Just wondering, cos the PAL specification has more scanlines than NTSC. Anyone who's seen both running on the same hardware care to vouch for any differences.. ??

------------------
---
" Well take your shoes off, you'll get 'em filthy in here.
'Scuse the mess only we can't be arsed to clear up. "
- Wayne Slob

The PAL format is definitly the superior format technically with more scan lines and more frames per second.However IMHO It's pretty damn hard to spot the difference on VHS,and impossible on DVD.`

PAL has less frames per second than NTSC, not more. NTSC is 30 frames per second (60 fields) and PAL is 25 frames per second (50 fields).

I am not going to get into the debate on which format is better, it is quite subjective. Just wanted to correct an error in the previous post.

------------------
Ralph LaBarge
AlphaDVD
[email protected]

The quality of the transfer is a lot more important than the slight difference in resolution. I own The Matrix on a region 1 disc, and I've seen parts of it on region 2.
I couldn't spot any difference. Also, an anamorphic transfer will make up for the lesser resolution.
As far as I know, NTSC is 720x480, PAL is 720x576. The framerates are 30fps and 25fps respectively. This works out to exactly the same amount of data per second:
720*480*30 = 720*576*25

Actually, that would probably correspond to the max. data rate; as far as I know DVDs use a variable bit rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Pasquale:
Just wondering, cos the PAL specification has more scanlines than NTSC. Anyone who's seen both running on the same hardware care to vouch for any differences.. ??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've compared quite a few, naturally there's some difference, there's less line noise in PAL and when watching stuff on TV screen it's harder to make out individual scanlines. If both are properly mastered and PAL DVD has higher bitrate to store the higher resolution equally well then the PAL DVD will look better.

All of the above goes for movie DVDs. With interlaced stuff like TV shows it gets more complicated. If something was recorded at NTSC resolution and 30 fps then it only gets worse in conversion to PAL, same goes for conversion of PAL stuff to NTSC (Monty Python's Flying Circus was shot in PAL for instance I guess).

The lower quality of NTSC usually shows up in horizontal camera pans because it looks very jerky

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jusa:

Also, an anamorphic transfer will make up for the lesser resolution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PAL can be anamorphic too, you know http://talk.dvdtalk.com/ubb/smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As far as I know, NTSC is 720x480, PAL is 720x576. The framerates are 30fps and 25fps respectively. This works out to exactly the same amount of data per second:
720*480*30 = 720*576*25<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True for TV shows, but movies are stored at 24 fps on both so you'll need higher bitrates for PAL movie DVDs.

Both formats are archaic.

Mr Bigglesworth saya "The lower quality of NTSC usually shows up in horizontal camera pans because it looks very jerky". This isn't anything to do with NTSC having 'lower quality'.

It is because film runs at 24 frames per second, and so PAL VHS and DVD simply increases the speed to 25 fps. NTSC is 30 frames a second, and so you have to double up a frame here and there to make the required number of fps.

We made some calculations, based on PAL being a VISIBLE 625 lines and NTSC 525 (which isn't true), working out what you see at a given distance from the TV set, and we came to the conclusion that if you sit a few inches further back from the screen, the difference should cancel out. Of course, thats just numbers, not subjective visual experience.

I have both Region 4 PAl and Region 1 NSTC DVD's and I am yet to notice any discernable difference in picture on my TV.

Note: I do not have the same DVD in both formats ( I am not that rich)

DVD is such superior quality to VHS we should be trying to convince george and steven to release all their classic movies on DVD

Boris

"...The PAL format is definitly the superior format technically with more scan lines and more frames per second..."

Well, the 'more [theoretically 20% more] scan lines' of PAL arguably constitute an advantage, but the 'more frames per second' is actually a disadvantage, since not only does it speed up the program (e.g. a 100-minute movie will fly by at 96 minutes), it also increases the pitch of the soundtrack by about a quarter tone, something that people with 'golden ears' find very annoying!

! http://talk.dvdtalk.com/ubb/wink.gif !

Welcome Boris!
http://talk.dvdtalk.com/ubb/smile.gif

Beejay

Yes Hendrik, I'd rather have NTSC and an occasionally jerky pan shot than the squeeky voices I sometimes hear on PAL movies.

I always remember the first time I heard Sulu on Star Trek 6 in NTSC, he sounded so BUTCH! After all those years of sounding girly...

Ok, with my VAST experience at suffering from cruddy NTSC, here is the actual stats:

PAL is 25fps at 50 fields, DVD resolution of 720x576.

NTSC is a different matter. There are two types of NTSC, 29.97fps Interlaced source. This is mostly used in TV transfers or if the studio is trying to drasticly cut down cost at expense of image quality.

Interlaced source looks reasonable on TV, but looks badly on PC monitors and Progressive scan devices.

Movie sourced discs are usually 24fps (or rather 23.976fps when used with NTSC). These are about 95% of the movies sold. The resolution is 720x480.

PAL is superior in theory.

However, there are so many factors involved.

You may not know this, but certain movies have different distribution studios when it comes to international releases. That means, different encoding house, different features, etc...

For example, you can have a non-anamorphic title released in the U.S. And the same title can be anamorphic in R2 because it's a different studio doing the encoding.

But if you have exact sources, using the same personal and encoding software/hardware, PAL would look better.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendrik:

Well, the 'more [theoretically 20% more] scan lines' of PAL arguably constitute an advantage, but the 'more frames per second' is actually a disadvantage, since not only does it speed up the program (e.g. a 100-minute movie will fly by at 96 minutes), it also increases the pitch of the soundtrack by about a quarter tone, something that people with 'golden ears' find very annoying!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This can be mostly corrected with pitch correction. If you find something annoying, blame the audio engineers, not the format.

The engineers can't do anything about the 20% resolution difference, however.