Thomas_E_SP
Active member
I have a friend swearing that Pal makes better pictures than NTSC. But he can't explain why. Is it true? Why?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is it true that PAL provides better quality image?
- Thread starter Thomas_E_SP
- Start date
Hayden_Rivers
Active member
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
The resolution of an NTSC DV camera is 720x480 while PAL resolution is 720x576. That's about 20% more lines of resolution (480 lines vs. 576 lines). So that's where your superior image comes into play.
However, I've never shot on PAL so someone else is going to have to reply to give you a definitive answer on whether it's worth the hassle to shoot PAL when everything around us in the states is NTSC. If you were transferring to 35mm film, then I think PAL is preferred. If you're making a documentary, probably not.
Frankly, I don't think it's ever been more confusing than right now what the hell to invest in. You've got DVX100a doing wonderful standard definition, you've got the new XL2 which I really haven't been too blown away by (but we'll see what people pump out) and you've got this crazy Sony HDV camera coming out in less than a month that does crazy resolution, less dynamic range, it's insane compressed, doesn't do 24p, but maybe that doesn't matter.... and then there's these geniuses out there working on homemade High Definition cameras with specs to drool at (1080p, 24fps, uncompressed 10bit, etc.).... It's a mad, mad world at the moment. I wish I could go to sleep and wake up 5 years from now cause things are going to get crazy.
ramble finished
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
The resolution of an NTSC DV camera is 720x480 while PAL resolution is 720x576. That's about 20% more lines of resolution (480 lines vs. 576 lines). So that's where your superior image comes into play.
However, I've never shot on PAL so someone else is going to have to reply to give you a definitive answer on whether it's worth the hassle to shoot PAL when everything around us in the states is NTSC. If you were transferring to 35mm film, then I think PAL is preferred. If you're making a documentary, probably not.
Frankly, I don't think it's ever been more confusing than right now what the hell to invest in. You've got DVX100a doing wonderful standard definition, you've got the new XL2 which I really haven't been too blown away by (but we'll see what people pump out) and you've got this crazy Sony HDV camera coming out in less than a month that does crazy resolution, less dynamic range, it's insane compressed, doesn't do 24p, but maybe that doesn't matter.... and then there's these geniuses out there working on homemade High Definition cameras with specs to drool at (1080p, 24fps, uncompressed 10bit, etc.).... It's a mad, mad world at the moment. I wish I could go to sleep and wake up 5 years from now cause things are going to get crazy.
ramble finished
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
PAL makes a better PAL image than NTSC does.
NTSC makes a better NTSC image than PAL does.
Depends on what you're displaying it on. If you're in an NTSC country, planning to display on an NTSC device, an NTSC camera is going to do a better job than a convoluted PAL conversion will. And same in reverse.
PAL is later technology, and better technology, but you have to be displaying it on a PAL television for it to matter.
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
PAL makes a better PAL image than NTSC does.
NTSC makes a better NTSC image than PAL does.
Depends on what you're displaying it on. If you're in an NTSC country, planning to display on an NTSC device, an NTSC camera is going to do a better job than a convoluted PAL conversion will. And same in reverse.
PAL is later technology, and better technology, but you have to be displaying it on a PAL television for it to matter.
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
PAL uses somewhat more scanlines (625 vs 525), somewhat more bandwidth (4.5 vs 5.5 Mhz)and somewhat higher subcarrier frequenties (4.43 vs 3,58 Mhz = less visible subcarrier in composite signals) It doesn't show hue errors like NTSC used to show (mainly in the past) and thus can potentially produce "better" pics. On the contrary PAL is 50 Hz (=more flicker on non remapped displays), has a halved vertical chroma resolution and 1 scanline chroma downshift. PAL uses a 4:2:0 digital mapping which has some advandages but is more critical for converting to good quality progressive scan.
Conversion from one system to another is like Barry stated to be avoided.
Re: Is it true that PAL provides better quality im
PAL uses somewhat more scanlines (625 vs 525), somewhat more bandwidth (4.5 vs 5.5 Mhz)and somewhat higher subcarrier frequenties (4.43 vs 3,58 Mhz = less visible subcarrier in composite signals) It doesn't show hue errors like NTSC used to show (mainly in the past) and thus can potentially produce "better" pics. On the contrary PAL is 50 Hz (=more flicker on non remapped displays), has a halved vertical chroma resolution and 1 scanline chroma downshift. PAL uses a 4:2:0 digital mapping which has some advandages but is more critical for converting to good quality progressive scan.
Conversion from one system to another is like Barry stated to be avoided.