DVDizzy Forum

This question is for the people out there who have copies of the same movie but of different regions.


I was wondering if the NTSC (Region 1) version looks and sound better than the PAL one (Region 2).

It doesn't have to be a big difference. But if the colors look more defined, the sound's more clear... I'm asking just if it does look better at least just a little.



PS

If someone can tell me this, particulary the case of The Lion King.


Thanks.

I'd go with region 1.

here are some of the details i gather regarding R1 vs. R2:

R1: mostly 704x480 at 29fps and average bitrate is 4.95 mb/s

R2: mostly 720x480 at 25fps and average bitrate is 7.3 mb/s

so i think they are pretty close the same.

[quote from E-Male]
if both version are done equally well it comes down to:
lower ntsc resolution
vs.
pal speed-up
which is worse to you is a matter of taste

Hey, eap_44:

Care to explain me that in English.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand thoe technical details.

Somewhere around here there is an 140,000,000 word essay by deathie mouse addressing this very issue, very complexly.

To sum it up in one sentence though PAL is better than NTSC in terms of actually picture quality, although naturally there is the 4% speedup problem.

Also there is another thread somewhere demonstrating this saying how the PAL DVD of Beauty and the Beast wipes the floor with the R1 NTSC version.

I'll try and find both.

ichabod wrote:Somewhere around here there is an 140,000,000 word essay by deathie mouse addressing this very issue, very complexly.

To sum it up in one sentence though PAL is better than NTSC in terms of actually picture quality, although naturally there is the 4% speedup problem.

Also there is another thread somewhere demonstrating this saying how the PAL DVD of Beauty and the Beast wipes the floor with the R1 NTSC version.

I'll try and find both.

Howdy!

I've been to England twice in my life and here are the differences in plain-old English:

PAL: the picture is all bright and flashy. And the sound is higher-pitched.

NTSC: the picture is all dark and blurry. And the sound is normal.

I think, IMHO, PAL is better than NTSC for the reason listed above, as well as other (non-technical, but moral ) reasons.

sethn172

sethn172 wrote:Howdy!

I've been to England twice in my life and here are the differences in plain-old English:

PAL: the picture is all bright and flashy. And the sound is higher-pitched.

NTSC: the picture is all dark and blurry. And the sound is normal.

I think, IMHO, PAL is better than NTSC for the reason listed above, as well as other (non-technical, but moral ) reasons.

sethn172

That the colour issue is true for transmitted television images, but not for DVD. Being as most people should be viewing their DVDs through a direct connection to the television, with the colours transmitted in their component RGB values, the colours on a DVD should be the same on NTSC or PAL. (So, if you're viewing your DVDs through your VHS and then on TV, stop! ) That said, I do find PAL discs seem to have brighter colours (but it may just be all in my mind).

So ignoring the colours, the advantage is PAL has more lines (about 20% more) and NTSC has the original speed. The disadvantage is PAL has speed-up (but not, it must be stressed on PAL filmed television episodes) and NTSC has 3/4 pull-down - every 3rd frame is repeated and merged with the next frame which can result in short visual jerks which are especially noticable on fast camera pans (but not, it must be stressed on progressive DVD players and displays).

So there you go - each has its plus points and its minus points. While the speed-up is an issue to some - especially regarding songs - it doesn't bother the majority of PAL viewers. While you may not think the extra lines are that big an issue picture quality wise, its approximately the same as the difference between a non-anamorphic and an anamorphically enhanced 16:9 widescreen image*.

When it comes down to it, the differences don't really matter that much - both are capable of producing excellent transfers or crappy transfers. What really matters is the encoding and the condition of the original master.

As for Beauty and the Beast - I do think the PAL version is better. I'm not normally one to pay that much attention to picture quality (sorry deathie!) but for some reason the PAL/NTSC image differences almost always seem to be stronger on animation, with PAL normally winning. That said, if you are overtly familiar with the songs though, the PAL speed-up of the songs may be noticable and a bigger issue than the picture.

Here's an... interesting... comparison of the Hunchback of Notre Dame release:
http://www.videophile.info/Review/Hunch ... ack_01.htm

Here's the R1 vs R2 Beauty and the Beast thread (with some images missing - images start on page 2)
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... ot&start=0

* Waits with baited breath for Deathie to correct this loosely calculated statistic!

Obi-Wan has taught you well, Netty


here's my slight "observations"

PAL's color space is just a leeetlee bigger than the current NTSC color space (which is limited today by SMPTE "C" phosphours chromacities) (i can feel someone's rolling eyes coming soon )

PAL's 25fps movie rate looks smoother cus as Netty says, A: It doesnt have frame repeats, plus B: It's faster, so actually movements look a leeetlee more alive. (Well i can see it )

Progressive Players do eliminate the interlace blurriness on NTSC but they do that too in PAL cus both are interlaced formats on regular displays.
Now, the repeat frames are still there in NTSC progressive players unless they output refresh rates of multiples of 24 (like 72 Hz or 96 Hz or 120 Hz). Since most NTSC Displays are 60Hz they still have to repeat frames to convert from 24 -> 60 . Being progressive, Progressive NTSC players do repeat in full frames instead of merged interlaced half frames (fields) so they look better but they still do have to do the repeats in an odd pattern for a 60Hz display.
PAL being 25fps for film and 50Hz for videotape goes smoothly into 50Hz and 100Hz displays instead of the odd NTSC 24->>60 pattern.

On the other hand, some DVD progressive players, and DVD software players on computers can output in 72Hz for NTSC if your display can do it (You could for example force your refresh rate on your puter to 72Hz or 96 Hz for NTSC films, 60 Hz for NTSC videotaped/edited shows and the Oklahoma! Todd-AO movie, 120 Hz for everything NTSC, 75 Hz for PAL films, 50 or 100 Hz for everything PAL, etc.)

(A 120 Hz refresh rate would probably work nice with PAL nicely too cus it's so high the motion would be look smooth )

Also some software players have a PAL 25 -> 24 playback conversion option i've heard.


btw eap_44's figures should read:

R1/R2/R3/R4 NTSC: 720 x 480 pixels at 24fps for film, 30fps for certain things like some computer animation and Oklahoma! (and i've seen a couple of videos at 30fps so stuff exists!), and 60 interlaced fields for videotaped shows, and average bitrate is 4.95 mb/s

R2/R4 PAL: 720 x 576 pixels at 25fps for film, 50 interlaced fields for videotaped shows, and average bitrate is 7.3 mb/s

I rounded up NTSC's odd 23.976 fps, 29.97 fps and 59.94 Hz prescise figures for sanitary reasons

What it all means is that PAL DVDs, all else being equal in the transfer, have 20% more resolution, size, and pixels and the grain/noise/mpeg artifacts could look 20% smaller, there's no frame repeats, and the color space could be about 5% bigger.

Of course, you can't see this difference on a NTSC display, so you'd have to play the PAL disc on a 800 x 600 or bigger puter monitor, a PAL display, or a HD display (1080p displays now available in a dealer near you! )

btw i remind that that final Beauty And The Beast PAL pic on the thread is just an analog board capture (the analog S-VHS output of a DVD player) as opossed to the NTSC one which is full digital raw data. so the actual PAL digital data might look even better.

Jafar if you want to see, maybe i could pick you up in my Batplane one day and take you to Dethisland