PAL (50Hz) & NTSC (60 Hz) Which is better and why?

Whappers · 10 Jul 2006 at 19:44

Good evening,

I have always wondered which is better, PAL or NTSC...

The main reason I ask is because I have an HD LCD TV which can handle PAL and NTSC. However, when Pro Evolution Soccer 5 asks me which I want to use I am not sure what the difference is apart from the "Hz" aka screen refresh rate.

Can you please tell me which one I should be using. I can't notice any difference between the two.

Thanks in advance!

Whappers.

ElRazur · 10 Jul 2006 at 19:48

iirc pal = Uk and cetain part of europe, Ntsc=ameicas.....

The higher the Hz the better the screen will look.

I will await someone to clear that up though.

st00dent · 10 Jul 2006 at 20:00

Quoted from here

In principle, PAL DVDs have a compelling advantage over NTSC DVDs. PAL DVDs have 576 pixels of vertical resolution versus 480 pixels of vertical resolution. That's a 20% increase in resolution for a PAL DVD as compared to an NTSC DVD. Increased resolution translates into a better looking image

Xtremepenguin · 10 Jul 2006 at 20:01

Pal has a higher resolution though i believe. NTSC is very much an old format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntsc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL

james.miller · 10 Jul 2006 at 20:02

yes resolution Vs Speed, its your call. for me res wins it.

Whappers · 10 Jul 2006 at 20:04

Thanks for verifying that for me guys. Now I know and will never have to wonder or ask again. I can go to my grave now resting peacefully knowing what the difference is.

Ok, I'll stop there, but I'm glad I got that cleared up because it's just one of those things that I wouldn't know the answer to and would like to.

I think I'll go for PAL (50Hz) as I prefer resolution over speed.

Thanks again!

Whappers.

daz · 11 Jul 2006 at 00:17

PAL60 to be honest.

Phil99 · 11 Jul 2006 at 00:25

On CRT: NTSC 60
On TFT: PAL 50

Ideally PAL60 for both.

On my CRT TV I find NTSC a lot easier on the eye than PAL, but for an LCD TV the higher resolution would probably be better.

punky_munky · 11 Jul 2006 at 00:29

If you can't tell the difference then what's the problem?

Zefan · 11 Jul 2006 at 00:30

punky_munky said:
If you can't tell the difference then what's the problem?

THE NUMBERS, THE NUMBERS.

ojste · 11 Jul 2006 at 00:32

the game plays slower in 50hz, test it next time you have a game that can be played in both 60 and 50hz. I prefer 60hz as its the speed its supposed to be played

also whereas 50hz has better resolution, it tends to have borders on the game and 60hz is full screen i think

Superdude · 11 Jul 2006 at 01:01

In terms of actual PAL and NTSC signals, PAL is the best standard.

Interlasing means that we don't get the washed out colours that the yanks get due to more bandwidth for cromanence (can't spell)

When it comes to PAL60 and PAL 50 i'm not too sure

Raymond Lin · 11 Jul 2006 at 01:58

Pay Sonic on a NTSC and you'll really notice how much faster the game is !

dirtydog · 11 Jul 2006 at 03:03

I hope the PS3 will offer PAL60 for all of its European release games because most PS2 games are PAL50 only which means slower speed and black borders :/

Kreeeee · 11 Jul 2006 at 11:59

Only on very poorly designed systems is PAL50 slower than PAL60. The GameCube got it right where 50 and 60 hz run at identical game speeds.

PAL >> NTSC

Echo toxin · 11 Jul 2006 at 15:40

But then in the HDTV era, NTSC has now usurped PAL. The resolutions are identical so that's no longer an issue but with NTSC 720p you get 60 progressive frames and PAL is 50.