![]() |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
PAL can give a wider gamut than NTSC (more colors) mostly because most European implimentations give a little more bandwidth to the signal, I'm not sure how wide the channels are in Austrailia, so that may or may not be the case. NTSC generally looks better on an NTSC set though. I've seen NTSC on multi-standard and PAL sets that can playback the pseudo-NTSC pictures that are generated by some VCR's and it doesn't look like it should. The blacks are very crushed and the colors tend to be washed out. The reason is that the NTSC and PAL color gamuts don't line up perfectly. So what is reproduced as one color on NTSC would then be reproduced differently on PAL. Also American NTSC uses a 7.5 IRE level for its blacks. PAL uses 0 IRE. The end result is that your blacks (and whites) don't line up either. If its any consolation PAL pictures look rather overprocessed when you see them on an NTSC set. The reasoning for PAL was to make terestrial broadcasting more reliable. In the end, most people in the States use cable which sort of moots the PAL advantage since the signal is closed sent via closed circuit RF. All that being said I've seen bad and good pictures on both systems. As far as what you could get that would be worse, I'd say that would have been 405 line with SECAM color. SECAM (as the French use it) has half the color resolution of either NTSC or PAL and uses AM sound (because they use FM to transmit the color carriers). SECAM was also developed to solve the phase problems with terestrial broadcasting, but ended up introducing new ones of its own. Oh well, we're all using the best television standards the 1930's could supply. David |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|