Quote:
|
Hmm, better than a system that refreshes at 50 Hz. I get headaches from that.
|
True, although if you grew up with it.....
And all the mid to high range TV's have 100Hz screens to prevent any flicker at all
See below for exact technical differences, but as said before the colours are not the same, with DVD's I believe the number of lines would be the same between PAL & NTSC but again, it's to do with the way the colours are broadcast
HTML Code:
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/compare.html
Quote:
|
Well at least resolution wise it appears the wolrdwide standard will be the one used in America.
|
Yes I would certainly agree that 1080 Lines would appear to the standard, and I haven't said anywhere that 1080 lines won't look a lot better than any of the current standards, it will.
Quote:
|
I really can't see the difference on anything made after 1985
|
I have a reasonable 32" Sony Widescreen which is a few years old in front of me, I can switch between channels and view stuff made in the USA (NTSC), ie. Friends, Sex And The City etc. then switch channels immediately to something made in PAL, and I'm not talking about old programmes either.
There is
definitely a difference, and as I've said, I have DVD's made in both systems as well.
My original 'crap' comment was about the difference between NTSC and PAL, and it would appear that there will be little difference between the the digital systems from what people have said here.
Even if there is, it would appear that some people will not notice the difference anyway
