Pal vs NTSC Tapes "Quality" Question

[Aro]

For a short introduction - I'm trying to preserve footage from the big VHS collection that consists out of PAL and NTSC tapes alike, probably in something like 75-25 ratio.

I live in the "Pal Land", Europe and I'm using PAL VCRs, so to capture NTSC tapes I have to go through the extra step, using Pioneer DVD recorder as a pass-through to conver PAL60 to genuine NTSC "signal" that my Hauppauge capture card can then "accept".
Despite that, I found that I have far less problems with the NTSC tapes. While with PAL recordings, I often come across tapes which give me some kinds of issues, with some momentarily signal loss and such, I almost never experience it with NTSC tapes.
Also, while JVC TBC can introduce "jitter" to PAL tapes, it's not the case with the NTSC tapes.

Thus, the question - are NTSC tapes in some way more "durable", holding up better with time, or are for some reason easier to recover? Could the capture card perhaps deal better with NTSC signal? Or could the tool I'm using (AmarecTV) be more suitable for NTSC tapes, for example?
...or rather is this just randomness and the NTSC tapes, which come from different sources, just happen to be of better quality?

Sorry if it's a stupid question, but it's something I've been wondering about for a while. I do PAL and NTSC in series, switching between one or the other for a couple weeks and it always strikes me how less problematic my NTSC tapes are.

[lollo]

There is no better "behaviour" (momentarily signal loss and such) of NTSC tapes versus PAL tapes.

In your case, the differences arise from casualty and/or the usage of the Pioneer DVD recorder for NTSC tapes, further stabilizing the signal.

[Aro]

In your case, the differences arise from casualty and/or the usage of the Pioneer DVD recorder for NTSC tapes, further stabilizing the signal.

I'm using a Panasonic ES-10 for PAL tapes as well, as a "stabiliser".

[lollo]

Then is just coincidence.

In any case, going from NTSC to PAL60 (VCR) to NTSC (DVD Recorder) is not optimal. Better to use a native NTSC VCR.

[dellsam34]

The NTSC tapes may just happen to be in a better condition than the PAL ones, I would get a US/Canadian NTSC VCR and capture the native NTSC 5.58 without conversion for better results.

[Aro]

Thanks guys. That clears up my little theory ).
I know that it would be better to get an NTSC VCR, but I'm out of budget for this project for the time being and the results are satisfactory.

[aramkolt]

A clean PAL should generally look better than NTSC because of the significant increase in vertical lines (all else being equal), but stability wise, that is up to other factors like tape condition, VCR condition, and use of TBCs

[lordsmurf]

A clean PAL should generally look better than NTSC because of the significant increase in vertical lines (all else being equal), but stability wise, that is up to other factors like tape condition, VCR condition, and use of TBCs

Nah, that's really just myth. PAL and NTSC resolution differences are so minor beyond modern standards. That old trope now looks silly.

In general, I find PAL to be slightly more grainy, and slightly more saturated. But I think that has more to do with decks than the tape data itself. Whereas NTSC tends to have more issues with halo and chroma offset. It's hard to notice these things unless you do PAL and NTSC to any volume, and have the ability to see like content in both formats. And those tendencies can heavily vary based on factors.

I'm using PAL VCRs, so to capture NTSC tapes I have to go through the extra step, using Pioneer DVD recorder as a pass-through to conver PAL60 to genuine NTSC "signal" that my Hauppauge capture card can then "accept".

This is a bad method, messy output. You're not actually dealing with NTSC, but a non-standard PAL. It's just not the same.

[lollo]

A clean PAL should generally look better than NTSC because of the significant increase in vertical lines (all else being equal), but stability wise, that is up to other factors like tape condition, VCR condition, and use of TBCs

Nah, that's really just myth. PAL and NTSC resolution differences are so minor beyond modern standards. That old trope now looks silly.

No.

I have many tapes of the same content both in PAL and NTSC versions, for instance:
https://fanderson.org.uk/shop/space1999-and-ufo-the-documentaries-pal/
https://fanderson.org.uk/shop/space1999-ufo-the-documentaries-dvd/

After properly capturing them, each in the appropriate workflow, the additional PAL resolution contributing to (sligthly) better quality is evident.
The only doubt is about the master origin (PAL and then NTSC conversion or the other way around), but that's negligible.

[Aro]

This is a bad method, messy output. You're not actually dealing with NTSC, but a non-standard PAL. It's just not the same.

I know it can be done better, but like I mentioned - my budget is limiting me... I also found that using high quality VCR - Blaupunkt 966 or Panasonic NV-FS200 - with a Pioneer DVD recorded as a pass-through, still gives me better results than using a lower-grade multi-system VCR which I also tried.

Plus, the quality is satisfactory overall - and I have more issues and concerns regarding my PAL captures.
Thinking about it, I think that my PAL tapes run longer much more often than the NTSC tapes.. So could it be Standard-Play vs Long/Extended Play issue, rather than PAL vs NTSC like I initially thought?

[Sharc]

Thinking about it, I think that my PAL tapes run longer much more often than the NTSC tapes.. So could it be Standard-Play vs Long/Extended Play issue, rather than PAL vs NTSC like I initially thought?

Definitely.

[aramkolt]

A clean PAL should generally look better than NTSC because of the significant increase in vertical lines (all else being equal), but stability wise, that is up to other factors like tape condition, VCR condition, and use of TBCs

As an aside, I sometimes see captures that I think look way better than mine, then realize they are PAL. It is "apples to oranges" at that point for me. PAL basically trades additional resolution for a decrease in framerate. It's unquestionably better for movies since it is closer to the usual film framerate of ~24fps and gets the extra resolution. NTSC has to add a lot more filler to expand it out to the ~30fps from the ~24fps source (telecine) and maintains the lower vertical resolution. I haven't really heard of the color system logistics being any better or worse on NTSC though.

[Sharc]

I haven't really heard of the color system logistics being any better or worse on NTSC though.

Compared to NTSC, PAL is less prone to color (hue) instabilites/fluctuations caused by phase instabilities/distortions. It may on the other hand exhibit 'Hanover bars' (horizontal stripes due to saturation fluctuations caused by non-perfect PAL phase error compensation (averaging) priniple).
For composite video PAL is more demanding on luma/chroma separating filters because of its more complex luma/chroma interleaving scheme as compared to NTSC.

[themaster1]

pal / ntsc tapes are different brands ?

[dellsam34]

It would really need a whole procedure of comparing NTSC and PAL to know exactly which one is better starting by recording the exact same source in both PAL and NTSC with the same VCR and capturing it with the same workflow to draw concrete conclusions, I have a VCR that can do that but let's leave this for another topic and get back to the subject.

[lordsmurf]

It would really need a whole procedure of comparing NTSC and PAL to know exactly which one is better starting by recording the exact same source in both PAL and NTSC with the same VCR and capturing it with the same workflow to draw concrete conclusions, I have a VCR that can do that but let's leave this for another topic and get back to the subject.

And sources are almost never equal.

A clean PAL should generally look better than NTSC because of the significant increase in vertical lines (all else being equal), but stability wise, that is up to other factors like tape condition, VCR condition, and use of TBCs

Nah, that's really just myth. PAL and NTSC resolution differences are so minor beyond modern standards. That old trope now looks silly.

No.
I have many tapes of the same content both in PAL and NTSC versions, for instance:
https://fanderson.org.uk/shop/space1999-and-ufo-the-documentaries-pal/
https://fanderson.org.uk/shop/space1999-ufo-the-documentaries-dvd/
After properly capturing them, each in the appropriate workflow, the additional PAL resolution contributing to (sligthly) better quality is evident.
The only doubt is about the master origin (PAL and then NTSC conversion or the other way around), but that's negligible.

No yourself. You're starting to become nothing more than a contrarian goober. Differences in VHS PAL vs. VHS NTSC resolution tend to be minor. This isn't the 1990s anymore.

I haven't really heard of the color system logistics being any better or worse on NTSC though.

It's really not that different. It was an exaggeration more than not. It turned into ignorant parroting eventually. That sort of nonsense has largely faded in the era of HD.

This is a bad method, messy output. You're not actually dealing with NTSC, but a non-standard PAL. It's just not the same.

I know it can be done better, but like I mentioned - my budget is limiting me... I also found that using high quality VCR - Blaupunkt 966 or Panasonic NV-FS200 - with a Pioneer DVD recorded as a pass-through, still gives me better results than using a lower-grade multi-system VCR which I also tried.
Plus, the quality is satisfactory overall - and I have more issues and concerns regarding my PAL captures.
hinking about it, I think that my PAL tapes run longer much more often than the NTSC tapes.. So could it be Standard-Play vs Long/Extended Play issue, rather than PAL vs NTSC like I initially thought?

Budget still doesn't make it not a bad method. Low budget is just a reason (sometimes excuse) to put up with the bad method. It doesn't make bad method good.

[lollo]

No yourself. You're starting to become nothing more than a contrarian goober. Differences in VHS PAL vs. VHS NTSC resolution tend to be minor. This isn't the 1990s anymore.

And you are just a charlatan needing to stop his non-sense.

There are technical reasons and facts.

Post some evidence (trying) to prove your bullshit, and then I will post mine.

BTW, PAL is PAL and NTSC is NTSC since ever and for ever, the 1990s is just out of contest.

[Aro]

pal / ntsc tapes are different brands ?

It's all over the place in that regard, different brands on both PAL and NTSC, varying tape to tape and source from source.

Budget still doesn't make it not a bad method. Low budget is just a reason (sometimes excuse) to put up with the bad method. It doesn't make bad method good.

You're right - although I don't claim it to be a good method in absolute terms. I just wrote that it gives me good enough results, considering the circumstances.

I took this project on myself, because the collector - now older man with health issues - could not take care of it anymore and there wasn't anyone better to do it. So, it is what it is at the end of a day. Better than the footage being lost forever.

[rgr]

Then is just coincidence.

In any case, going from NTSC to PAL60 (VCR) to NTSC (DVD Recorder) is not optimal. Better to use a native NTSC VCR.

It's best to transfer in NTSC 4.43. Transferring in 4.43MHz is better than in 3.58MHz.

[ozymango]

A clean PAL should generally look better than NTSC because of the significant increase in vertical lines (all else being equal), but stability wise, that is up to other factors like tape condition, VCR condition, and use of TBCs

I'm late to the fight but I have one small issue with watching PAL TVs, at least when I visited London back in the 1990s and early 2000s -- my optic nerve somehow picks up the 50hz "flicker" on PAL (and some other 50hz devices like some lights) versus 60hz USA/NTSC, and when I watched TV (these were the days of cathode ray tube TVs and monitors) in my hotel, I couldn't watch for more than half an hour because the slight "flicker" I saw on the TV gave me a slight headache. But I dunno if that's a thing with today's HDTV progressive monitors, when I worked tech support (USA) back in the cathode ray tube monitor days, we had some users who couldn't use monitors at certain refresh rates or they'd get airsick due to the tube flicker.