PAL or NTSC?

[ankutsa]

Which is better? :P

Apparently PAL has a higher resolution, but I noticed some DVDs have black bars on the left and right side, so the movie area resolution is smaller in that case?!

[smrpix]

One way to think about it:

PAL=720w x 576h x 25fps
NTSC=720w x 480h x 30fps

Just do the math.

[Calidore]

Pal has a higher vertical resolution but the same horizontal; as a result, it gives you a slightly squeezed aspect ratio. There's also a 4% speedup on playback speed. Both those things drive me nuts, so I always convert PAL originals to NTSC.

[jman98]

If you are seeing black bars on the left and right side of DVDs, then you are likely seeing what is called pillarboxing. This is very unusual and only Criterion regularly uses it in the USA.

PAL has higher resolution as pointed and perhaps superior color (I'll let others debate that). Whether you would really notice a color difference or not is a good question. NTSC is more compatible with some sites estimating that 95% or more of the world with DVD players can play NTSC DVDs. PAL compatibility is much lower in NTSC countries. I've seen some commercial DVDs that are only in NTSC for world wide distribution because almost everybody can play them.

[hech54]

Pal has a higher vertical resolution but the same horizontal; as a result, it gives you a slightly squeezed aspect ratio. There's also a 4% speedup on playback speed. Both those things drive me nuts, so I always convert PAL originals to NTSC.

Nonsense.

[smrpix]

Pal has a higher vertical resolution but the same horizontal; as a result, it gives you a slightly squeezed aspect ratio.

Neither use square pixels, so that is a player issue. The AR display should be the same with either.

There's also a 4% speedup on playback speed.

ONLY in the case of properly-handled 24fps originated material. Again, nothing to do with the format itself.

so I always convert PAL originals to NTSC

I'd rather watch the movie.

[Brad]

PAL has higher resolution as pointed and perhaps superior color (I'll let others debate that). Whether you would really notice a color difference or not is a good question.

Since this is posted in the DVD Ripping forum and not in reference to the analog color formats, the only difference should be 360x288 chroma vs 360x240 chroma. Though I suppose there may be more color interlacing issues with 29.97 discs.

[hello_hello]

Pal has a higher vertical resolution but the same horizontal; as a result, it gives you a slightly squeezed aspect ratio.

I've no idea how you worked that one out. They're both either 4:3 or 16:9.

There's also a 4% speedup on playback speed. Both those things drive me nuts, so I always convert PAL originals to NTSC.

If you can spot an extra frame per second I think you're doing pretty well. I'd need to play the two side by side and watch them slowly drift apart to notice a speed difference. Sometimes, if the audio is also simply sped up it can be a bit of a give-away, but many/most PAL discs authored from "film" sources would have audio which is pitch corrected.
I live in PAL-land so I use Reclock to speed 24fps video up to 25fps and leave my TV running at 50Hz.

I'm not expert on PAL to NTSC conversions but I'd imagine the process of doing so (especially if the PAL video is interlaced) has the potential to produce some fairly average results.

[anaboland]

Coming from PAL-land, I must first say that the best format to use, is the one native to your country.

Back in the 1980s when VCRs ruled the world it was almost impossible to play NTSC in Europe, without spending many £/$1000 on specialist VCRs.

I think the main reason NTSC is NOW so common, is basically down to two things...

1:- The way the DVD Regions were set up..

Region 1 - USA(NTSC)
Region 2 - Europe (PAL) and Japan(NTSC)

Hence 99% of Region 2 DVD players are capable of playing both PAL/NTSC and/or converting between Formats(with varying degrees of quality).

Then throw in a Region 0 hack and the worlds your oyster with a Region 2 player.


2:- The fact that for many years TV sets in Europe have been able to accept PAL or NTSC and some SECAM video sources, I had a multi standard CRT TV back in 1992.



Living in PAL-land I prefer PAL, basically because it seems to play smoother..

What I mean is... when i watch a film and there is a scene, that Pans across the screen horizontally, NTSC video always has a jerkiness in the motion, whereas correctly produce PAL video Pans smoothly.


I guess it is down to the way the Video is produced.

If you have a 24fps source video and you wish to produce PAL(25fps), then you can simply increase the frame rate by 1 fps, and adjust the speed/pitch of the audio to suit, It is easy, only the total play length of the film will give it away..
End result nice smooth video, slightly shorter play time.

I suppose another way to convert to PAL(25fps) keeping the original playtime, would be to produce ONE extra frame per second, by combining/interlacing TWO frames, but this could introduce a very slight jerkiness???

BUT by comparison...

When a 24fps video source is converted to NTSC(30fps) there is a whole load of frame duplication/interlaceing/etc taking place, in order to create any EXTRA 6 frame per second, I can not see how this amount of frame manipulation can give good smooth playing results...... BUT IM NO EXPERT..!!

If I must buy a dvd in NTSC, then the first thing i do is RIP IT, Remove all the duplicate frames and get it back to 23.976fps, then speed it up to 25fps, adjust resolution from 720x480 to 720x576, speed up audio/change pitch, and slap it through some authoring software, the final product plays smoother and looks better on my tv.

There is a another difference when comparing NTSC and PAL and I dont know if this could cause the Jerkiness i see while watching NTSC in PAL-Land, and problems when watching PAL in NTSC-Land... PAL is 50hz and NTSC is 60hz ???

I also see alot of people in NTSC-Land saying PAL DVD appears Squashed on their TV, Well here in PAL_Land NTSC DVDs played on PAL TVs offen appear Stretched. I think that might be due to fact that PAL TVs have 625 line, whereas NTSC TVs have 525, and the way the DVD player converts its output to suit the connect TV type.

A lot of the problems that occur when playing NON native format DVDs (screen squashing/stretching), can be down to the DVD player that is used, there are various makes of chip-set used that do the video format conversion.

I have owned many DVD players over the years and they are not all born EQUAL... some do a far better job a converting video formats than others.


Quote..

PAL has 576 visible line compared with 480 lines with NTSC, meaning that PAL has a 20% higher resolution. Both PAL and NTSC have a higher frame rate than film, 24 frames per second, offering flicker free motion. Most TV output for PAL and NTSC user Interlaced frames meaning that even lines update on one frame and odd lines update on the next frame. Interlacing frames gives a smoother motion with half the frame rate, the downside is with scene changes. NTSC is used with a fps of 60i or 30p whereas PAL generally uses 50i or 25p; both use a high enough frame rate to give the illusion of fluid motion. PAL has a closer frame rate to film and is less likely to suffer from issues caused during frame rate conversion. Artifacts caused by frame rate conversion required when video has been recorded at the wrong rate for the display can be severe.

Just my thoughts

[Brad]

There's also a 4% speedup on playback speed. Both those things drive me nuts, so I always convert PAL originals to NTSC.

If you can spot an extra frame per second I think you're doing pretty well. I'd need to play the two side by side and watch them slowly drift apart to notice a speed difference.

I had an internet friend in the UK who wasn't very pleased after I told him about PAL speedup. In our case it was TV shows, and what always gets me is the audio. Then he claimed to notice everything looking unnaturally faster any time he watched one of his DVDs, and I started noticing it in some scenes as well.

Incidentally, are there monitors available in the US that can switch between 23.976, 25, 50, and 59.94 refresh rates? Mine runs everything at 59.94 or 60.

[anaboland]

There's also a 4% speedup on playback speed. Both those things drive me nuts, so I always convert PAL originals to NTSC.

If you can spot an extra frame per second I think you're doing pretty well. I'd need to play the two side by side and watch them slowly drift apart to notice a speed difference.

I had an internet friend in the UK who wasn't very pleased after I told him about PAL speedup. In our case it was TV shows, and what always gets me is the audio. Then he claimed to notice everything looking unnaturally faster any time he watched one of his DVDs, and I started noticing it in some scenes as well.

Incidentally, are there monitors available in the US that can switch between 23.976, 25, 50, and 59.94 refresh rates? Mine runs everything at 59.94 or 60.

Well you guys must have super human vision if you can detect 1 extra frame per second, that 1 frame is on screen for 0.04sec...... HOW MUCH must your eyes be Boggled when dealing with 6 duplicate/interlaced frames per second, when watchin 24fps to 30fps conversions

And if the audio is processed correctly there is NO pitch increase... I think you guys are watching poor conversions...

[Noahtuck]

Oy Vey

[Brad]

Well you guys must have super human vision if you can detect 1 extra frame per second, that 1 frame is on screen for 0.04sec......

Yes, we call ourselves the 40 Millisecond Dollar Men. Do you also think gamers who complain about screens with 16ms response time are from another galaxy?

HOW MUCH must your eyes be Boggled when dealing with 6 duplicate/interlaced frames per second, when watchin 24fps to 30fps conversions

Same speed with judder vs faster pace with no judder (on a 50Hz display). Apples and oranges. But yes, I have heard that people in PAL land find pulldown far more objectionable than those of us who have grown up with it our entire TV-watching lives.

And if the audio is processed correctly there is NO pitch increase... I think you guys are watching poor conversions...

Yes, but they are the only conversions.

[anaboland]

...Blimey..Oh dear..Or even Oy Vey... don't take much to get heated disscussion going...

Monitor response times while gaming is not really the same issue

All this has been argued, and discussed in depth by very knowledgeable people before on many forums.

I'm not getting any deeper into a debate, as I have sat and read other peoples forums over the years. And some arguments have turned quite nasty at times.. And that's not what I'm about.

And as to which format is best, the answer is SIMPLE....
Its the video format that is Native to your region of the world, because your equipment is designed to play it, and it is what you are accustomed to viewing. And this is why I prefer PAL.

Both PAL and NTSC have short comings, neither is perfect. As was said apple's and oranges..

I apologize if I have upset anyone when giving my reason for preferring PAL.

[Brad]

If that's what you prefer. Naturally response times aren't the same issue, but they demonstrate that there's nothing amazing about being able to see something that's on screen for 40ms.

[hello_hello]

Response times don't do much to demonstrate it's easy to distinguish between frames being displayed for 41.7ms and frames being displayed for 40ms.

[Brad]

Now 1.7ms does cast doubt on whether we weren't just imagining things.