What's better.. PAL or NTSC

[killerhis]

Like the subject said.. what do you think is better, PAL or NTSC (for DVD)

I know that PAL has a higher resolution then NTSC, but NTSC has a higher framerate...

Please post your opinion here, whith your opinion why you prefere that PAL/NTSC

[avih]

there is no 'better'.

pal is 576 lines x 25frames/sec (50 fields/sec)
ntsc is 480 lines x ~30frames/sec (~60 fields/sec)

line width is analog, but usually pal is considered 768 and ntsc 640.
both are interlaced.

so pal is lower in framerate and higher in resolution.
their bandwidth is more or less equal.

ntsc has some slight color mismatches.
ntsc is in a strange framerate (slightly below 30 frames/sec) and hence causes some hard times when converting ntsc video sequences.

when converting a film (24 fps) to pal, the result plays faster (4%) each film frame is imposed over 2 pal fields hence every second plays 25 frames of the film instead of 24.

it's a bit harder to convert a film to ntsc, but it plays the correct length.

you can NOT choose which one to use. your government did that already ;)

search the net for some more info, i'm sure you could have find plenty by using the search button and doing some googling.

[DJ Bobo]

Originally posted by avih
you can NOT choose which one to use. your government did that already ;)

That was a good one :D

@ killerhis
If you have a region-free DVD player and a multi-system TV, and are wondering which DVDs would be better, That's what I can recommend you:
1) looking for anime DVDs? get NTSC ones, because anime PAL conversions are done in a bad way most of the time.
2) looking for movies? well, I would go for PAL versions, because movies are most of the time correctly converted to PAL (speed up to 25fps) and have a higher resolution/sharpness than their NTSC camarades.

[killerhis]

I've got a region free DVD player, so i can play any DVD (PAL or NTSC)... but what i actualy want to know... what is better for encoding... PAL or NTSC.. What gives the best result en best quality?

Please post your advice here!

[DJ Bobo]

@ killerhis
I already gave you the answer ;)

[jggimi]

Forum rule 12:Do not ask "what's best" because this question cannot be answered objectively. Each and everyone has their own view about what's best in a certain area. The best is what works best for you!

[Neo Neko]

Very true. They both have pro's and cons. And all the rate converting you can do for PAL can be done with NTSC as well. And the extra bit-o resolution is semi-negligable. Just use what is avalible to you and be happy. Because no matter how you encode. No matter what type or how many DVD you buy. HD-DVD are on the way and your encodings will be inferior anyway. :P

[DJ Bobo]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
And all the rate converting you can do for PAL can be done with NTSC as well

I don't agree, you can't get progressive rips from most PAL anime titles.

[JonRead]

I have always found PAL to be best. I don't see why a higher frame rate will give better quality, especially when films are 24 frames. PAL uses a higher resolution and is slightly brighter and clearer in my opinion. I always find PAL more "life like" if comparing against NTSC. Bare in mind this is just a personal opinion :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by DJ Bobo
I don't agree, you can't get progressive rips from most PAL anime titles.

Well for one I was not speaking in terms of anime but more video in general. And second I was speaking more in terms of frame rate conversion and not interlaced to progressive conversion. But outside of that I agree with you 100%. ;)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by JonRead
I have always found PAL to be best. I don't see why a higher frame rate will give better quality, especially when films are 24 frames.

Well there is a point at which it rapidly becomes placebo. Much over 30Fps for instance. But the difference is noticable especially on CRT based TVs relying on phosphor bombardment

Originally posted by JonRead
PAL uses a higher resolution and is slightly brighter and clearer in my opinion.

It is your oppinion and you are entitled to it. But it carries no weight unless you are watching a pal version of a video on a properly configured PAL set and an NTSC version on a similarly configured NTSC set side by side in a blind test condition. PAL material tends to not look good on sets built For NTSC even if they do "support" PAL. and the same goes for NTSC on PAL. So it is not so much a flaw of either video standard but a bias of the hardware or viewer. I am getting massive placebo vibes here.

Originally posted by JonRead
I always find PAL more "life like" if comparing against NTSC. Bare in mind this is just a personal opinion :)

Ok placebo confirmed.

As I said you are best off to stick with the standard which your country uses or the format in which the video was originally presented. Neither format is superior in the end for anything other than videos sourced in the same format. Plus keep in mind that even though PAL has a higher spatial resolution it has the same datarate restrictions as NTSC on DVD. More data requires more datarate giving PAL a slight handicap for some movies. And while there are poorly masterd NTSC DVD it is often more common to find poorly mastered PAL DVD. The quality can even vary from country to country even though they use the same format.

I think it would probably be best if this thread were locked. It has been discussed to death elsewhere and has always relied on enforcing oppinion as fact. So it tends to degenerate really rapidly. May the world be united in digital HDTV.

[iwod]

Originally posted by Neo Neko


As I said you are best off to stick with the standard which your country uses or the format in which the video was originally presented.

So are janpanese anime orginally presented in NTSC or PAL??

[mpucoder]

I would assume anime is mostly NTSC, as that is the standard of Japan.

As to bitrate, Pal and interlaced NTSC are the same - really. The number of pixels per second is identical, PAL = 720x576x25 = 10368000, NTSC = 720x480x30 = 10368000. The digital frame sizes were chosen deliberately for this purpose. In D1 (which is the "raw" data format for DVD) both are sampled at 13.5MHz, with color subsampled at 6.75MHz. It's only when pulldown is used that NTSC can allocate more bits to each frame.
So now ask yourself what's more important, and what am I watching? On NTSC camera work (live television) is less jerky, movies can have more bits per pixel for encoding, and run in nearly the correct time. PAL has higher spatial resolution, movies are sped up and require pitch correction.

[ppera2]

Ahh... it was already couple times here... And again, question is not enough specific.

I try to answer it best, without some placebo :)

TV broadcasting: PAL is clear winner. It's normal - PAL is actually enhanced NTSC. It uses chroma carrier phase alternation in every second line to decrease color errors caused by phase shift (mostly) by TV senders.

DVD with movie: I wonder that nobody mentioned bad effect of Telecine to motion. It's sometimes very noticable, and is certainly worse than 4% speedup of PAL. Not to mention 'phosphor bombardment' :D - give me a break!
Also such way of interlacing (telecine) is far from perfect.

DVD with video (interlaced), or pure video - PAL has higher res., NTSC higher framerate. It's matter of taste what is more important.

As I see future HDTV goes in way of higher res. Didn't hear about some framerate increasing.

I never saw PAL anime DVD what is made incorrect.

Finally, there is PAL with 30 fps in Southern America, so don't tie PAL with 25 fps. (They took best from 2 Worlds :D )

[Zhnujm]

Originally posted by ppera2
DVD with movie: I wonder that nobody mentioned bad effect of Telecine to motion. It's sometimes very noticable, and is certainly worse than 4% speedup of PAL.

you mean the motion is not perfectly smooth ? i thought it was a problem in my dvd or tv setup. (i recently got a ntsc dvd)

[ppera2]

Originally posted by mpucoder
I would assume anime is mostly NTSC, as that is the standard of Japan.

It's only when pulldown is used that NTSC can allocate more bits to each frame.


Anime, what I saw is mostly Disney, and all was very well made on PAL DVD's.

That about more bitrate for NTSC with 24 fps would be true if they would use whole DVD capacity, but it's very rare case...
(pulldown used? - pulldown flag better said...).

[ppera2]

Originally posted by Zhnujm
you mean the motion is not perfectly smooth ? i thought it was a problem in my dvd or tv setup. (i recently got a ntsc dvd)

Of course that it's not smooth when you repeat every fourth field. It means that 6 times in second you have short motion stop.

[DJ Bobo]

@ ppera2
I would even say, PAL-speed-up is better than original 24fps, well it's 4% smoother :D

And believe me, most PAL anime DVDs (have no idea about Disney DVDs - those are cartoons btw, not anime) are converted the "worse" way, that means no speed up, but interlacing & blending (you'll find blends within the fields) which make conversion back to 24fps impossible. On a standard 50Hz TV you won't notice anything wrong, but on some 100Hz TVs and on PC monitors, you simply can't fully enjoy your viewing session.

You sure there is 30fps PAL?! I don't believe that!

I hope the day comes where all DVDs are encoded in progressive mode when the source is progressive. This is unfortunately not the case today (not for NTSC and not for PAL ¬.¬)

[DJ Bobo]

YES ! YES !

[DJ Bobo]

has a pal DVD in brasil 720x576 @ 30fps?!
or 720x480 @ 30fps but with color being PAL coded?! :confused:

[ppera2]

Originally posted by DJ Bobo
@ ppera2

And believe me, most PAL anime DVDs (have no idea about Disney DVDs - those are cartoons btw, not anime) are converted the "worse" way, that means no speed up, but interlacing & blending (you'll find blends within the fields) which make conversion back to 24fps impossible. On a standard 50Hz TV you won't notice anything wrong, but on some 100Hz TVs and on PC monitors, you simply can't fully enjoy your viewing session.

I hope the day comes where all DVDs are encoded in progressive mode when the source is progressive. This is unfortunately not the case today (not for NTSC and not for PAL ¬.¬)

I don't know that 'NTSC' anime-cartoon terminology. Here, in Europe we say anime for all hand or computer made movie. Anyway, how some anime's are converted to PAL has not much with that how good is that standard.

Why you think that PAL DVD's are not in progressive mode?

[ppera2]

Originally posted by DJ Bobo
has a pal DVD in brasil 720x576 @ 30fps?!
or 720x480 @ 30fps but with color being PAL coded?! :confused:

PAL-M or PAL-N have 525 vertical lines - same as NTSC. Therefore they use actually NTSC DVD's!

Second question: right - actually scan parameters are same as by NTSC, but color coding is like PAL, because of better quality of PAL.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

a visit to the google;
http://www.google.com/search?q=pal+m+color+subcarrier&ie=ISO-8859-2&hl=hr&lr=

and
http://www.imcine.com/video/worldtv.txt



"PAL (Phase Alternation Line): developed in Germany. Based in the NTSC
system, it was modified to avoid color distortion. Broadcast started
in 1967.

Basic Parameters: PAL B,G,H PAL I PAL D PAL N PAL M
line/field 625/50 > > > 525/60
horizontal frequency 15.625 KHz > > > 15.750
vertical frequency 50 Hz > > > 60 Hz
color subcarrier freq 4.433618 MHz > > 3.582056 3.575611
video bandwith 5.0 MHz 5.5 6.0 4.2 4.2
sound bandwith 5.5 MHz (FM) 6.0 6.5 4.5 4.5
(">" means same as previous column)"


myself i like PAL........
pal is improved ntsc with better color stability (no "hue"
setting,color phase auto correctiton...color phase IS IMPORTANT component of system...),better resolution....
(yeap,you ntsc folks can bitch about it but 768x576 is more than 640x480....difference is visible...PAL is sharper...so sharp that europeans wait for the whole world to adopt HDTV first,and then they'll follow...hehe)
fieldrate 50 vs. 60 of ntsc?
my eyes don't hurt after watching pal for hours....

another thing;it's wrong to claim that film in cinema is
24fps!
it's not!
it's 48fps as there's a trick there too:the "light-bulb"
of the projector is flickering at 48hz,so every frame is exposed
to light twice......
so,the film itself is shot in 24fps mode,but when projected in cinema
every frame is projected twice (frame1 projected-blackscreen-frame1projected again.....,frame2-blackscreen-frame2 projected again....)
blackout are injected into every frame to increase flicker frequency,and to remove eye's perception of flicker....
(the higher teh flicker frequency the less you'll notice it...)

also:even 50hz flicker is slightly visible if you turn your eyes a bit from the screen (not far,so you still have screen in the bottom of your view....or on thte side...)
then you might notice it flickers a bit........
fluorescent light on 50hz flickers too.......

so don't think 24fps doesn't flicker!
(bare in mind that your PC monitor still has same (high) refresh frequency even if you watch 25 or 24fps digital video...,and watched on tv-out it's ff course 50 or 60HZ)
you have no way to watch "pure" 24fps of film.....

[Neo Neko]

I am not gonna take the time to answer everyone individually. So it is all getting thrown in here.

@mpucoder
Yes Japan adopted the NTSC standard durring the period in which America was rebuilding them.

But I also think it is time for a little bit of clear up here. Anime as used by Japanese animation fans is a slang term that only refferences Japanese animation. Just as they use Otaku as a slang refference for themselves. But otaku in Japanese is actually the word for home IIRC. Anime if I am not mistaken is a french word whitch reffers to animation as a whole and not such a narrow segment. Since we have an international community here not solely concerned with Japanese Animation I think it is important we clear that up.

In response to ^^-+I4004+-^^ an others making claims that PAL is better for broadcast. This is only partially true. In terms of analog broadcast this is most ceartainly true. In terms of DVD and digital broadcast this has no basis for any argument. And digital broadcast of NTSC is actually far more common nowadays than analog. Whether is is cable or sattelite at most in any one area there are about 4 or 5 analog NTSC stations the other several hundred are broadcast digitally over sattelite or cable.

@^^-+I4004+-^^ specifically.
NTSC IS NOT 640x480. Get your facts straight. If you ever wish to have an argument that holds weight such things are important to have correct.

PAL is not better than NTSC is not better than PAL. End of story. All those who would have you believe that PAL is better seek to only bring up things like the fact of PALs better analog broadcast support. Which is completely irrelevent in terms of DVD and the common digital broadcast of NTSC. In the end PAL and NTSC both in digital form convey the same amount of data.

I am still in favor of locking the thread before someone decides to fight oppinion with oppinion.

Besides. In the end a real quality freak would not be seen buying either PAL or NTSC DVD. Not when HDTV is so close.

[mpucoder]

The "light bulb" doesn't flicker at 48Hz, the film is double shuttered. In fact most theaters don't use light bulbs, the old projectors use carbon arc running on DC. Newer projectors use Xenon lamps.
768x576? Sorry, digital PAL is 720x576.

[midiguy]

I beleive what ^^-+I4004+-^^ was doing with those resolutions was just converting them into their 4:3 aspect forms. but that doesn't really mean much..

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

>The "light bulb" doesn't flicker at 48Hz, the film is double shuttered.

i used this as a figure to explain something
(am not english native so right there i missed some
words...)
right...double shattered......
[but the end result to observer is as if the
xenon lamp is flickering at 48hz....but it's easier to achieve
synchronism by shutering then by flickering the light source...
correct....dictionary was whole 2meters away..hehe]

>768x576? Sorry, digital PAL is 720x576.

from my point it's not;
768x576 is square pixel i use for capturing
720x576 is non-square pixel,plus it's non 1,3 AR
(shoot it up your tv-out to see it doesn't correspond to
original tv image.if you're into capturing that is...)
720x576 is 1,25.that doesn't fill 4:3 screen....(unless you use the player that will strech it...)
also...768x576 will look better aftter resizing than 720x576...
mjpeg showes less ringing on higher res........
768x576 is a way to go for capturing PAL....720x576 makes mess of
AR and PAR.......(but if you aim for mpeg2 dvd or svcd,then forget all that i said...)

nn>Yes Japan adopted the NTSC standard durring the period in which America was rebuilding them.


NTSC is the oldest system.it's the inferior system....
that's why it's worse...
PAL is improved NTSC....ask any tehnician...

nn>Anime if I am not mistaken is a french word

it's older....."animare" is latin for " to make something alive "
french ported it.....

nn>@^^-+I4004+-^^ specifically.
NTSC IS NOT 640x480. Get your facts straight. If you ever wish to have an argument that holds weight such things are important to have correct.


should we talk bandwidth?lines of h.res.?scanlines?
resolution after kell-factor....
anything you like.....
i'm simplifying for those who won't get that deep (most of them...)
ntsc has cca. 480 scanlines used for video (i could calculate you
the exact precise number of visible scanlines(if i were to find data on how much VBI eats...piece of cake....),but am not going to
480 is close enough.as is 576 for pal...)
you thought ntsc is 525?
yeah,well....it's not......
same as pal is not 625......
another fact for ya;ntsc vhs has the same number
of scanlines as broadcast ntsc...
(ok,now i'm bitchin without a good reason..heh)
let's get it correct;
ntsc has 480 lines of usefull video payload
pal has 576 lines of usefull video payload
(and not all of these lines will be visible always...
thet's what kell factor speaks of....)
PAL has higher video bandwidh (every line
is drawn with more precision...the electronics
in PAL system will show more...the transmitter will
send more data about the line...more luma AND more chroma info..
NTSC complete bandwidth ends where PAL chroma info begins....roughly)

note;both ntsc and pal have simillar "horizontal frequency" (15.625khz pal and 15.734khz) so any gain in bandwidth
means better image quality (ie. PAL would beat NTSC even if
PAL had only 525 lines as it has greater bandwidth...)
there.is that precise enough?
now,you say what's the ntsc resolution....
(none of that "impossible to measure" talk please..)

nn> In the end PAL and NTSC both in digital form convey the same amount of data.


not true;pal has more scanlines.....it has less fieldrate but
i don't think it's of importance;would you like,let's say 1280x1080
on 50hz or let's say 1080x768 on 60hz?
i would go for 50hz version....it makes for sharper image...
50 or 60hz you WILL NOT see the difference....

nn>End of story. All those who would have you believe that PAL is better seek to only bring up things like the fact of PALs better analog broadcast support. Which is completely irrelevent in terms of DVD and the common digital broadcast of NTSC. In the end PAL and NTSC both in digital form convey the same amount of data.
I am still in favor of locking the thread before someone decides to fight oppinion with oppinion.

end of story because you say these two systems are the same?
huh?
if they were the same then wouldn't all of us be watching ntsc?
it's same as 8VSB vs. COFDM war....seems like europeans take their time.....doesn't mean that US systems are bad;only that there's a room for improvement....

i'm not saying that this is of ANY importance,but if the guy asked,let's give him some answers.....
you're a mod?
still it's not right,it's not fair to close this thread.......

(ok,you can close it now...hehe)

cheers
/ivo

[JonRead]

Neo Neko, why lock this thread ?? The whole point is discussion. So what if people disagree with other peoples opinions, if we all didn't believe we were right then we wouldn't make the statements in the first place. So if someone said I was wrong, then fair enough, that is their opinion and right. Same with everyone else. I don't see why a discussion should be closed just because people disagree with each other and believe their own statements or opinion to be true.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
nn>Yes Japan adopted the NTSC standard durring the period in which America was rebuilding them.


NTSC is the oldest system.it's the inferior system....
that's why it's worse...
PAL is improved NTSC....ask any tehnician...

If PAL were an improved NTSC then it would be a substandard or deviant standard of NTSC and not PAL.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
nn>Anime if I am not mistaken is a french word

it's older....."animare" is latin for " to make something alive "
french ported it.....

Should we go back further? Because the latin got it from someone else. My point being is that it is directly pronounced the same as the french term for animation which implies animation in general. Not just Japanese Animation. Hence the confusion amongst international persosns who do not follow it.

nn>@^^-+I4004+-^^ specifically.
NTSC IS NOT 640x480. Get your facts straight. If you ever wish to have an argument that holds weight such things are important to have correct.


Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
you thought ntsc is 525?
yeah,well....it's not......
same as pal is not 625......

Wrong they are. They may not use all of them or they may not be visable all the time but that is how the standards are defined.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
let's get it correct;
ntsc has 480 lines of usefull video payload
pal has 576 lines of usefull video payload
(and not all of these lines will be visible always...
thet's what kell factor speaks of....)

Spatially yes. Temproally you are incorrect. NTSC has more lines of usefull data temporally.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
PAL has higher video bandwidh (every line
is drawn with more precision...the electronics
in PAL system will show more...the transmitter will
send more data about the line...more luma AND more chroma info..
NTSC complete bandwidth ends where PAL chroma info begins....roughly)

ROTFLMAO! Ok ok. So what you are saying is that MPEG2 PAL video caries more color/better information than MPEG2 NTSC. It's MPEG2 man it is the same. As the situation will be for all digital broadcasts PALs old analog broadcast advantage has become irrelivent. And was never relivent here in the discussion of digital and DVD video.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
note;both ntsc and pal have simillar "horizontal frequency" (15.625khz pal and 15.734khz) so any gain in bandwidth
means better image quality (ie. PAL would beat NTSC even if
PAL had only 525 lines as it has greater bandwidth...)
there.is that precise enough?[B]

For analog braodcast yes I agree with you 100%. But in the domain of digital video and DVD that is neither here nor there.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
[B]nn> In the end PAL and NTSC both in digital form convey the same amount of data.


not true;pal has more scanlines.....it has less fieldrate but
i don't think it's of importance;would you like,let's say 1280x1080
on 50hz or let's say 1080x768 on 60hz?
i would go for 50hz version....it makes for sharper image...
50 or 60hz you WILL NOT see the difference....

You are ignoring it. temporal spatial. temporal spatial. temporal spatial. You are ignoring it. PAL does "not" have more scanlines. And yes it does make a difference.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
nn>End of story. All those who would have you believe that PAL is better seek to only bring up things like the fact of PALs better analog broadcast support. Which is completely irrelevent in terms of DVD and the common digital broadcast of NTSC. In the end PAL and NTSC both in digital form convey the same amount of data.
I am still in favor of locking the thread before someone decides to fight oppinion with oppinion.

end of story because you say these two systems are the same?
huh?

I never said they were the same. I simply said that niether one was "better" than the other. That does not in any way imply they are the same.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
if they were the same then wouldn't all of us be watching ntsc?

If it were not for politics etc none of us would be watching NTSC, PAL, or the very politically motivated SECAM video systems. We would all have something better. For the last 20+ years people have fought to have non land line terrestrial broadcasts converted to digital here in the US. And it was shere politics that held it back. The technology was there all the way back then. 20+ years of fighting and wading through red tape and there is still another 3 years till everyone is supposed to be strictly digital. But that deadline will be ignored due to politics.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
i'm not saying that this is of ANY importance,but if the guy asked,let's give him some answers.....

The answers are that there are no clear answers. The answer is that all "what is best" threads are pointless because it is a 100% subjective experience based mostly on oppinion.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
you're a mod?
still it's not right,it's not fair to close this thread.......

It is not you or this topic specifically that spurs this. I would rather that all "what's best" topics were closed because they are pointless. Outside of all the oppinion and possible venom exchanged all the numbers and terms thrown around could have been found in the first few links of a basic google search.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by JonRead
Neo Neko, why lock this thread ?? The whole point is discussion. So what if people disagree with other peoples opinions, if we all didn't believe we were right then we wouldn't make the statements in the first place.

Oppinions are fine so long as they do not masquarade as truth. An oppinion can only be truth if everyone has the same oppinion. But even then that can not keep the truth from being disproven or changed. To ask what is better is to ask what is true. To whit only oppinions not universally shared have been presented.

Originally posted by JonRead
So if someone said I was wrong, then fair enough, that is their opinion and right. Same with everyone else. I don't see why a discussion should be closed just because people disagree with each other and believe their own statements or opinion to be true.

Had it been "Which do you preffer PAL or NTSC?" I would have agreed with you. But it was not. A technicality I know. But an important distinction none the less. What is "better" is unclear. What everyone preffers is all to clear. Judge it for yourself and make your own truth. Don't count on others. Just keep in mind that your truth may not be others. ;)

[avih]

@Neo Neko
wuzup? ;)

[ppera2]

@Neo Neko

I'm not sure are you some kind of moderator here, but the way how you discuss here is not good - my opinion.

You should first gain some knowledge about materia, and then go in such deep technical things. Whole thing about NTSC and later PAL development is well known, and you can find lot of WEB sites about that. Saying that if it would be enhanced NTSC then it should be not called PAL is ridiculous. What do you know about motives about giving that name?
Here I see also some geopolitical opinions, in very bad moment, when one big country demonstrates that they can do anything what they want, because they are 'the best'.
Politics had some influence in establishing standards, but it is mostly technical thing, and experts choosed particular systems.

Yes, this whole thread is not as it should be. I stated it in my first post here already.

I have feeling, that you can accept that something outside US can be better, and your ignorance for some facts wroten here prooves that.

It is not subjective, for example that digital PAL has higher res.
'NTSC has more lines of usefull data temporally' - what this means?
(btw. useful, not usefull).
I don't want to point on more thing, this post is already too long...

And please, don't take this personally, or as some insult. I just write here what I feel, what I see, what I think.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

nn,you should have a bit deeper insight into
all things analog (this is a good basis for digital
video )
far from me being an expert,but have read few
decent books on tv technology.....
few points though;

1- barebone of NTSC and PAL are the same
PAL improves on color coding scheme and gives more
bandwidth....PAL IS improved NTSC,NTSC does some
stuff in brilliant way...PAL improves
the things NTSC doesn't do so good.....
(and everybody knows...NeverTheSameColor)

2- 525 or 625..what matters are the lines that carry
pure video...if you have VBI of 200 lines you would
still talk of 525 or 625 resolution?
hmmmmmm

3- bb>ROTFLMAO!

this wasn't called for!
laughing at me cause i said PAL
has bigger video bandwidth?
you can laugh your socks off,but still
it's the truth......

4- bb>But in the domain of digital video and DVD that is neither here nor there

again;more res. means more res.
can you live with it?
50 or 60 doesn't matter....50 is good too
(trust me,i used to watch tv for long periods..)
digital or analog ,PAL has more lines....
don't mix lines of resolution and fieldrate!
don't put them together even!
resolution is MORE important..(as long as
you don't go too low with fieldrate!
50 is NOT too low...bare that in mind...)

i hear your argument on PAL transmission being better
,BUT PAL is better even if you take (for example)
NTSC and PAL pre-recorded VHS tapes!
(ie. it's NOT just that PAL corrects color
errors on transmission...it's better even when NTSC has NO
color error (analog example is NTSC prerecorded
VHS tape.....)...allright?
better because of higher resolution/bandwidth!)

5-bb>I would rather that all "what's best" topics were closed because they are pointless

true,true...but it's just the name of the thread....
what's in a name?

i posed few arguments,you posted few misunderstandings
(someone here said;
"As to bitrate, Pal and interlaced NTSC are the same - really. The number of pixels per second is identical, PAL = 720x576x25 = 10368000, NTSC = 720x480x30 = 10368000".
i think this mislead you;
pixelrates mean less: you could have (for example) 1000x800x20
and have simillar pixelrate (no i didn't calculate but you catch my drift....) but this video would flicker more...ie. not acceptable..
pixelpersecond is not good tool to evaluate image quality! )

here's a challenge for you;
make NTSC screenshots that will beat my samples on
http://i4004.bizhosting.com
and i will admit that i'm wrong!
lindsey dubb posted some 640x480 stuff,but he
used DScaler for it,and i don't think that was a good
thing to do!
so you do it;prove me wrong...
prove me xxx x 480 (to be precise i won't state "640",
use what you will....) looks better than xxx x 576.....
sure,it won't be same sources,but difference WILL be
visible;less res. IS visible.....
640x480 (yeap,1.3AR) won't stack up to
768x576 (still 1.3AR)
mark my words!

contradict in argumented way all that
i and ppera said,and then close this thread

only that way to close it would be justified;
in that case i would never said one
word about resolutions on this forum...
ie. my opinion would be defeated,you proved it
to me,so i stop with use of it......

regards

/ivo

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ppera2
You should first gain some knowledge about materia, and then go in such deep technical things. Whole thing about NTSC and later PAL development is well known, and you can find lot of WEB sites about that.

I have already read many of them. Many many many of them. And not one of the "indepth" ones even hint at PAL being better. Neither do they hint at NTSC being better.

Originally posted by ppera2
Saying that if it would be enhanced NTSC then it should be not called PAL is ridiculous.

I know. It's kinda like DXN calling their latest product Divx 5 and their future one Divx 6. I mean after all they are newer better enhanced versions of Divx 4. Oh wait that is not rediculous. That makes sense.

Originally posted by ppera2
What do you know about motives about giving that name?

It's all political.

Originally posted by ppera2
Here I see also some geopolitical opinions, in very bad moment, when one big country demonstrates that they can do anything what they want, because they are 'the best'.

That was completely off topic and uncalled for and I do take that as an insult. :angry: Throughout this whole discussion I have never said that anyone is better or worse than anyone else. I don't claim NTSC is always better than PAL or vice versa. I don't say that someone is worse simply because of the systems they use.

This is not the time or place to discuss IRAQ etc. I am not gunho for war. And I do think it is motivated by oil to an extent. But someone "does" need to do something about it. And unfortunatly it is clear it will not be europe. But lets leave it at that because it really has no business here.

Originally posted by ppera2
Politics had some influence in establishing standards, but it is mostly technical thing, and experts choosed particular systems.

Yes they chose a particular system. Not. They chose one of many systems and sub systems off that system.

Originally posted by ppera2
I have feeling, that you can accept that something outside US can be better, and your ignorance for some facts wroten here prooves that.

It is not subjective, for example that digital PAL has higher res.
'NTSC has more lines of usefull data temporally' - what this means?
(btw. useful, not usefull).

You can't think of a single instance where it is useful? Whell then you have not thought that hard about it.

Originally posted by ppera2
And please, don't take this personally, or as some insult. I just write here what I feel, what I see, what I think.

Sorry to late for that. I am through with this thread. I have already spent to much time with it. I don't want to spend any more time making a self fullfilling prophecy here. I have more important things I should be doing. Everyone can get back to "PAL fest" and completely ignore NTSC as irrelevant. But I have a new question for you so you guys can pick on someone else for a while. What's better.. PAL or SECAM. Gnight folks don't hurt the French to bad. They don't deserve it either.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
....Sorry to late for that. I am through with this thread. I have already spent to much time with it. I don't want to spend any more time making a self fullfilling prophecy here. I have more important things I should be doing. Everyone can get back to "PAL fest" and completely ignore NTSC as irrelevant. But I have a new question for you so you guys can pick on someone else for a while. What's better.. PAL or SECAM. Gnight folks don't hurt the French to bad. They don't deserve it either.

Come on, man... This is not way how seriuos people should discuss.

Nobody here wanted to celebrate some 'PAL supremacy', we just wrote what we know. Saying that we completely ignore NTSC as irrelevant is very big overreacting.
PAL came later than NTSC, and has luck that fps is similar to FILM fps, that's all.

Now calling some SECAM vs PAL discussion is real waste of time, and you are very busy... :confused:

Btw. I think that discussion about progressive vs. interlaced video is something what can be real good one, and no one will be insulted because it's not state specific :)

[DJ Bobo]

As I said before, you're better off with NTSC DVDs if you're looking for japanese anime because:
1) Most PAL conversions are done in the bad way for anime, using blending and interlacing (and ppera2 don't ask me how I would know, you just buy one anime PAL DVD and then argue with me ... well not the DBZ or Saint Seiya french DVDs, those are progressive or field shifted :D)
-> Jerky quality/motion + not possible to reconstruct progressive streams
2) Most NTSC titles are encoded the correct way: progressive (the least in fact) or proper telecined (again, I'm not talking about those series that have bad masters). Even if it is telecined (so interlaced), it's still better than PAL, because there is no blends, so the picture quality remains intact. Add to this you can reconstruct progressive streams out of them.
3) Recently, there is more and more 30fps anime titles coming out, like Gundam Seed. Those titles can't be converted to 25fps PAL without blends and stuff. So here the NTSC version will obviously have better picture quality and of course smoother motion.

Movies are another story: they are scanned directly from the 24fps masters (don't come to me with that 48Hz shit, no matter how many Hz there is, 24fps is 24fps ¬.¬) and thus PAL titles will have here the advantadge of being 20% sharper and 4% smoother (that if the DVD is progressive of course, and that's true in 99% of cases)

[avih]

PEOPLE!
what's wrong with you?

if you only have access to EITHER pal OR ntsc material, then you have no choice at all. stop fighting.

if you do have access to BOTH pal AND ntsc versions of the SAME material, just test for yourself which is better for YOU. if you find your results worth reporting, then pls do so. otherwise, PLEASE stop fighting.

i'm sure all of you read the forum rules, especially the one regarding posts of 'best' and 'better than' kinds.

cheers

[ppera2]

@DJ Bobo

I believe you all about Japanese animes, and their PAL conversions...

But it shouldn't be some strong argument in discussion about standards. It is important for few people. I can play on my PC every possible DVD, no problems with NTSC, and I saw lot of them...
Will not buy any Japanese anime, because I don't enjoy them.

@avih
My first DVD was NTSC (R1)Matrix - in that time wasn't R2 yet...
Later I sold it, and bought PAL (R2) Matrix. PAL was better, no doubt.

But it must not be case always, simple because you can't be sure that NTSC and PAL has made from same quality source. Here was one thread with name 'Why PAL DVD's have worse quality than NTSC' (something like that). You can search and see it...

For example I was disappointed with quality of some R2 movie DVD. 'Blade Runner', 'Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves'... both are German editions. I just can't believe that US publisher would make so bad quality DVD's for such good movies...

[Neo Neko]

I said I was not gonna participate in this thread any more. But just so all the supremist can eat crow I will present a simple test. Tell me which of the first two images are PAL and NTSC respectively. Then do the same for the second set. Do this visually and not by anylising file sizes. See if you can tell the difference and post your guesses here.

http://interface.darktech.org/formats.php

[avih]

@neo
1. i prob (99.31415927%) won't be able to tell a difference in a film (especially on tv)

2. after checking the images with a magnifying applet (without image properties), my conclusions are:

from the 1st pair: the LOWER seems sharper
from the 2nd pair: the UPPER seems sharper

although the sharpness might be affected by the resize algorithm used. wanna tell us which algo did u use? ;)

[charact3r]

Originally posted by Bach
NTSC, PAL and SECAM have nothing to do with transmission frequencies. They are standards for Colour broadcasting. Before of the coloured era, our B&W tvs were simply 60Hz and 50Hz. Period. No NTSC. No PAL. No SECAM. No anything.
Here Here!!

The argument on this thread is hilarious. NTSC and PAL have nothing to do with framerate or resolution. In the correct context PAL is a superior color modulation technology than NTSC (=Never Twice the Same Color). Any transmission errors result in an unnoticable change in brightness with PAL. NTSC receivers on the other hand find it hard to reproduce the correct color even with a strong signal.

Now I know you guys are probably really wanting to compare these two things:
* 720x480x30 or 720x480x24(with 3:2)
* 720x576x25

I would go for 720x576x25 every day. You get more pixels on your DVD and a better view of each frame of the movie. OK, so movies are 4% too fast, but a smart "PAL" DVD decoder/home cinema setup could play them back at 24fps (If such a thing existed).

The only time a 30fps system _could_ be better is for sport action where 60 fields per second may help capture the action better.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
I said I was not gonna participate in this thread any more. But just so all the supremist can eat crow I will present a simple test. Tell me which of the first two images are PAL and NTSC respectively. Then do the same for the second set. Do this visually and not by anylising file sizes. See if you can tell the difference and post your guesses here.

http://interface.darktech.org/formats.php

nice "test image" selection.......lol!
uhh i'm over&out from this one
because nn you have really illustrated how
stubborn you can be.....
(you hinted it on the web browsers issue...)

[and i like your (or your presidents?) opinion on iraq too...]

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
nice "test image" selection.......lol!
uhh i'm over&out from this one
because nn you have really illustrated how
stubborn you can be.....

??
I am not arguing that PAL is not a better analog broadcast standard. Because it is. But in terms of digital video. Especially MPEG 2 DVDs which are the specific focus here where does that enter in? It does not. Whether it is formatted for PAL or NTSC it is still MPEG 2 video. Using the same color space and everything. And even though PAL video "does" provide more lines of resolution they do not seem to provide any real perceptual visual difference of any value. Yor responsibility as someone who espouses PAL formatted video over all others is to convince us that we should spend the extra time and money to import it over the format that may be native to us. So in terms of getting DVD content to encode on PC why should I spend the extra time and money to get a PAL DVD when it provides no real visual benefits outside of placebo? Don't give me color modulation, scan frequencies, kel factors, or even lines of resolution. Because for finding superior MPEG2 content to encode on my PC that means absolutely nothing. Nothing tangible or worthwhile anyway. PCs are not broadcast standards. :P

You want me to prove this another way? Get me a minute clip of a DVD in PAL format that I have in NTSC. I will resample, resize, and readjust them both to 24fps PAL formatted video and you will not be able to tell the difference without magnifying the images and anylising stills. Why shold I or anyone else spend the time and money to get a video that is not the native format of their equipment simply to encode on a PC? For PC DVD encoding there is no "better" format between the two. They are both MPEG 2.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
[and i like your (or your presidents?) opinion on iraq too...]

Personally I don't particularly. Mostly he is just trying to follow in his daddy's footsteps and fix his daddy's mistakes. In truth he is a very poorly spoken, poorly behaved, very medeocre example of a president.(It's NUCLEAR dubbya. Not NUCULAR.) Is it any wonder why people don't care for him or aprove of him. Were it not for an extraordinary set of circumstances his administration would have amounted to nothing and he would have been left to obscurity. Something should be done for the Iraqi people. And even though dubbya's war is not for them it will help them. No one should have to live with a genocidal dictator. ;) Yes I am an American by birth. But nationality does not make the man. I don't ascribe myself or anyone else, even you to a steriotype. But this is pointless and way off topic. Lets end this discussion here. This is not a board about nationality or politics. We have all come here to encode and back up video. ;)

[ppera2]

Originally posted by charact3r
..
The argument on this thread is hilarious. NTSC and PAL have nothing to do with framerate or resolution. In the correct context PAL is a superior color modulation technology than NTSC (=Never Twice the Same Color). Any transmission errors result in an unnoticable change in brightness with PAL. NTSC receivers on the other hand find it hard to reproduce the correct color even with a strong signal.


You are in right about it, I argued couple times also with such arguments.
However, in digital video world termins PAL and NTSC have some other meanings, and them are exactly: resulution and fps. As I mentioned there is PAL with 30 fps in Southern America. It shows all...

What is really no good thing by digital NTSC is Telecine. This is forced methode to get 30 fps from 24. It's made best according to technical level before many years. And it's still used... I don't know what is situation with software which can calculate and render object positions by framerate conversion. It's probably very hard task, and can't be done even today with real good quality for all movements.

TV's with progressive scan are intruduced exactly from reason to get rid of Telecine by watching of FILM's.

[DJ Bobo]

@ ppera2
I think telecining (3:2 pulldown) is the best method to convert 24fps to 30fps.
However I hate it, when 24fps content is telecined and encoded as such on DVD. I strongly hope, more (anime distributing) companies tend for 24fps progressive encoding instead of "normal" 30fps interlaced.

[Neo Neko]

Telecine is easy to get rid of and unless we are talking about poorly converted PAL material that has been telecined. I have a video like that. And it is driving me crazy. Telecine does no more dammage to video than speeding it up does. ;) Avisynth does a flawless and easy inverse telecine every time.

[ppera2]

Thank you for explanation... But you should know that I meant case with standalone players and TV, not conversions...

And I wouldn't say that AVISynth does IVTC. Maybe some plugins :)

[ppera2]

There is lot of other conversions of course, but that is used in 99.99% cases :)

We can do lot of fps conversion 'trick' with AVISynth. Separate fields, SelectEvery... and you can get any pulldown possible.

Cheers :)