Should I choose NTSC or PAL and WHY???

[mr_seth_enslow]

I've read the encoding guides... I use TMPGEnc.
I have been using the VideoCD (PAL) template for ALL encoding, regardless of the frame rate in the original AVI file...
(typically they are 23, 25, 27 or 29 fps)

Is there any reason that I SHOULDN't be doing that?
Could it be contributing to a progressive loss of audio synch in some movies?

Thx,

[B4UTRUST]

Maybe I'm wrong on this one and misinterpreting the question in some manner but...

NTSC format is used in North America and Japan while PAL format is used in the rest of the world (go figure, like the metric system...states still don't use it and the rest of the world does).

Why you would use one or the other? Regional settings on the DVD-player I believe. Meaning that if you have a DVD player that's regionally encoded for north america, it's not likely to play PAL formated disks and vice versa.

As for the audio synch question, beats me. I know nothing about that.

[mr_seth_enslow]

I live in Vancouver Canada and from what I understand NTSC is the standard television video format here...

I have been encoding all my mpgs using the PAL template, because one of the guides on this site says "If the frame rate is 23 fps, use PAL".

I don't know - it seems to me that I can use either NTSC OR PAL and my DVD player handles it the same way...

[kinneera]

NTSC vs. PAL is purely a video system issue, and it is based on where you live, as mentioned before. If you are encoding everything to PAL, regardless of source, you are vastly increasing your probability of problems with a/v sync, and choppy playback. You should match source to output whenever possible, and if you really need to convert from one to the other, search the forum for good discussions on it, it is not a particularly simple endeavour if you want to do it correctly. Also, FYI - 23fps (or more properly 23.976fps) is NTSC Film framerate, not PAL. However, a 23.976fps - 25fps conversion is about the easiest type of conversion to perform incorrectly without being able to tell.

NTSC format is used in North America and Japan while PAL format is used in the rest of the world (go figure, like the metric system...states still don't use it and the rest of the world does).

Not quite so simple! There's also SECAM, plus a whole slew of NTSC and PAL variants. It's not as if Americans are backwards fools who won't adopt the better system!

[DiViNeLeFT]

i encode all my rips to ntsc film... because it is lower framerate each frame gets a higher bitrate... sorry if that sounds confusing... someone else explained it to me much better. but basically think of it like this.... using 23.97fps and 1050k bitrate will look better than 29.97fps and 1050k bitrate. human eye cant really see any difference between 23.97 and 29.97 so that part doesnt really matter.

[B4UTRUST]

Kinneera,

We're not backwards fools?!

This is news to me. *glances around at the US and more specifically the government* Are you sure we're talking about the United States here? The same one I mean...

[TheMan2K]

Well, considering the country you are in uses NTSC. If your source is 29.97, use that. If the source is 23.976, use that. If the source is 25, use vitualdub to slow the framerate to 23.976 (making the video longer), extract the audio with virtualdub, use cool edit to make the audio the same length as the new video, put them back together with tmpgenc and your done. I had to do this with starwars (the popular DivX seems to be from a PAL VCR). Still waiting for that dvd release...

[kinneera]

My main point is that an informed discussion of the various video standards will reveal that each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and thus that NTSC is not somehow strictly inferior to PAL. I was also attempting to point out that PAL is hardly one magical uniform standard used by everyone except for us silly Americans and Japanese.

This is hardly the time and place for a discussion of American politics, but silly blanket statements such as that are really quite pointless.

[dumwaldo]

converting between PAL and NTSC is not a simple task.

think about this for a moment... what happens when you have a source of 29.976 FPS and you create a 25 FPS file from it? i tell you what happens, TMPGEnc will duplicate 5 frames every second. by my estimations that is a 16% to 17% loss of information in re-encoding.

if you are interested in knowing how to do proper conversions just search the forum and you will find some very long threads that discuss this subject in great detail. since most players support the playback of both NTSC and PAL vcd's there is really no point in cross converting.

[Mr. X]

I live in North America, have a NTSC tv and play my vcds on a Pioneer DV-343. I had downloaded a number of divx AVIs which were PAL format (352x288 25fps). Using TMPGEnc 12c&d&e (and VrtlDub and whatever else inbetween) I had a b*tch of a time tring to encode them so they would play smooth on my machine.

Then I tried just encoding it using the PAL template and low and behold it played beautifully on my machine which cleary states NTSC in the manual and on the box.

So I would agree with dumwaldo that many machines will play both.

[TheMan2K]

Ack, mine can't. In the users manual it has a list of discs it doesn't support and PAL disks are there. Well it is a portable player with an lcd screen, guess it can't have everything. I probably already said this, but i would just convert to FILM. Just have to make the video and audio a couple mins longer with vdub and cool edit. Change the resolution and your done.

[videoguy79]

Another difference between the PAL and NTSC formats has to do with our power supplies. In the USA, Canada, and Japan, the current is supplied at 60Hz. In many other parts of the world, it is 50Hz. This difference in AC line frequency neccesitates the use of different sync rates and hence different TV systems.

[House de Kris]

Western Japan is 60Hz, eastern Japan is 50Hz. Now, how does that play into your theory?

[videoguy79]

The difference in power line frequencies is not "my" theory--it is fact. Those having a knowledge of alternating current would understand why a sync signal would need to be different at 60Hz from 50. If you are interested in how TV standards were set, the internet is full of documents describing these standards and the reasoning behind setting them. Also, in places where two power grids (50Hz/60Hz) exist, the televisions sold there must be capable of recieving both types of signal. Here in the US it is not common for TV's to support PAL, wheras some other countries sell dual-system capable televisions. Here is a good website for anybody interested in why we have two TV standards (non-technical, easy read):

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/why.html

[House de Kris]

Jeepers videoguy, didn't mean to get you all lathered up. I was just basically responding to your statement of "In the USA, Canada, and Japan, the current is supplied at 60Hz." This, in fact, is just not true.

Since you brought up the 'non-technical, easy read' article on worldwide TV standards, it mentions how the developement of the various standards used power line frequencies as a basis for the selection of frame rates due to technical limitations of the time. Luckily, we are beyond those limitations these days. And no, TVs sold in multi line frequency countries, such as Japan, do not have to "be capable of recieving both types of signal." The broadcast standard for the entire country of Japan is 525-line 59.94 fields per second NTSC, even though the power delivered to homes may be either 50Hz or 60Hz.

Finally, it may be a mistake to associate PAL or NTSC to a specific mains frequency. Last time I looked, there were about a dozen NTSC flavors used and almost that many flavors of PAL. For example, there is such a thing as a 625-line 50Hz NTSC.

[pacmania_2001]

Here it is plain and simple for you:

If the source is 25 FPS then you should use PAL
If the source is 29.97 FPS then use NTSC
If the source is 23.97 FPS then use NTSC Film

Only do this though if you player and TV can handle playing back both otherwise you might get **** ups like the video playing black and white but on most players it isnt a problem.

Most new tv's (mine for example)(Australia) can handle both 50 HZ and 60 HZ signals

[videoguy79]

Heheheh--don't worry, I wasn't being combative or anything. Just enjoying a good discussion.

I'll agree with you on your last point--today's standards aren't necessarily reflective of the original ones. The point I was trying to make is that when the standards were set, they were set as such for a reason. Most electronic equiptment today is far more flexible than it was in the old days. For example, the frame sync-rate is not the big issue that it used to be. When Baird was experimenting with television from 1927-1929, it was mechanical in nature, instead of being electronic or CRT based as it has been since the early 1930's. The reciever has a large spinning disc (Weston disc) with 30 holes punched along the circumference. To get the light-pulses behind the wheel to sync with the point a hole would pass the recieving screen, an AC motor was used so the revolutions per minute would be a divisor of the power frequency (60/2=30). One of the problems Baird faced early on was picture to sync correctly, which was difficult at the time due to the variances in the 1920's electric distribution grid. When electronic TV was demonstrated by RCA in the early-mid 1930s, a new standard had to be set (the old system was 30 lines, if you can believe that!). The old standards were simply edited to make way for electronic TV. I believe that was the main reason for the inital standards being set the way they were. Since our televisions and monitors today are much more sophisticated, it doesn't make as much of a difference. I am aware that they make 50Hz NTSC television sets, as well as dual 50/60Hz sets like I stated earlier; my folks have a bigscreen that works that way. However, my cheapo 19 inch TV in my grad housing only works on 60Hz, NTSC. When I try to play back a PAL encoded disc, it goes haywire, so I have to stick with NTSC (I use NTSC film).

[Shuggie]

If you are encoding everything to PAL, regardless of source, you are vastly increasing your probability of problems with a/v sync, and choppy playback.

That's an interesting statement - do you mean that PAL itself is more prone to sync problems, or that NTSC -> PAL conversion is more prone to sync problems?

I speak as someone capturing and encoding in PAL and having sync problems!

[kinneera]

I was referring to the conversion, as far as I know there's nothing wrong with PAL itself in regards to sync.

[vitualis]

I fully agree with pacmania_2000 on this one. Do not do a framerate conversion unless you have to.

If your source is in 25 fps, encode to PAL settings.
If it is in 29.97 fps, encode to NTSC settings.
If it is in 23.976 fps, encode to NTSC-FILM settings.

Most DVD players will be able to play all three. Most newer non-US TVs are multisystems.

Many DVD players can convert from NTSC to PAL and vice versa to some degree of competence if you are unlucky enough to require this.

You should only do a framerate conversion if your DVD player + TV forces you to use only one system.

Regards.