|
Author
|
Topic: PAl and NTSC
|
James Smith
Junior
Posts: 4
From: Marysville, CA, USA
Registered: Apr 2018
|
posted April 16, 2018 04:00 AM
Brian's description of the two formats is correct. My system plays both formats fine, but I've discovered that when I project the images onto a large screen (without any Blu-ray upscaling), the PAL is always superior. In fact, I consider PAL to be an excellent 'middle-ground' between NTSC and Blu-Ray. And let's not forget that there are lots of movies that have been released overseas on PAL and not released here on NTSC. (Black Bart, Tap Roots, Dunkirk, Eve of St. Mark, I was Monty's Double, etc.)
--------------------
?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted April 17, 2018 06:23 AM
With DVD material, NTSC line resolution is 525, PAL is 576, so arguable a slightly better image, all other factors being equal.
Blu-ray doesn't use NTSC or PAL and are generally mastered at 1080p 24Hz for movies (although there are obviously exceptions). Some are regionally coded but only to prevent playback in unauthorised distribution territories, and nothing at all to do with format, which remains the same.
Even when using an upscaling DVD player, or a Blu-ray player to upscale DVD to 1080i or 1080p, the more resolution there to begin with the better, so I think what James means is that a PAL DVD is better than an NTSC equivalent, although I'd say that neither even approaches Blu-ray quality as other factors, such as compression, limit DVD image quality.
The best upscaling DVD machine I own is a Toshiba XDE which does a good job of upscaling without too many nasty artifacts. Certainly, of all the NTSC DVD import discs I have, PAL discs do look better.
But Blu-ray is a different league altogether.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
