Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What's the difference between NTSC and PAL?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » What's the difference between NTSC and PAL? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: What's the difference between NTSC and PAL?

Melany Lowe
Film Handler

Posts: 14
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 01-01-2002 11:40 PM

Whats the difference between NTSC format video's and PAL format video's...I have no idea...PLEASE HELP!!!

<Subject title edited by Admin so as to not be a teaser>

| IP: Logged

Paul Cassidy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 549
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 01-02-2002 12:00 AM

Basically NTSC is 525 horizontal lines stacked ,interlacing 59.94 feilds per sec. odd & even lines displayed sequentially and PAL Phase Alteration by Line (I've heard it called other things) 625 lines horizontal, 25 frames, 50 feilds displayed & interlaced per sec.

| IP: Logged

Melany Lowe
Film Handler

Posts: 14
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 01-02-2002 02:43 AM

thanks a bunch

so is there a better one out of the two or are they just the same??
uhh I am talking about all the line things etc (excuse my arrogance)

| IP: Logged

Paul Cassidy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 549
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 01-02-2002 03:12 AM

Yes the PAL is considered better quality, as it is a Newer format and is more stable in it's color Hue ,NTSC is sometimes discribed as "Never Twice The Same Color "

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-02-2002 03:21 AM

I've always had the following questioon but just have been too busy being lazy to actually ask it:

NTSC can effectively have 60 independent images per second, each field can contain an image of a different object, thus creating the illusion of 60 "frames" per second, as seen in soap operas, the news and the like.

Can PAL do this as well, creating the illusion of 50 "frames" per second, or are the two fields REQUIRED to make up one image frame?

I suppose I should ask about SECAM as well. How about SECAM? Does anyone care about SECAM?

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 01-02-2002 03:54 AM

Sure Paul, PAL is better if you like Flicker! Give me a break!!!

NTSC and PAL are both so advanced in processing now that there is no difference other than the lame flicker rate of PAL. (Especially if you are not looking directly at the image)

Also, if you want to do skip-field 3D, PAL sucks worse than NTSC...headache-ville.

PAL is not "newer". It is based on a particular countries' line frequency of 50 Hz as is NTSC is based on the 60Hz line frequency. They were both originally specified by the AC line frequency so as not to produce sync and "hum" problems in early receivers.

PAL's 625 lines vs. NTSC 525 lines has to do with the amount of time available between vertical sync based on the line frequency. 50 Hz has more time between "fields" thus more lines and also more flicker since the refresh rate is much slower.

It might be true that in the past "one" can see a visual diffence between the active lines of PAL and NTSC, but realistically who the F*** cares? All pics look great on a good-quality receiver.

Both systems now have such great processing that it doesn't matter.

>>> Phil

| IP: Logged

Phil Connolly
Film Handler

Posts: 80
From: Derby, England
Registered: May 2000

posted 01-02-2002 04:03 AM

Yes, with PAL each field is 1/50th of a second, so you do get 50 independent images a second.

SECAM is very similar to PAL, it has 625 virtical lines, it's an interlaced format running at 25 frames, 50 fields per second. The diference from PAL is the way it encodes the colour information. So yes you get 50 independant images a second with SECAM.

| IP: Logged

Paul Cassidy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 549
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 01-02-2002 04:09 AM

It was actually the Power that decided the differece between the 2 camps 50Hz & 60Hz, by using the Mains power frequency as the source devided the camp further by having 25 frames (50Hz) and 30 frames (60Hz)the change to color caused NTSC to adjust to 59.94Hz, Hue color problems surfaced with broadcast of NTSC caused by shifts in the sub carrier phase of the signal,a modified version of NTSC appeared in which the sud carrier phase was reversed on each second line ,this we know as PAL "Phase Alternate Lines" some 60Hz countries adopted this (Brazil) the French (trying to protect local industry) used SECAM (SEquential Color Avec Memoire) or better known as (System Essentially Contrary to American Method)most TV sets sold in NZ are able to show both systems and if you have an older set ,some videos have a feature that will play an NTSC signal to a PAL TV ,for DVD (zone 1) you will need a NTSC capable Set or the picture will be in Black & White but with sound.

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

| IP: Logged

Pete Naples
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1565
From: Dunfermline, Scotland
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 01-02-2002 04:09 AM

From my time in TV production.

N.T.S.C. Never The Same Colour Twice

P.A.L. Pictures Always Lovely

S.E.C.A.M. Systeme Essentially Contrare to the American Method (Did that read 'French'??)

PAL & SECAM are not that different, they use the same number of lines, fields etc. It's the colour burst that is different, however it's not THAT different. A PAL machine will generally play SECAM material in monochrome, 'cos it can't read the colour curst and vice versa. BUT I came across the odd machine that whilst not designed to do so, would merrily play SECAM tapes, so I assume that there are some SECAM machines that will merrily play PAL tapes. (I'm talking u-MaticSP, BetaSP, MII and 'C' format here, all this digital stuff is before my time)
Never dealt with NTSC much, just throw the tape in, patch it through the standards convertor and fiddle around until it looked watchable. Still looked yucky compared to PAL or SECAM originated material.

| IP: Logged

Paul Cassidy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 549
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 01-02-2002 04:29 AM

Phil Hill , I really don't have a preference as most of my DVDs are Zone 1 and I have a large collection of NTSC Laser Discs (Karaoke and movies) so I do spend alot of time watching NTSC and only PAL when I have the TV on.Still can't beat 70mm or a good 35mm print. NTSC was introduced in 1953 and PAL in 1967.

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-02-2002 04:33 AM

Actually NTSC = Never Twice the Same Color

I can't imagine that NTSC looks great converted to PAL, with the loss of frames and the such. I know that PAL looks horrible converted to NTSC. All of the British television that I see here looks pretty boring anyway (and no, I do NOT like Dr. Who). I'd take NTSC progressive scan over PAL interlaced anyday. I really do not like interlacing. Progressive scan is sooooo much smoother. I'm sure that none of the current standards can hold a candle to HDTV.

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 01-02-2002 04:47 AM

Paul: I agree, 35mm is much superior to either NTSC or PAL. I, too have a great collection of (NTSC) DVD's and LD's..and (god forgive me: karaoke). Ummm all Region 1. I have produced and have in my private collection many 70mm and 35mm films as well.

And Joe, I agree, the conversion of NTSC to PAL and Visa Versa SUCKS!

I sincerely hope the powers to be will take the proper steps to do a decent job in the conversion to HDTV!

>>> Phil

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-02-2002 09:43 AM

Pete: Actually its just "Never The Same Color" ya all can drop the extra T off the end as its not NTSCT. Having worked for a number of years in Broadcast TV I can definately attest that it is absolutely true. NO matter how long you spend trying to mmatch up a number of cameras they can Never look The Same. I always thought we should ahve gone with the CBS spinnig colorwheel system. There is is a strange film related aura that is created with a spinning disk!
Mark @ GTS

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 01-02-2002 10:11 AM

The CBS spinning color wheel system was actually approved by the FCC, but then withdrawn- much to Goldmark's dismay and Sarnoff's joy.

For color quality, it was also compared favorably to Technicolor.

| IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-02-2002 12:13 PM

Obligatory comment that the first color live from the moon was via a color wheel. Fast moving images seperate the colors, giving a sparkle effect.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.