PAL vs NTSC

The question isn't really one that can be answered.

1. An earlier post suggested that HDTV was part of NTSC. It isn't, it is a separate ATSC standard, which is much more similar to our Freeview/DVB-T system in concept (though not implementation) DVB-T can also carry HDTV - in Australia they have 1080 line HD over their DVB-T system. (They carry one HD service when we carry multiple standard definition services)

Now to the "PAL" vs "NTSC" question...

There are at least three, very different, basic flavours of PAL in use in the world.
PAL B/G/D/K/I which is used in Europe, Aus/NZ, China etc. This is 625/50 scanning with 4.43MHz colour. It is designed to use 7-8MHz wide RF channels when broadcast over the air. (The B/G/D/K/I differences are mainly slight channel width differences - potentially PAL I is marginally better than G - but not really these days and differences in how the analogue sound is carried)

PAL N is used in a few South American countries. This is 625/50 scanning with 3.58MHz colour, and designed to use 6MHz RF (NTSC-M compatible) channels when used over the air. The colour resolution is lower as a result of the 3.58 carrier, and the 6MHz RF channel also reduces the luma bandwith.

PAL M is used in Brazil and is 525/60 scanning (same as "NTSC") with 3.58MHz colour. This is almost identical to "NTSC" (aka NTSC M) but uses PAL colour encoding (with the phase error cancellation benefits) rather than NTSC.

PAL I will provide sharper pictures - with higher resolution and better colour details when broadcast over the air than NTSC M. (The 50Hz scanning of PAL I means that large-area flicker is more noticable than 60Hz NTSC though)

PAL M will probably not look significantly sharper than NTSC M in good conditions - though in poor reception conditions the received picture may look better. This is because phase errors cause colour shifts in NTSC, whereas in PAL they reduce the colour saturation, meaning it is less colourful, but still the right colour! The NTSC colour shift issued is the cause of the name "Never Twice the Same Colour"...

Not sure about PAL N - always struck me as the worst of both worlds...

If you aren't broadcasting over-the-air - but using composite or s-video connections - then the benefits of 625/50 PAL 4.43 over 525/60 NTSC 3.58 in chroma terms is far less marked. The only issues then are the increased resolution of the PAL luminance and chrominance, vs the higher frame rate of NTSC.

If by "NTSC" and "PAL" you really mean 525/60 and 625/50 - rather than the colour encoding systems - then that is a different question.

Modern TV production is component digital, as is digital TV, DVD etc. The "NTSC" or "PAL" tag is still - annoyingly - used to label DVDs, but doesn't actually mean that NTSC or PAL chroma encoding (which makes PAL , err, PAL) is in use. (NTSC is slightly different as the NTSC standard also includes the 525/60Hz scanning issue - unlike PAL which is strictly only a definition of a chroma encoding technique)

The difference between"NTSC" 720x480/60 and "PAL" 720x576/50 digital TV is far less obvious. The "NTSC" version is slightly softer vertically, but has 10 more frames a second, so is more fluid with video motion. The PAL version is sharper vertically, but has 10 fewer frames a second, so is slightly less fluid and large area flicker is more noticable.

However if you are using the DVD format to watch a film - which runs at 24fps - then the "PAL" version will usually be better, as it will have the sharper resolution of 576 lines, and there is no 60 vs 50 benefit when carrying 24fps motion sourced material.
(24 fps film is run at 25fps and 2:2 interlaced for "PAL" areas, in the US it is run at 24fps and 3:2 pulldown interlaced, meaning one frame is displayed for longer than the next, introducing an odd motion judder issue)

Personally I don't watch PAL or NTSC anymore - I watch RGB... I watch both 525/60 (aka 720x480/60) and 625/50 (aka 720x576/50) digital video from DVDs, Freeview and Sky Digital...

Many thanks once again for the excellent explanations, Noggin!



Yes, that's what I was referring to earlier when I said:



Perhaps I was a little unclear. I meant that in terms of viewing off-air broadcast pictures, the only way to view PAL is via RF analogue. Would that still be right?

If you use a PAL composite or S-video (instead of an RGB) output from a digital TV set-top box you are still using PAL, but not RF. (S-video only differs from PAL by splitting the PAL subcarrier away from the luminance signal by putting them on different bits of wire!)

Only if you use a modulator output (mono audio as well by the way) will you be using PAL AND RF.

If you are using RGB then you aren't using PAL or RF.

Thanks!

And vice-versa... PAL converted through NTSC looks like garbage.

looks to me like somebody's just found out what the pal and ntsc acronyms stand for - and wanted to post it. looks to me like you haven’t a clue about the actual question you’re asking.

it’s a rather pointless question anyway. the differing colour encoding systems are a legacy of political and technological decisions made in the previous century. i think some eastern european countries decided to convert to PAL, but its not a move i can see the EU or US wanting to make.

its like me asking "would you rather drive on the left side of the road, or the right?".

there are differences - but why not look them up on google, rather than creating a pointless "which is better" thread?

i, personally have had to deal with NTSC at work and to be honest, there is very little difference. but then again it wasn’t coming through an analogue transmitter.

I think there is an element of truth here.

BTW - NTSC has closed captioning (there is a PAL variant of this that survives on VHS) rather than teletext these days - pretty much restricted to subtitles.

However in the 80s both CBS and TBS used an NTSC version of our teletext system (which is called WST - World Systems Teletext) - it wasn't very widespread, or popular, I think only RCA made receivers with it?

To a degree yes. Depends on how expensive your converter is - and the quality of the source material.

Component digital 525/60 and 625/50 can cross-convert pretty well - especially if you use high quality Phase Correlation converters like the S&W Alchemist PhC / Platinum range.