NTSC better than PAL??

[crOOk]

I asked myself why PAL DVDs look worse than NTSC ones. I know this might just be my opinion, but I'm sure there're a lot of people who've experienced the same difference in quality and compressibility as I did. I've also read the XviD-01082002 thread, but the answers I got there couldn't really satisfy me. This is my conclusion: Since PAL DVDs have a 20% higher resolution (576/480=1.2) and use 4.3% more frames, the size should be Size=120.0%*4.3%=125.1%. This is probably just not the case (I don't have a R1 DVD in the house right now and didn't check that). Don't PAL and NTSC DVDs both use a constant bitrate of 3000kb/s? I'm absolutely not sure about this, but that's what it says in the TMPEG presets. Maybe you could post some of your experiences on how the quality of R1 and R2 DVDs differs and please tell me which bitrates DVDs use. I think a constant bitrate of 3000kb/s sounds very reasonable (might be a question of compatibility and hardware requirements for the DVD players in different regions). That would mean that a pixel in a PAL DVD stream has 79,92% of the size that a NTSC one has (PAL:0.371b/p,NTSC:0.296b/p). that would explain why the PAL quality and compressibility are so bad.

[jggimi]

If I recall correctly, the mpeg2 video stream in dvd .vobs are vbr, and can be up to 10mbps. My Toshiba standalone player can display the video bitrate dynamically during playback.

I can't comment on pal vs. ntsc quality ... though I'll bet much of the subjective experience may depend on the type or quality of transfers.

[smiller667]

Originally posted by crOOk
Don't PAL and NTSC DVDs both use a constant bitrate of 3000kb/s? I'm absolutely not sure about this, but that's what it says in the TMPEG presets.I think CBR is quite uncommon on DVDs, it is mostly VBR and is usually more like 4-5Mb/s average. I am not experienced with this at all, but as you are German, maybe check this page: http://www.dvdboard.de/FAQ/data/filmbesprechungen.html - their reviews include a bitrate analysis, and they cover both R1 and R2.

[mpucoder]

The bitrates are usually even higher than that. But the point is well taken, there is more to compress with a PAL movie (because PAL itself is better than NTSC), and the bit-budget is the same for both.

[Slogra]

But you got to agree that when the bitrate is sufficient the PAL version will look better.

I traded my Terminator 2 PAL for the NTSC version cause the PAL version doesn't have seamless breaching. The picture quality of the PAL version was clearly better though.


Another problem with PAL DVD is that they often have several different soundtracks for different languages which take up extra space.

[WitzWolf]

There is a much simpler explanation why PAL-DVDs (not R2 because Japan is also R2 and NTSC) nowadays have a bad quality, and it is not an NTSC vs PAL Problem. They simply haven't got the the same source material to digitize and make the DVD from. So an european DVD often comes from a less good master copy of the film or the mastering company doesn't use the best hardware or hasn't got the best technicians. Take for example the DVD from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' there is a german R2 and a british R2 version of this one. The UK version has a far better visual quality than the german one.

But IMHO the discussion about the technical superiority of PAL vs NTSC is pointless. Both are cr**py TV-systems, that are some decades old and shouldn't have been used as DVD-Standard in the first place.
Hey look, we're in the new millennium and the DVD should have been used to push some HDTV-technology in the market (at least as an option, just like the different audio types you can use).

The new challenger will be D-VHS, that even now beats DVD in video-quality and can directly be used to record TV.

[mpucoder]

Yes, we have new technology for far superior pictures. But in the real world you don't make obsolete billions of television sets overnight. Right now, in America, there is a battle going on over mandating digital tuners (so that new sets would be able to receive digital and analog broadcasts). On one side are the set makers, who don't want the extra expense, and the cable companies, who want to keep you locked into their box. On the other side is the FCC trying to get into this "new millenium" and the open-air broadcasters (who already have a mandate to broadcast digital by 2004)

[ppera2]

PAL has higher res. but NTSC has higher fps, so there is not much difference in datarate per second.
I think that PAL is better when is used for FILM, because there is no telecine (3:2 pulldown) what is duplicating of fields in purpose to get 30 fps from 24. Of course PAL has problem that runs 4% faster than FILM... Sometimes very useful :-))

Witzwolf:
"But IMHO the discussion about the technical superiority of PAL vs NTSC is pointless. Both are cr**py TV-systems, that are some decades old and shouldn't have been used as DVD-Standard in the first place.
"
That's right, but DVD has from PAL or NTSC only framerate and resolution, there is nothing from color encoding, what is essence of PAL or NTSC (names are shortage of color encoding system: PAL - Phase Alternate Lines).
You can connect most of DVD players via RGB output, so nothing from color encoding, what gets much better picture.
Because people must watch DVD's on something, it's normal that they are made compatible with TV standards.
(Btw. in some Southern America's lands TV's are PAL, but they sell there NTSC DVD's - why ? :-) ) .

And when we are here, of course that in TV technique PAL is much better. Mormally, it is in fact enhanced NTSC.

[MvB]

@ppera2

PAL has higher res. but NTSC has higher fps, so there is not much difference in datarate per second.

As far as i know, this is not really true (in most cases).
the mpeg stream on the dvd is saved with real 23.976 fps. there are some bits in the stream that tell the decoder to construct the missing interlaced pictures on the fly, but they consume nearly no space on the dvd. So the normal fact is: mpeg2 stream coded with real 23.976 fps progressive and a resolution of 720x480 vs 25 fps and a resolution of 720x576. So you see, in PAL there's definitly a higher bitrate needed.

And I always buy the ntsc ones, because the picture quality was always better than the pal ones, don't know why. And the main reason: PAL runs MUCH!!!! too fast for me.

MvB

[grug2k]

PAL requires more bitrate than NTSC. PAL DVDs sometimes have features removed from it to allow for a higher bitrate.

(The Matrix, for instance, loses animated scene selections. No real loss, and it looks a lot better than R1. Fight Club, unfortunately, loses 3 of its commentaries :( )

NTSC is always gives an inferior-looking picture to its PAL equivalent. So when you have an NTSC disc that looks better, its because the source material used to master that disc is of higher quality.

For, example, The R4 version of Terminator 2 is better than the original release of T2 in Region 1, because they use the same master, but the PAL transfer looks better. But when the T2 Ultimate Edition came out in R1, it got a brand new transfer (some 2 years later) and looks a lot better than the R4.

[grug2k]

Originally posted by MvB
And the main reason: PAL runs MUCH!!!! too fast for me.


I can never notice the 4% speedup visually, and I doubt that people can really notice and get bothered by it. I think its more of a psychological thing.

What DOES bother me is the raise in pitch. (Thankfully LOTR has been pitch corrected...guess thats what you get when the director lives in R4.)

[ppera2]

Bitrate is usually not problem. I see that most of dual layer DVD's are not filled up 100%. Perhaps 10-15 % of PAL DVD's what I saw was not so good, and I saw over 500.
Problem could be:
1: Bad Source (master)
2: Bad equipment
3: Stuff which made it poor

For example Green Mile, which is 3 hours long is excellent, while Robin Hood Prince of Thieves is very bad, unsharp, noisy, low contrast, and it is 2h 20 min. Both films are on dual layer DVD.

More pixel = better picture :-)

[Slogra]

Originally posted by grug2k
For, example, The R4 version of Terminator 2 is better than the original release of T2 in Region 1, because they use the same master, but the PAL transfer looks better. But when the T2 Ultimate Edition came out in R1, it got a brand new transfer (some 2 years later) and looks a lot better than the R4.

My T2 Ultimate Edition R2 looked better than T2 Ultimate Edition R1

[grug2k]

Originally posted by Slogra


My T2 Ultimate Edition R2 looked better than T2 Ultimate Edition R1

Well there you go, you're supporting my argument that given the same source, PAL wins. Its just that theres no Ultimate Edition in R4. (Distribution contract for all the old Carolco films ran out..)

[beta447]

as far as i know, the most noticably difference between NTSC and PAL are the number of lines. while NTSC has only 525, PAL has 625, or 100 more, giving it 16% better resolution if i'm not mistaken. this is not to say that NTSC has poor resolution in any way.

as for the FPS, any more then 24 concistant changes per second and each individual frame becomes indistinguishable from one before or after it, so they're virtually tied in that respect.