PAL vs HTSC vs HD ? at DVinfo.net

Kim Olsson · January 16th, 2008, 10:56 AM

Hi, I have understood this:
PAL have 720x576 pixels.
NTSC have 720x480 pixels.
HD have standard 1280x720 or 1920x1080 pixels.

I also know that Both PAL and NTSC have 16x9 enhanced resolutions....

But what about now, I read on this forum, a person wrote:
I'm currently working on a HDV (PAL 1080/50i)

Now I'm confused... Can a HD video also be PAL, a HD PAL video ?

that sound strande for me, I though PAL only was it standard reolution and its frame rate..

Even if the high definition material was interlaced, i though it was only HD?

Can someone tell me how its working?

Craig Parkes · January 16th, 2008, 11:53 PM

PAL would be incorrect in this case. What they are likely referring to is that the footage is 50 interlace, which corresponds with PALS 25 FPS, rather than 60i, which corresponds with NTSC's frame rate.

They got it wrong

Kim Olsson · January 17th, 2008, 09:58 AM

Thank you very much for clearing this up...

/Kim

Jon Fairhurst · January 17th, 2008, 01:09 PM

Also, NTSC formally has 486 lines, not 480. 480 is used in MPEG encoding and such because it is divisible by 8 and 16.

Also, the analog formats don't really have pixels left to right. They're analog! DV happens to use 720 x 480 to represent NTSC.

But, yeah, the thing you were looking for was the vertical field/frame rate of 50 Hz (used in PAL countries) vs. 60 Hz (used in NTSC countries). More formally NTSC countries use 59.94 Hz.

Kim Olsson · January 17th, 2008, 04:12 PM

thanx, too much over course for me... =)

but great thanks for an good explanation.

/Kim

Jon Fairhurst · January 17th, 2008, 04:34 PM

After you hear the numbers a few hundred times, they start to make more sense! And yes, they are very confusing at first. I stated learning this almost 30 years ago...

January 16th, 2008, 10:56 AM	#1
Kim Olsson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 263	PAL vs HTSC vs HD ? Hi, I have understood this: PAL have 720x576 pixels. NTSC have 720x480 pixels. HD have standard 1280x720 or 1920x1080 pixels. I also know that Both PAL and NTSC have 16x9 enhanced resolutions.... But what about now, I read on this forum, a person wrote: I'm currently working on a HDV (PAL 1080/50i) Now I'm confused... Can a HD video also be PAL, a HD PAL video ? that sound strande for me, I though PAL only was it standard reolution and its frame rate.. Even if the high definition material was interlaced, i though it was only HD? Can someone tell me how its working?

January 17th, 2008, 01:09 PM	#4
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Also, NTSC formally has 486 lines, not 480. 480 is used in MPEG encoding and such because it is divisible by 8 and 16. Also, the analog formats don't really have pixels left to right. They're analog! DV happens to use 720 x 480 to represent NTSC. But, yeah, the thing you were looking for was the vertical field/frame rate of 50 Hz (used in PAL countries) vs. 60 Hz (used in NTSC countries). More formally NTSC countries use 59.94 Hz. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

January 17th, 2008, 04:34 PM	#6
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	After you hear the numbers a few hundred times, they start to make more sense! And yes, they are very confusing at first. I stated learning this almost 30 years ago... __________________ Jon Fairhurst

January 16th, 2008, 11:53 PM	#2
Craig Parkes Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 444	PAL would be incorrect in this case. What they are likely referring to is that the footage is 50 interlace, which corresponds with PALS 25 FPS, rather than 60i, which corresponds with NTSC's frame rate. They got it wrong

January 17th, 2008, 09:58 AM	#3
Kim Olsson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 263	Thank you very much for clearing this up... /Kim

January 17th, 2008, 04:12 PM	#5
Kim Olsson Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 263	thanx, too much over course for me... =) but great thanks for an good explanation. /Kim