Pal vs NTSC picture quality. (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan Dagmar]

I realize, of course, that pal has higher vertical resolution than NTSC, so in thoery, pal disc of equal quality should have a better picture than thier NTSC counterparts. However, everytime I have seen full size screen caps of a pal disc next to the ntsc version, the picture look identical, except for slight colour variations on occasions.

Why is this?

 

[Darren Pillans]

In Australia most DVD dudes like myself have both PAL and NTSC movies in our collection.

I have compared many PAL and NTSC DVDs and without question...

If the two DVDs are derived from the same transfer, PAL will ALWAYS be better. You can't cheat resolution.

Why do those screenshots look the same to you? I don't know.

Aren't all computer images we see NTSC around the world?

Maybe these screenshots have to be converted to NTSC before they can be seen on computers... I don't know, I'm just guessing.

But when it comes to DVDs there's no question. PAL is better.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

PAL definitely has the edge in resoltion, but that's assuming the image came from the same source.

I remember back in the old LD days when NTSC discs nearly always looked better . Just something about the quality of transfers. Also, PAL runs at 50hz whereas NTSC is at 60, so PAL will always look a tad 'flickery' when compared. NTSC has the 3/2 pulldown issue which is noticeable on sideays pans. You've also then got the issue of PAL audio speedup (about 4%, roughly a semitone).

So there's pros and cons to each.

 

[Lew Crippen]

What Rob wrote.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Darren, computer monitors are neither NTSC nor PAL. Those are just tv standards. Your typical monitor has way more resolution than either.

 

[Darren Pillans]

Dan, I've never quite understood it.

I understand that computer monitors don't have lines, so obviously aren't like TVs.

But what is the color system used?

As probably all trailers and movies on the net are derived from NTSC sources, would that mean that essentially everthing we see in terms of the color reproduction, is NTSC?

Or is it something else completely?

 

[Rob Gillespie]

But what is the color system used?

It's just a pure RGB feed, is it not?

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Daren, computer monitors do have lines. Thee difference is NTSC uses 525 analog scan lines at 29.97 fps and PAL uses 625 analog scan lines at 25 fps. Both are interlaced, so you'd have twice as may fields per second.

Computer monitors are also measured in scan lines, but the number varies wildly and most are multi-res and multi-sync. Most are also progressive scan, meaning there is one frame/field. Also, the scan lines are made of pixels rather than a stream of analog data. Note this is just how the computer handles info. The graphics processor is converting them to analog scan lines if you have a CRT much like what happens with digital formats converted to PAL/NTSC for playback.

So computer monitors aren't really a standard at all. This could range from 640x480 to almost any upper limit. refresh rates coudl be anything over 60 Hz. There are standard resolutions which most monitors support, but plenty of others as well. For instance, SVGA is 1024x768 pixels at 60 Hz.

I would think most trailers we see on the net come from film sources or the hi def digital master.