1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

in generall which is better pal or ntsc

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by 7 of 9, Nov 26, 2003.

  1. 7 of 9

    7 of 9
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    235
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    kingswood bristol
    Ratings:
    +0
    when everything is matched extra features etc which is better pal or ntsc?

    e.g. pirates of the carribean and 2 fast 2 furious.
     
  2. cybersoga

    cybersoga
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2002
    Messages:
    1,628
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +25
    not this one again... sigh
     
  3. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,354
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +144
  4. dolph

    dolph
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,191
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +26
    Uh oh.. quick, delete the thread before anyone notices!!
     
  5. Rad

    Rad
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    688
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +4
    While we're on the subject.

    DD or DTS

    :D :D :D
     
  6. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    If you calculate the bandwidth of these two signals, they are virtually identical, why should one be better than another?

    I prefer DTS ;)
     
  7. 7 of 9

    7 of 9
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    235
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    kingswood bristol
    Ratings:
    +0
    in most of the time i prefer dts and if some dvd review websites say a dts track on film is better then i listen to dts.

    now can we get to subject in generall ntsc or pal

    thanks 7 of 9
     
  8. Rad

    Rad
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    688
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +4
    It all depends on the transfer to be honest.

    I think there is a website somewhere that does direct comparisons between the different regions of DVD's.

    Does anyone know the link ??
     
  9. Kevo

    Kevo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    5,354
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +144
    Please, let's not.
     
  10. NicolasB

    NicolasB
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,804
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Emily's Shop
    Ratings:
    +520
    PAL

    Good: Higher vertical resolution.
    Bad: Film sources are speeded up by 4%. This makes the sountrack slightly higher pitched. (Sometimes there's pitch correction to bring it back down, but this often does more harm than good).


    NTSC

    Good: Shows film sources at the correct speed.
    Bad: i) Lower vertical resolution. ii) Motion "judder" caused by the process of converting 24 frames per second of film into 30 frames per second of video.


    Non-Technical Issues

    i) American and British releases of films are often mastered separately. There can sometimes be quite big differences between the video and/or audio qualities - but this is not determined by anything to do with NTSC or PAL, just the techniques used when mastering. Sometimes one version is better, sometimes the other.

    ii) Sometimes British and American releases contain different material. For example, the British release of "The Matrix" has no audio commentary track, and has about 40 seconds of cuts. The US version is uncut and has the commentary. By contrast the British version of "Time Bandits" is a proper anamoprhic transfer, while the US one is letterboxed. The British one also has more extras.

    (It should be noted in passing that it was probably the PAL Region 4 - Australian - version of "The Matrix" that was the best one at the time it came out).
     
  11. Lux

    Lux
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    759
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    Ratings:
    +1
    there is NO answer it depends on sooo many things. If you wann be certain: buy both compare and decide which one to keep.

    and how many times do we need this topic:

    http://www.avforums.com/frame.html?http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100831

    http://www.avforums.com/frame.html?http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91406

    http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91402

    http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90478

    and a thousand more threads. LONG LIVE THE SEARCH FUNCTION
     
  12. blackstone

    blackstone
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    127
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Ratings:
    +4
  13. buns

    buns
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Location:
    Belfast
    Ratings:
    +1
    simple and difinitive answer for anyone who owns AVIA..... NTSC WILL BE BETTER!!!

    If you calibrate your display for ntsc but dont for PAL, it doesnt take a genius to figure out which will look better

    ad
     
  14. onefivenine

    onefivenine
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,351
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    Ratings:
    +647
    Is that what they mean by "3:2 pulldown", in laymans terms?
     
  15. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    Agree with what everyone here has said except...

    Let's calculate theoretical bandwidth limits for film in DVD format:

    NTSC: 24fps x 720h x 480v = 8,294,400 pixels per second

    PAL: 25fps x 720h x 576v = 10,368,000 pixels per second

    Notes: fps = frames per second; h = horizontal pixels; v = vertical pixels.

    Which as we all know is 20% more pixels per second for PAL, the film will finish 4% earlier but we're talking bandwidth here.

    Now video is a different matter where...

    NTSC: 30fps x 720h x 480v = 10,368,000 pixels per second

    PAL: 25fps x 720h x 576v = 10,368,000 pixels per second

    Spooky? Same bandwidth.

    So The Beekeeper is correct for video, but not so right for film. ;)

    Anyway...

    For broadcast television this is a total no brainer, it's PAL.

    I've just returned from non-US NTSC land and had my eyes frazzled by the scan lines on the hotel room giant television, and the same in the shops too. Broadcast NTSC, be it in USA or elsewhere, may be less flickery than PAL but you can see little thin black lines horizontal lines across the screen from the other side of the street -- which is what happens when you stretch such a low resolution over such a large area.

    And the colours... let's not even go there.


    StooMonster (pedant medal on chest for bandwidth calculations)
     
  16. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    A useful link on Bandwidth calculations is.
    http://www.extron.com/technology/archive.asp?id=vidband

    To calculate Bandwidth, the following equation is usually used.

    SF = [(TP x Vt)/2] x 3

    Where:

    SF = Bandwidth
    TP = The total number of displayable pixels. (When resolution is listed (1600 x 900), multiply these two numbers.)
    Vt = The vertical scanning frequency, or refresh rate.

    If we calculate 1600 x 900 @ 72Hz
    TP = (1600 x 900) or 1440000
    Vt = 72 Hz

    Therefore:

    SF = [(14400000 x 72)/2] x 3
    SF / Bandwidth = 156 MHz

    For DVD resolutions (film or video :)), which is what we are talking about here

    720 x 480p / 60 Hz 31.1 MHz (NTSC progressive scan / line doubled DVD)
    720 x 576p / 50 Hz 31.1 MHz (PAL progressive scan / line doubled DVD)

    the interlaced versions (as actually on the DVD) are half these values

    Film bandwidths are differennt to video bandwidths but on the DVD film has transposed to either 720 x 480i / 60 Hz
    or 720 x 576i/ 50 Hz

    :)
     
  17. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    Yes, that is the video signal bandwidth measured in MHz.

    SF = [(TP x Vt)/2] x 3

    NTSC output from DVD player: [( (720 x 480) x 59.94)/2] x 3 = 31.072896 MHz

    PAL output from DVD player: [( (720 x 576) x 50)/2] x 3 = 31.104000 MHz

    Yes, no suprise with two interlaced sources.

    *Should note that because DVD player is interlacing all sources, including film ones stored as progressive 24 frames per second on NTSC discs.

    **Should also note that in analogue broadcasting, not MPEG2 (DVD or digital satellite), lower resolutions are used; typically NTSC has even less analogue broadcasting bandwidth than PAL.


    Now, my calculations above refer to rendering bandwidth measured in pixels per second, and at theoretical limits (with no compression). This shows how much detail is in the picture, and is a simple pointer to raw image quality; typically used comparing video processing power.

    ***Render means drawn, painted, displayed on screen, etc.

    Which is simply:
    R = TP x Ft

    Where:
    R = number of pixels rendered per second.
    TP = total number of displayable pixels. [NOTE: When resolution is listed (640 x 480), multiply these two numbers.]
    Ft = number of frames per second.
    Mp/s = mega pixels per second

    Film based sources:
    NTSC: 345,600 x 24 = 8.3 Mp/s
    PAL: 414,720 x 25 = 10.4 Mp/s

    10.4 / 8.3 = 125%, or PAL has 25% more pixels rendered per second than NTSC
    8.3 / 10.4 = 80%, or NTSC has 20% less pixels rendered per second than PAL


    Video based sources:
    NTSC: 345,600 x 30 = 10.4 Mp/s
    PAL: 414,720 x 25 = 10.4 Mp/s

    No suprise, it's the same

    And the point is...
    At theoretical limits, i.e. with no compression, PAL should give a better picture than NTSC with film based sources as it has many more pixels rendered per second.

    NTSC film based sources of 8.3 mega pixels per second will have many pixels rendered multiple times in 3:2 pull down process and therefore equalise into 31.1 MHz (for interlaced output).

    NTSC video based sources have no 3:2 pulldown, therefore the same rendering and video signal bandwidth as PAL.

    StooMonster
     
  18. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    Yes, the players output at those resolutions and frequencies, but film is not transposed to them. That film is always transposed is a common assumption, but often incorrect.

    Typically with film on NTSC the DVD has 23.976fps progressive component frames stored and 29.97fps (interlaced at 59.95 fields per second and 3:2 pull-down) is constructed at playback.
    *By film we mean movies, and most American television series.

    MPEG-2 encoding requires a great deal more bitstream bandwidth for already 3:2 and interlaced material, but is much more efficient for 24fps progressive frames.

    In the same amount of mega-bytes, and all other things being equal, progressive 24 frames per second will produce a much better image quality than 60 fields per second (which includes interlacing and 3:2 pull-down) with MPEG-2.

    The DVD player does the 3:2 pull-down, interlacing and aspect ratio adjustment in hardware before output.

    StooMonster

    Quick search on Google for additional detail, first article...

    "NTSC video uses a frame rate of 30 (actually 29.97) fps which is identical to NTSC video material. Film material is usually converted from 24 to 30 fps by a '3/2 pulldown' whereby frames are repeated to convert the 24fps film to 30fps video.

    However this is not necessary for DVD since the player can carry out the frame rate conversion. Therefore the video can be stored on disc at 24fps and displayed by the player at 30 fps. The encoder embeds MPEG-2 repeat_first_field flags into the video stream to make the decoder perform 3/2 pulldown."

    Second article...

    "The data on a DVD is stored digitally as a component video signal using the MPEG2 compression and can be formatted for one of two mutually incompatible television systems, The American standard (NTSC) 525/60 or (PAL/SECAM) which is 625/50. However, video from film is usually stored at 24 frames per second, as a 24fps component progressive scan or can be pre-formatted for one of the two interlaced display rates. If the compression is based on a 24fps progressive master, a PAL or NTSC DVD player will simply convert this signal to its own format, as the 24fps signal is "universal". This is the format used most often for film material on DVD, as it creates the best possible picture quality when the NTSC or PAL players own MPEG2 decoder creates either the signal suited for your television set. What is important to notice, is WHAT KIND of film transfer was used in the first place to create the 24fps progressive signal in the first place. When films are initially transferred to video, they are transferred in the interlaced format, either as a 625 lines/50Hz for PAL encoding or 525 lines/60Hz signal for NTSC encoding. These film transfers are always made in the neutral component format, to obtain maximum picture quality and reduce the loss of quality when dubbing has to be made. When a 24fps progressive signal has to be created for a DVD, a video process known as "inverse telecine" is performed. If you are using a 525/60 master, normally intended for NTSC encoding, the inverse process will remove the surplus fields inserted in the 3:2 field pull down process and restructure the interlace display to a 24fps progressive signal with a max. resolution of 720x480 pixels. After MPEG2 enoding and compression, the MPEG2 decoder will reconvert the signal to a standard 525 line NTSC signal and perform a 3:2 field pulldown to restore the repeated fields needed for display on a 60Hz NTSC TV set or monitor. A PAL player playing such a disc will convert the picture to a 625 line PAL signal instead, speeding the frame rate 4% to 25fps, to coincide with the 50Hz cycle of the PAL system. However, a PAL player will not be able to show more picture detail from the same disc, unless the film was ORIGINALLY derived from a 625 line transfer with a max. resolution of 720x575 pixels."

    Another...

    "The DVD spec allows for NTSC DVDs to store video on the disc in either 30fps (NTSC) or 24fps video streams. This makes it easy for people to transfer film sources (almost all movies) to DVD format, because they don't have to convert the 24fps source material to 30fps first, as well as allowing the disc to hold more video (20% fewer frames = 20% more storage). These 24fps video streams are not NTSC video (because they're at the wrong framerate), but DVD players are designed to convert them to 30fps when they play them, thus turning them into NTSC, before sending them to the TV."

    Etc.

    StooMonster
     
  19. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    happy with the differences of what we were quote'ing, I was adressing the video signal and you were talking rendering bandwidths

    Now I bet you would never thought you would get so much technical stuff in a PAL vs NTSC thread :)
     
  20. StooMonster

    StooMonster
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,970
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +314
    It always boils down to the numbers, at least in my book. Opinions, people can keep; but numbers and data, we like that.

    We like side-by-side comparisons too -- for example the excellent scaler versus scaler at The Event II.

    StooMonster
     
  21. Nic Rhodes

    Nic Rhodes
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,133
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Ratings:
    +1,277
    :blush: why thank you sir but there is so much more I wanted to say, greyscale....perhaps if I am invited to talk again at Gordons 'dos' I will ask for more time!!


    Re numbers and data, I agree with you, yes they can be a touch boring at times but it helps people understand the implications of the kit they have, good and bad. There are far too many posts of It is great because I have it here, when the comments are made without wider experiences of what exactly is good.
     

Share This Page

Loading...