|
Is PAL higher-resolution than NTSC?
1 Aug 2006 09:41:32 -0700
rec.arts.tv
previous
Troy.Heagy...
videonovels...
|
.
Agamemnon's statement is clearly false. Beta/ VHS/ S-VHS all record
the same number of scanlines: 525 NTSC / 486 visible.
Agamemnon...
|
Another load of total and absolute utter RUBBISH.....
In NTSC VHS can only record 250 lines, professional Betacam 300 lines and
Martin Underwood...
|
Agamemnon, you need to learn the difference between vertical resolution
(number of visible scan lines - always 576 for PAL or 486 for NTSC) and
horizontal resolution (varies according to recording technology as you
describe; also confusingly measured in "lines"). For clarity, I prefer to
use the term "line-pairs" for horizontal resolution, since it is measuring
the finest pitch of alternate black and white vertical lines which can just
be distinguished from plain grey.
I'm surprised that professional Betacam SP (340 line-pairs) has a lower
bandwidth (horizontal resolution) than consumer S-VHS (400 line-pairs) or
videonovels...
|
.
Profesional BetaCam == Super Beta which is merely an "upgrade" to the
already existing Beta standard. S-Beta was designed to be
backwards-compatible with old Beta equipment, and that's why there's
only a marginal improvement.
Steve Roberts...
|
Not wishing to add to an already confused thread (there's an awful lot of
people spouting half-understood information as 'fact'!) but Betacam is NOT
videonovels...
|
.
Oops. You're right. I thought S-Beta and Betacam were the same
standard, but looking at wikipedia I see they are not. They offer the
same horizontal resolution (300) but use different recording standards.
The history of Beta is confusing. VHS basically had two recording
standards in the 1980s: VHS at 240 horizontal resolution and S-VHS at
400 horizontal. (VHS-C is the same recording standard as vhs). Easy
to understand for the typical consumer.
But Beta was a confusing mess of standards that overlapped one another:
Betamax (240 horizontal resolution)
Betacam (300)
SuperBeta (300)
Betacam SP (340)
Betamax ED (500)
Difficult to keep all that straight in one's mind. In retrospect, it
probably would have been better for Sony to relabel Betacam as
"SuperBeta" or "Betacam at Home", rather than create a new incompatible
standard.
|
the same as Super Beta. Super Beta was a evolution of the domestic Betamax
system, not Betacam.
Betacam was Sony's original 1/2" cassette-based broadcast ENG system,
designed to replace 3/4" U-matic. The original variant was quickly
superseded by Betacam SP ('Superior Performance'), which became a mainstay
of the broadcast industry until it was itself superseded by the ubiquitous
Digital Betacam format.
|
S-VHS provided better 400-horizontal resolution, but at the cost of not
working with old machines.
Sony later produced a 500-horizontal BetaPro standard, but it quickly
went obsolete since nobody adopted it.
|
Hi8 (415 line-pairs).
I presume that the PAL variants of these tape formats have a higher
bandwidth (at the expense of reduced frame rate) so as to give roughly the
same ratio of horizontal to vertical resolution as for NTSC.
|
S-VHS 400 lines.
|
|
videonovels...
|
.
Agamemnon's statement is clearly false. Both Beta/VHS record the same
Jim Vieira...
|
Why break the habit of a lifetime?
|
number of scanlines: 525 NTSC / 486 visible.
|
|
I've always been told, "Yes PAL is better than NTSC" but I'm starting
to wonder if that's true?
Jim...
steeler...
|
The colour stat you have quoted is entirely misleading. PAL is the better
system - but only marginally and nothing to lose sleep over.
|
MrBuddwing...
|
I'm no technoid, but based on my keen powers of observation:
British PAL looks sharper than NTSC. The colors (colours?) look richer.
However, PAL noticeably flickers more than NTSC, especially when it's
showing large, bright areas, such as the daytime sky.
adric22...
|
I was in Germany about 10 years ago and I don't remember seeing flicker
on any of the TV's I watched. However, many people have told me that
modern PAL televisions double the scanrate to 60 fps, and double up on
each frame in order to reduce flicker.
Andreas Erber...
|
Normal NTSC TVs have 60 hz because of the interleacing (you see first line
1, 3, 5.... an than line 2, 4 ,6......), but there are still only 30 FPS.
PAL uses also interleacering but only 50 hz and 25 FPS.
Modern PAL TVs show you every (half-)frame twice so there is a rate of 100
Hz and no flicker left.
LG Andy
|
And, of course, on an LCD monitor or television there would be no
flicker.
|
Jeremiah Harbottle...
|
Eh? I've never seen a flicker. As far as I understand, the persistence of
vision can see changing images at much lower frame rates than PAL without a
flicker.
MrBuddwing...
|
Perhaps "flicker" is too strong a word, but there is, to my eye, a
discernible "throbbing" effect in British PAL, which interlaces fields
at 50 times a second (for 25 full frames a second), as opposed to NTSC,
which interlaces 60 fields a second (for 30 full frames a second).
Martin Jay...
|
I think it's just something we here in the UK (and elsewhere) have got
used to.
Look to the side of the screen, and the flicker is usually noticeable
from the corner of the eye. Or just visit a shop that has lots of TVs
on display. :)
|
rob.ocelot...
|
If you're used to seeing 60Hz NTSC then you WILL notice 50Hz PAL
flickering, but you do eventually get used to it. Of course, the only
reason for the frequency difference is the local power line frequency.
|
Now, if only Hollywood had gotten into the habit of cranking its
cameras at 25 frames a second instead of 24, a lot of film-to-video
transfer problems would have been easily solved, at least as far as PAL
was concerned.
rob.ocelot...
|
For PAL, yes... NTSC would have problems because the mathematics for a
2:3 'pull up' (not sure of the technical term for this -- it's the
opposite of a 3:2 pulldown -- going from 60 *fields* per second to 48
to restore a film-like flicker effect and remove the kludgy half
frames).
|
Dillon Pyron...
|
A lot of Hollywierd is now shot on PAL cameras and converted to film.
Or, in the case of DLP theaters, just shown at 25 fps.
|
Luke Curtis...
|
If you grow up used to a system then look at the other then it will
look strange. I live in the UK (PAL 50) when I first got a DVD player
anmd watched my first Region 1 DVD playing in NTSC mode it looked
horrible, colours looked totally wrong and there seemed to be huge
amounts of flicker giving me a headache, af course I soon got used to
it and I can watch both formats quite happily now.
|
|
|
I've never seen it, but I understand there's a variant of PAL that
scans as fast as NTSC. If so, it would seem clearly superior on all
counts.
Stephen Fairchild...
|
Not so much a variant but you can get 100Hz scan TVs in the U.K. Ideal for
those who notice the flicker but for those that don't particularly mind it
the picture is slightly less sharp oh, and the sets cost 30% more. All of
this is irrelevant if you are going for a LCD/plasma TV.
If you are looking to convert a DVD to XviD for watching on a computer PAL
DVDs are the ones to rip.
|
rob.ocelot...
|
In parts of South America they use PAL-M and PAL-N variants (Brazil is
PAL-M, I believe) which is 60Hz with a PAL colour subcarrier. It's the
best of both worlds and is also backwards compatable with NTSC in B&W.
nick.cooper-625delete...
|
No, only PAL-M is 60Hz. Breaks down like this:
PAL = 625 line/50Hz, PAL colour on 4.43MHz sub-carrier (UK, NZ, Aus,
etc.)
PAL-N = 625 line/50Hz, PAL colour on 3.58MHz sub-carrier (Argentina,
Paraguay)
PAL-M = 525 line/60Hz, PAL colour on 3.58MHz sub-carrier (Brazil only)
There is no separate VHS standard for PAL-N, as the colour signal is
recorded on the tape in the same format as regular PAL machines.
And just in case anyone asks...
PAL-60 = 525 line/60Hz, PAL colour on 4.43MHz sub-carrier
|
Stephen Fairchild...
|
Chances are the vertical scan frequency will match the A.C. mains frequency.
It is not by accident as a discrepancy here will result flickering on the
screen wherever power regulation is not perfect, which was the case back in
the age of valves. Not so now as I can attest there are no bands running
up the screen on my CRT computer monitor.
|
|
|
DaffyDuck...
|
Yes, it is higher resolution. Ever seen a PAL image?
|
HORIZONTAL:
PAL's visible line length =3D=3D 52 =B5s
NTSC's visible line length=3D=3D52.66 =B5s
VERTICAL:
PAL visible scanlines =3D 576
NTSC visible scanlines =3D 486
COLOUR:
doctor...
jt...
|
You forget frame rate.
PAL is 25 frames per second, NTSC averages out to 29.97 (rounded to 30
often).
Film is 24 frames per second.
When films are transferred to PAL, they are sped up to accomodate the
close-but-not-quite frame rate.
All cinematic movies that are released on PAL end up 4% faster, and
therefore slightly shorter, with all of the action moving just a touch
faster!
NTSC videos use a complex algorithm of repeated frames to make the
video versions play at the exact same speed (more or less) as the
original movies.
So cinema movies transferred to video are more accurate, speed-wise, on
NTSC.
|
Andreas Erber...
|
As you see, PAL has an higher Black&White Resolution. Color Resolution isn't
that important. Btw. PAL has 25 FPS, NTSC nearly 30 FPS.
LG Andy
|
PAL scanlines =3D 288 lines
NTSC scanlines =3D 486 lines
________
2- | _____] 2258: "Signs and Portents"
time | | ___ 2259: "The Coming of Shadows"
Sci-Fi |__|[_ \ 2260: "Point of No Return"
Achievement B A _B Y\ L\ O N 2261: "No Surrender, No Retreat"
Awards ( \__/ | 2262: "Wheel of Fire"
Winner \______/
A TV NOVEL (available on dvd)
|
|
