PAL or NTSC?

[Bro]

I wonder...which is better...PAL or NTSC.
can someone that knows come with a good explanation ?
good and bad things.....
then I mean quality etc...not ehe..."PAL sucks because I can't play it on my dvd-player" or the other way around...

Thnx

[kotlet]

PAL, better resolution, no pesky telecine and somewhat better colors.

[Ookami]

NTSC = Never the same color :D

Does someone knows the real meaning of PAL?

And this is, obviously, a joke (to prevent certain misunderstandings).

[diji1]

Hi - hahaha, nice ookami :D. I believe the consensus is PAL is better for television and DVD/divx viewing. NTSC may possibly be better for video games, though this may have something to do with some poorly transferred NTSC -> PAL titles. [edit: just realised I said consensus when i was really making all of this up from my experiences. must be going mad o something]

[iwod]

does it really matter?? isn't it just different standard of with different resolution??

[theReal]

NTSC may possibly be better for video games, though this may have something to do with some poorly transferred NTSC -> PAL titles. I think NTSC is better for games because it has a higher refresh rate than PAL (for fast games PAL's 25 fps isn't really breathtaking, even when it's 50 half pictures per second).

does it really matter?? isn't it just different standard of with different resolution??That's exactly the point: NTSC has a higher refresh rate, but PAL has a higher resolution!

[Ookami]

@Bach

Thanks, now we have all these funny meanings on one place...

:D

Cheers,

Mijo.

[Neo Neko]

My understanding has always been that while PAL has better resolution it tends to strobe because of its low refresh/frame rate. NTSC while having lower resolution refreshes quicker therefore the strobing is much less noticable. As to which one to use. I would not say that one is really better than the other. It just depends on the source and how you plan to output. If your source is PAL and your equipment is PAL then stick with PAL. If it is NTSC then NTSC. A little telecine is not a big deal. In fact it is much easier to take care of than adjusting a PAL broadcast movie back to a proper 24 fps. It all comes down to the right format for the source/equipment.

[ppera2]

When such question is in discussion, we must be more specific about area where two standards are used.
In TV broadcasting is PAL clean winner - normally it is in fact enhanced NTSC.
DVD's - here I would split it again in two area: watching DVD on TV and watching DVD on computer.
Higher refresh rate of NTSC is only good when watch non-telecined video (recorded with video camera). By FILM's we have problems because of telecine, more or less visible.
But on computer you have chance to watch telecined FILM with IVTC, at 24 fps with good software players.
It is possible now on new progressive-scan NTSC TV's, but need DVD player with progressive-scan output too. It costs more than normal devices of course.

I think that only downside of PAL is 4% bigger playback speed. But it should not be problem for most of people.

All in all, for me PAL is clean winner in all areas.

I hope that with progress of digital technique we will have TV's capable to display video at any fps, high resolution. Then we will able to watch movies at normal speed, without telecine. Currently it's possible only on computers. (Or on TV's when we convert DVD :-) ).