Splash said:
...it's just that PAL used a 50 HZ frame rate and NTSC uses a 60 HZ frame rate...
ummm... Now that I'm a bit more rested and clear-headed, I meant to say
FIELDS not frames in my earlier post.
Since our antiquated analogue television broadcasts are 2:1 interlaced, that equates to 50 fields per second / 25 frames per second in PAL and SECAM, and 60 fields per second / 30 frames per second in NTSC. Of course, the numbers above are not
exact, for example the exact number of fields per second in NTSC is precisely a tad less than 60 fields per second (59.97 I believe).
time said:
Splash wrote:
NTSC is essentially no better or worse than PAL (or SECAM), it's just different.
It's risky challenging Splash on technical issues, but I have to say: "bullsh*t". I stand by my earlier post.
Time, I just now read yours (and everyone else's) posts above.
About all I can say is that I've experienced a few video moments that very few people ever will, like viewing broadcasts being encoded from Panasonic D-5 source into NTSC, PAL, and SECAM and watching all three encoded television images side-by-side on exacting identical high-end professional-grade video monitors. There are indeed visible differences between the three, the most obvious being that scenery in PAL and SECAM have a richer overall look and that NTSC looks less jerky than PAL and SECAM if there is a lot of motion occurring in the scenery. That's pretty much the gist of it. If scenery isn't moving around a lot, I agree, PAL looks best.
But, it still comes down to a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" ordeal comparing PAL to SECAM to NTSC; you can only get so much out of approximately 6 MHz. One thing I might note is that NTSC's inferior colour scheme revolves around what you can expect from medium-speed 16mm motion picture film and its rather chucky grain size. Hurrah for late 1950s technology!
On the subject of cinema film, motion picture film transfer to television is problematic no matter the video standard, so The Society Of Motion Picture & Television Engineers (SMPTE, or "SimpTee" as we say) have a standardised algorithm for frame transfer manipulation during film transfers (live or recorded) to those broadcast standards. The modern standard cinematic frame rate of motion picture film is 24 frames per second and the television standards are 25 and 30 frames per second. Cinema film transfer methods actually work on the field level since it provides the least "jerkiness" to the broadcasted material.
However, during the past 15 or 20 or so years, when you see *very* expensive commercials on television (usually automobile commercials), those commercials are shot on motion picture film. For NTSC markets, the production companies will shoot these million-dollar commercials onto 35mm motion picture film at 30 frames per second --
or even 60 frames per second -- and transferred that custom motion picture film to video without the frame rate manipulations -- in this case it's just one frame of mopic film for one frame of video, or in the case of the ultra-high-end transfer, one frame of mopic film for one FIELD of video. The later produces the ultimate in smooth motion. So, the next time you see one of those Lexus commercials with the test driver spinning out on wet pavement and you wonder how in the hell everything looks so smooth and silky compared to the movie you were watching a few seconds ago, you now know!
time said:
As I said, tiny South American countries (except for Peru) - no way is it even close to being most.
If I'm not mistaken, Brasil, tiny British Guiana, tiny French Guiana (may be SECAM), and tiny Surinam (Dutch Guiana) are basically it for PAL in South America. If they even have television out there, I suspect the Falkland Islands and the Ascension Islands are PAL also.