more visible jerkyness than PAL. I simply do not believe there is any way you can sit there and count out the number of pauses every second unless you are close enough to see the individual pixels. NTSC and PAL both have that interlaced look at playback, and they both suffer from "jutter" as a result. A 3:2 telecine does exasporate this. But I do not believe this is at all visible during regular viewing...even if you are looking for it.

As for audio, actually a semitone is equal to just under 6%, (5.95%) but let's even go so far as to say that PAL runs 6% faster. I'm not sure if there is anyone who wouldn't notice a difference of 6%, as humans are capable of distinguishing between changes as little as .5%. But that is irrellevant since it only matters if you play both original and modified audio sources back to back or side by side, or if you change the pitch during viewing. The real question is whether that little of a pitch change can have any kind of a detrimental effect whatsoever to make the PAL clip wose than the NTSC one, and 99% of the time the answer is no. Yes the 4% difference is noticable if you do a comparison, but neither version has any benefit over the other...and that's all that matters. For example, if one member of a band is off by 4% it is noticable and sounds bad. But if everyone tunes up by 4% its not going to make a bit of difference unless the musical piece has an odd tempo, or alot of tempo changes. When talking about a movie, this is almost never going to happen.

To further illustrate how negligable this difference is anyway, in real world viewing environments, consider the effect that temperate plays. Increase your ambient room temperature by 20 degrees Celsius and you've just increased your audio's pitch by almost 4%. People in colder PAL countries actually hear their audio at the same pitch as people in warmer NTSC countries. Also, for many PAL conversions the audio's pitch is actually lowered to compensate for the speed change, which sometimes is preferable to the pitch change and sometimes not.

Regarding examples of movies shot in NTSC?

How about, (insert Spike Lee Joint here). Not quite but almost.
28 days later
the majority of Blair Witch Project
Dancer in the Dark (was pretty popular)

If you do a search on the VIDEO option in technical specs on IMDB.com you get hundreds of thousands of results. Most of them didn't have theatrical releases but if you scroll through enough you'll find the odd movie that you recognize, probably from seeing it in the theatre.

Also, NTSC (video) is used ALL the time for particular shots in a movie otherwise shot in 35 or 16mm. When you see "tv footage" like a reporter on location or "aged" footage like in JFK, this is typically done in VIDEO. Some directors like Spike Lee simply prefer the look of it in general for their films.

[junkmalle]

I simply do not believe there is any way you can sit there and count out the number of pauses every second.

Try tapping your fingers at 6 beats per second, alternating between two fingers. It's pretty easy -- especially if you play the piano! OK, I can't guarantee you it's not 5.8 or 6.3, but I can see jerks at about 6 times a second under the right conditions.

The real question is whether that little of a pitch change can have any kind of a detrimental effect

I don't disagree with you. That's why I said "Not to say that they would care." I suppose there's someone with perfect pitch somewhere who's annoyed by the fact that the music is off pitch. And don't try playing the piano along with your favorite music video! But the vast majority of people won't notice without a reference.

Increase your ambient room temperature by 20 degrees Celsius and you've just increased your audio's pitch by almost 4%. People in colder PAL countries actually hear their audio at the same pitch as people in warmer NTSC countries.

Nonsense! They hear the sound sooner or later (because the sound is traveling faster or slower) but they hear the same pitch. Listen to a radio under water. Even though the sound is travelling several times faster the pitch is the same.

Blair Witch Project

Forgot about that one. I've only seen it on TV though. A quick perusal of the "video" filtered list at IMDB didn't turn up anything that I've seen in a theater. Of course, some films are now shot in HD tape formats (eg, Star Wars 1,2), but that's not NTSC.

[adam]

Try tapping your fingers at 6 beats per second, alternating between two fingers. It's pretty easy -- especially if you play the piano! OK, I can't guarantee you it's not 5.8 or 6.3, but I can see jerks at about 6 times a second under the right conditions.

Well, if you wanted to simulate NJTSC you'd have to tap your finger at 29.97 beats per second. But the alternating of fingers is still nothing like what happens after a telecine. I'm not saying that the eye can't refresh fast enough to see changes this fast, I'm saying that the telecine process inherantly has ways of disguising the change. You can't compare two fingers to two frames just because they change at the same speed. Jutter is literally caused when two subsequent frames do not line up, as if they were sampled one after the other. Well, the telecine process combines temporal information from both of the outer frames in creating the new one. So that extra frame will always have information from its preceeding and following frame. Its not a unique entity, like a finger. Its a combination of the other frames and thus it blends in to the movement to a large extent, regardless of how adept a viewer you are. I'm not saying jutter its impossible to see per, I'm saying that its something that blends into most types of movement and that under normal viewing you will almost never notice it.

I don't disagree with you. That's why I said "Not to say that they would care." I suppose there's someone with perfect pitch somewhere who's annoyed by the fact that the music is off pitch.

Well we both do agree here so I won't press it too much, but the music is not off pitch, that's the whole point. Just because you record a song in one pitch and play it back in another, that doesn't make it off. The song easily could have been played and recorded in that higher pitch to begin with. The only question is whether it would have sounded bad if played in that slightly higher pitch, and with only a 4% difference the answer is no almost every time.

Nonsense! They hear the sound sooner or later (because the sound is traveling faster or slower) but they hear the same pitch.

Ok I'm blushing now. I was looking at a site on the effect of temperature on sound, specifically regarding musical instruments, and I generalized. I guess it was referring only to other factors affected in producing the sound, ie: length of the wood or string, etc.

[junkmalle]

I'm not saying jutter its impossible to see per, I'm saying that its something that blends into most types of movement and that under normal viewing you will almost never notice it.

I guess we agree that "under normal viewing you will almost never notice it." Oh, and I made a mistake: the 3:2 pulldown pattern repeats twelve times a second not six. When I count six I may just be counting every other one.

Just because you record a song in one pitch and play it back in another, that doesn't make it off.

You mean that relative pitch is not off. Absolute pitch is. Just about anyone can hear relative pitch problems. Someone with "perfect pitch" can, for example, tell that the A below middle C, normally 440 Hz, is "off" when it's 458 Hz (4 percent higher).

I was looking at a site on the effect of temperature on sound

A pipe in a pipe organ for example. As temperatrue increases, and air density decreases, the speed of sound decreases, changing the pitch of the pipe. This happens because the air in the pipe resonates in a standing wave related to the speed of sound and the length of the pipe. A speaker producing sounds does not rely on resonance it just produces the sound that it's told to. Actually speakers do rely on resonance for things like bass extension -- using a large resonating chamber to increase bass response. But that changes the volume, not the the pitch.

[RottenFoxBreath]

PAL-sharper clearer colour-sound quality-negligable.
NTSC-not as sharp,not as clear,sound quality-negligable.
on us tv broadcasts shown here in the UK,we can actually see how poor the NTSC picture is.
the SKY picture quality is far superior than american cable or satellite channels.
for games,PAL may be slightly slower than NTSC,but couple it with PAL60hz,and its a better picture at the same speed as NTSC.
we also have the advatage of RGB scart-which is better also.

[mikesbytes]

Doesn't Pal60Hz (is that PalM) have NTSC resolution?

Personally, assuming you have equipment that automatically switched between video formats, which most modern TV's do, I would't worry too much as to which one you get. If the source is reptual, I would go on price. If the price is similar, then go for the system the matches the country of Origion, ie if its from the US, then take NTSC, if its from the UK, then take PAL.

[ElQuapo]

The audio pitch change and the video speed up of PAL is almost always negligble. There is no way you'd ever notice except on very unique sources like audio with very slow tempo's, or audio which changes tempos drastically.

On music videos this is very annoying. For example, the PAL version of "Pink Floyd - The Wall" where the whole movie is the same music as the CD, it just sounds wierd. If you have listened to the CD a lot, you just can't distract yourself from the fact that it just doesn't sound right - but for normal movies you are right, I have never noticed it.

[adam]

I've mentioned the Wall myself lots of times on this forum. This film is the most often cited example of when conversions to PAL are noticable. The Wall has very odd tempos and alot of drastic tempo changes, and David Gilmour's music always has drastic pitch changes itself. That's why altering the pitch is so noticable, whereas with almost all other sources it isn't.

Actually on the Wall the pitch isn't any higher. They decreased the pitch to offset the speed change. On any given PAL transfer they may or may not do this depending on the source. In this case, it sounds bad. If they hadn't done it I presume it would have sounded even worse.

But like you said, this source is the exception to the rule.

[codecpage]

This argument went into the wrong direction anyway.
There is really no issue with pitch.

Any professional sound editing software can change speed without changing pitch.
It's a bit tricky and might cause other artifacts when done in a negligent way, but so far I didn't notice any with CoolEdit pro, for example, even in medium precision mode, and there is ahigh precision mode as well.

I really doubt if any PAL conversion out there is done the stupid way, just changing speed and pitch.

Cheers

[T ft. D]

Every pro in this bizz knows Pal is better. Simply because there are 2 major down sides at NTSC.

First: You can never get the same color

Second: NTSC is a little bit more jerkier. If I compare 2 of the exact same movies on dvd, and the only difference is PAL and NTSC. I can CLEARLY tell the difference.

BUT if you don't compare PAL and NTSC, you can't really tell. Only if you compare those two.

So who cares ?

[T ft. D]

This argument went into the wrong direction anyway.
There is really no issue with pitch.

Any professional sound editing software can change speed without changing pitch.
It's a bit tricky and might cause other artifacts when done in a negligent way, but so far I didn't notice any with CoolEdit pro, for example, even in medium precision mode, and there is ahigh precision mode as well.

I really doubt if any PAL conversion out there is done the stupid way, just changing speed and pitch.

Cheers

Your absolutely right.

I think you guys haven't compared PAL and NTSC with eachother, have you ? You really don't here a pitch different, not even in music videos. I find it hard to believe that film makers wouldn't use this function, if even I can do it.

[Nilfennasion]

I've seen Hollow Man theatrically, and on NTSC DVD, more times than anyone on this thread, nay this whole board, has had hot dinners. The PAL DVD is a semi-tone higher and noticeably flatter in subwoofer activity. While I don't know how to prove this scientifically, I am absolutely certain it can be. Because I know how it should sound, and how it does sound in PAL.

They try to correct this difference all the time. The recent LOTR discs in PAL countries, for example. They just sound worse.

In answer to your question, I have compared NTSC with PAL. Repeatedly. I hate PAL audio, but I don't find motion in NTSC all that palatable, either. Neither system is perfect, but to claim there is no perceptible difference makes me think "oh, so I don't exist all of a sudden?".

I also like to have my films run for the time the director intended. If the director timed his film to run exactly 100 minutes, I want it to run for 100 minutes, not 96. Another difference that apparently doesn't exist.

[codecpage]

No rule without an excemption.
There are actually people even in professional studios who don't have a clue what they are doing.
I just got some original DVDs from the US and they
1) have the GOP lenghts exceeded all over.
2) they were obviously from 24 fps sources these guys did not use progressive encoding plus pulldown flag, but encoded the already pulldowned material as 29.97 interlaced.
I guess you can find any kind of anomalies if you really inspect a lot of commercial DVDs.

Cheers

[Nilfennasion]

Before that gets out of hand, let me reiterate something. The experience I described with the Hollow Man DVDs is not the exception. It is the rule. Most PAL authors are smart enough to just leave well enough alone and accept the change in pitch. Those who aren't wind up introducing all sorts of artefacts that were supposed to have been removed from the audio experience when cassettes and vinyl fell out of favour.