Is it better to encode to NTSC in the UK??

[franco]

I am finding that stuff encoded to NTSC seems to look a bit better. I am using Canopus Procoder and I think the reason may be that NTSC has only 480 horizontal lines as opposed to PAL's 576. When I encode to PAL it looks a bit more digitized. Kind of like one of them videophones the journalists use to report from war zones.

Also, do NTSC DVD-R discs cause any compatibility problems these days?? I read a post where someone said it's a minority of DVD players which do not play NTSC discs in the UK

[Capmaster]

In europe you have dual-format equipment. In the US we don't, so we're stuck with NTSC.

PAL has more resolution, but a slower framerate. It's pretty much a wash which one looks better, IMO. But if you see a difference, and prefeNTSC, then you should have no trouble playing them in the UK.

[waheed]

Its also TVs that need to NTSC Compatible too. The majority of TVs however do play both NTSC/PAL in the UK, even the old ones so it shouldn't be a problem.

[franco]

Thanks guys.

[Capmaster]

Thanks guys.

Let us know how it works out for you

[Craig Tucker]

Encode to whatever the source is. If the source is PAL encode to PAL, if NTSC encode to NTSC.

[rhegedus]

While it is true that PAL has fewer frames/sec than NTSC, people seem to manage quite well with the 23.976fps variant of NTSC.

Not only that, but it means the bitrate is spread between fewer frames for PAL, allowing a larger image.

If you live in the UK or are planning to use the video in the UK, leave it as whetever format it is in - that way you don't lose anything in the conversion process.

[mats.hogberg]

Not only that, but it means the bitrate is spread between fewer frames for PAL, allowing a larger image.

...but (without doing the calculation) as the image is larger, the bits-per-pixel is the same, so nothing is won. You just trade frame rate for resolution.

/Mats

[rhegedus]

Not only that, but it means the bitrate is spread between fewer frames for PAL, allowing a larger image.

...but (without doing the calculation) as the image is larger, the bits-per-pixel is the same, so nothing is won. You just trade frame rate for resolution.

/Mats

I'll go with the res

[monzie]

OK, I'm in the UK and what you want to know DEPENDS on:

a) the original framerate

and

b) the ORIGINAL resolution of the .avi

Lets start with framerate, if its a NTSC 23.97 or a 29.97 keep it, dont change it to PALs 25fps......unless you have a ancient/antiquidated TV...aply pulldownon 23.97's

Now, lets think of the .avi's resolution. Upscaling a 'typical (dloaded)' .avi (4:3 in this example), lets say 512 X 384 to 704 X 480 NTSC (on 720 X 480) is a upscale of 25% in the vertical (384>480) whilst a PAL is an upscale of 50% (384>576).

Remember TV's work on VERTICAL res (aka scan lines) so horizontal, although important, takes second place to VERTICAL.

No matter what you do you cant get MORE detail when upsizing, you can ONLY get more and more pixelated or 'softened' video footage as the magnification increases and obviously NTSC wins out over PAL in the above examples. BUT, (there's always a but isnt there?) hopefully as your in the UK you have a widescreen 16:9 TV, in which case you need to play the resolution game. You can encode with borders (16:9 PAL 4:3 format) which will DISPLAY at 480 high (borders not visible). Also dont bother with FULL DVD res (720 X ~) for the video, add borders regardless, using 688 X 560 (PAL) for instance, will show hardly any border (if any) and you can go lower still. Also the resize FILTER plays a part here as well.

The best thing you can do is:

a) Get a good encoder that accepts .avs files
b) Learn AVIsynth Frameserving
c) Ignore 'b' and use FITCD to see the resolutions available when upsizing, (dont go straight for the highest res)
d) Apply common sense and THINK about what you want.
e) Dont try STUPID upsizes...unless you want crap results.
f) USE FitCD (and try those resize options!!!!).
g) Did I mention FitCD??