AN
Surely you mean 'which broadcasting system do you think is
better?
' and 'I think PAL is
better
".
BB
I dont know what they both mean and what the difference is... can you change your choice on the tv?? can someone be kind and explain?? 
IS
No they haven't, HDTV is a digital format, it differs from the NTSC standard in virtually every way
DialUpBorg posted:
I do like the way that in America they have incorparated HDTV into NTSC,
No they haven't, HDTV is a digital format, it differs from the NTSC standard in virtually every way
JH
There's that old engineer's joke: NTSC - Never Twice the Same Colour. PAL is superior to NTSC in many ways, the obvious main one being the extra definition. It's all to do with the chrominance and sub-carrier. Apparently.
EI
Ah, the old chestnut comes out again, and so do the misconceptions...
FWIW, the old "Never Twice The Same Colour" only refers to NTSC received via analogue RF transmission. Under those circumstances NTSC is very prone to chroma phase errors, and this is compounded by the fact that much of the American RF transmitter network was and still is VHF-based rather than UHF.
If you pump an NTSC signal into your TV via DVD, there's no RF involved and you won't see any chroma phase shifts. Of course, DVD doesn't actually use NTSC *or* PAL; it's either 525/60 or 625/50 video with component colour.
It's worth bearing in mind that the terms "NTSC" and "PAL" only refer to the method of colour encoding, not the line/field standard, so you could quite easily have 525-line PAL and 625-line NTSC (and I believe at least one country, possibly in South America, uses 525-line PAL). However, for the sake of this discussion, we might as well use the standard shorthand of PAL meaning 625/50 and NTSC meaning 525/60.
PAL was designed to eliminate chroma phase errors, so in the analogue RF domain it does produce more stable colours than NTSC, and with a wider colour gamut. However, PAL has a lower refresh rate than NTSC (50Hz as opposed to 60Hz), and many people who live in NTSC countries find PAL video to be unacceptably flickery, especially on big screens.
People do like to point to the difference in the number of lines, but at a normal viewing distance it's pretty much irrelevant. The one definite advantage that PAL has over NTSC is that because PAL runs at 25fps, it's possible to transfer 24fps movies simply by speeding them up to 25fps, which retains a smooth motion. However, unless the audio is repitched (and it often isn't), this means that it runs about a semitone sharp (a real bugger for music). NTSC requires that 24fps movies be put through 3:2 pulldown, which can result in a jerky movement on pans that most people don't notice but which drives some people crazy... but the audio pitch remains correct!
I've seen 525/60 images that are better than 625/50 ones, and vice-versa. Take analogue RF out of the equation and there's really very little to choose between them.
FWIW, the old "Never Twice The Same Colour" only refers to NTSC received via analogue RF transmission. Under those circumstances NTSC is very prone to chroma phase errors, and this is compounded by the fact that much of the American RF transmitter network was and still is VHF-based rather than UHF.
If you pump an NTSC signal into your TV via DVD, there's no RF involved and you won't see any chroma phase shifts. Of course, DVD doesn't actually use NTSC *or* PAL; it's either 525/60 or 625/50 video with component colour.
It's worth bearing in mind that the terms "NTSC" and "PAL" only refer to the method of colour encoding, not the line/field standard, so you could quite easily have 525-line PAL and 625-line NTSC (and I believe at least one country, possibly in South America, uses 525-line PAL). However, for the sake of this discussion, we might as well use the standard shorthand of PAL meaning 625/50 and NTSC meaning 525/60.
PAL was designed to eliminate chroma phase errors, so in the analogue RF domain it does produce more stable colours than NTSC, and with a wider colour gamut. However, PAL has a lower refresh rate than NTSC (50Hz as opposed to 60Hz), and many people who live in NTSC countries find PAL video to be unacceptably flickery, especially on big screens.
People do like to point to the difference in the number of lines, but at a normal viewing distance it's pretty much irrelevant. The one definite advantage that PAL has over NTSC is that because PAL runs at 25fps, it's possible to transfer 24fps movies simply by speeding them up to 25fps, which retains a smooth motion. However, unless the audio is repitched (and it often isn't), this means that it runs about a semitone sharp (a real bugger for music). NTSC requires that 24fps movies be put through 3:2 pulldown, which can result in a jerky movement on pans that most people don't notice but which drives some people crazy... but the audio pitch remains correct!
I've seen 525/60 images that are better than 625/50 ones, and vice-versa. Take analogue RF out of the equation and there's really very little to choose between them.
JH
I don't think there were any misconceptions in my post, thanks.
Perhaps I should have clarified thus: There's that old engineer's joke: NTSC - Never Twice the Same Colour - but only when viewed via analogue RF.
Digital TV is component anyway, so PAL can only be viewed via analogue RF anyway, can't it?
Edward Ington-Lock posted:
Ah, the old chestnut comes out again, and so do the misconceptions...
FWIW, the old "Never Twice The Same Colour" only refers to NTSC received via analogue RF transmission. Under those circumstances NTSC is very prone to chroma phase errors, and this is compounded by the fact that much of the American RF transmitter network was and still is VHF-based rather than UHF.
If you pump an NTSC signal into your TV via DVD, there's no RF involved and you won't see any chroma phase shifts. Of course, DVD doesn't actually use NTSC *or* PAL; it's either 525/60 or 625/50 video with component colour.
It's worth bearing in mind that the terms "NTSC" and "PAL" only refer to the method of colour encoding, not the line/field standard, so you could quite easily have 525-line PAL and 625-line NTSC (and I believe at least one country, possibly in South America, uses 525-line PAL). However, for the sake of this discussion, we might as well use the standard shorthand of PAL meaning 625/50 and NTSC meaning 525/60.
PAL was designed to eliminate chroma phase errors, so in the analogue RF domain it does produce more stable colours than NTSC, and with a wider colour gamut. However, PAL has a lower refresh rate than NTSC (50Hz as opposed to 60Hz), and many people who live in NTSC countries find PAL video to be unacceptably flickery, especially on big screens.
People do like to point to the difference in the number of lines, but at a normal viewing distance it's pretty much irrelevant. The one definite advantage that PAL has over NTSC is that because PAL runs at 25fps, it's possible to transfer 24fps movies simply by speeding them up to 25fps, which retains a smooth motion. However, unless the audio is repitched (and it often isn't), this means that it runs about a semitone sharp (a real bugger for music). NTSC requires that 24fps movies be put through 3:2 pulldown, which can result in a jerky movement on pans that most people don't notice but which drives some people crazy... but the audio pitch remains correct!
I've seen 525/60 images that are better than 625/50 ones, and vice-versa. Take analogue RF out of the equation and there's really very little to choose between them.
FWIW, the old "Never Twice The Same Colour" only refers to NTSC received via analogue RF transmission. Under those circumstances NTSC is very prone to chroma phase errors, and this is compounded by the fact that much of the American RF transmitter network was and still is VHF-based rather than UHF.
If you pump an NTSC signal into your TV via DVD, there's no RF involved and you won't see any chroma phase shifts. Of course, DVD doesn't actually use NTSC *or* PAL; it's either 525/60 or 625/50 video with component colour.
It's worth bearing in mind that the terms "NTSC" and "PAL" only refer to the method of colour encoding, not the line/field standard, so you could quite easily have 525-line PAL and 625-line NTSC (and I believe at least one country, possibly in South America, uses 525-line PAL). However, for the sake of this discussion, we might as well use the standard shorthand of PAL meaning 625/50 and NTSC meaning 525/60.
PAL was designed to eliminate chroma phase errors, so in the analogue RF domain it does produce more stable colours than NTSC, and with a wider colour gamut. However, PAL has a lower refresh rate than NTSC (50Hz as opposed to 60Hz), and many people who live in NTSC countries find PAL video to be unacceptably flickery, especially on big screens.
People do like to point to the difference in the number of lines, but at a normal viewing distance it's pretty much irrelevant. The one definite advantage that PAL has over NTSC is that because PAL runs at 25fps, it's possible to transfer 24fps movies simply by speeding them up to 25fps, which retains a smooth motion. However, unless the audio is repitched (and it often isn't), this means that it runs about a semitone sharp (a real bugger for music). NTSC requires that 24fps movies be put through 3:2 pulldown, which can result in a jerky movement on pans that most people don't notice but which drives some people crazy... but the audio pitch remains correct!
I've seen 525/60 images that are better than 625/50 ones, and vice-versa. Take analogue RF out of the equation and there's really very little to choose between them.
I don't think there were any misconceptions in my post, thanks.
Jonathan H posted:
There's that old engineer's joke: NTSC - Never Twice the Same Colour. PAL is superior to NTSC in many ways, the obvious main one being the extra definition. It's all to do with the chrominance and sub-carrier. Apparently.
Perhaps I should have clarified thus: There's that old engineer's joke: NTSC - Never Twice the Same Colour - but only when viewed via analogue RF.
Digital TV is component anyway, so PAL can only be viewed via analogue RF anyway, can't it?
JA
If you pump an NTSC signal into your TV via DVD, there's no RF involved and you won't see any chroma phase shifts. Of course, DVD doesn't actually use NTSC *or* PAL; it's either 525/60 or 625/50 video with component colour.
I do find it funny though that in the manual for my DVD mastering software(explaining why theres a PAL & NTSC mode, but not a SECAM one) it says that DVDs cant handle SECAM, it's encoded as PAL and the DVD players have to change it to SECAM. I knew the second I read that it was wrong.
james2001
Founding member
Edward Ington-Lock posted:
If you pump an NTSC signal into your TV via DVD, there's no RF involved and you won't see any chroma phase shifts. Of course, DVD doesn't actually use NTSC *or* PAL; it's either 525/60 or 625/50 video with component colour.
I do find it funny though that in the manual for my DVD mastering software(explaining why theres a PAL & NTSC mode, but not a SECAM one) it says that DVDs cant handle SECAM, it's encoded as PAL and the DVD players have to change it to SECAM. I knew the second I read that it was wrong.
NG
Perhaps I should have clarified thus: There's that old engineer's joke: NTSC - Never Twice the Same Colour - but only when viewed via analogue RF. Digital TV is component anyway, so PAL can only be viewed via analogue RF anyway, can't it?
Not exactly - whilst the RF modulation systems, line standard AND colour standard are defined as PAL I, PAL B/G, NTSC M etc., PAL can also be carried as a composite baseband signal, digital composite signal, analogue RF signal, and is even part of the S-video standard.
noggin
Founding member
Jonathan H posted:
Perhaps I should have clarified thus: There's that old engineer's joke: NTSC - Never Twice the Same Colour - but only when viewed via analogue RF.
Digital TV is component anyway, so PAL can only be viewed via analogue RF anyway, can't it?
Not exactly - whilst the RF modulation systems, line standard AND colour standard are defined as PAL I, PAL B/G, NTSC M etc., PAL can also be carried as a composite baseband signal, digital composite signal, analogue RF signal, and is even part of the S-video standard.