PAL Vs. NTSC

I wonder what opinions other users have on this possibly contentious subject. When LD manufacturers were still getting their act together in the early 90s it was quite a pertinent issue - which version to buy? PAL or imported NTSC?

For those with PAL-only players it was, and still is, merely academic, but when multi-format players came on the market it became quite a serious consideration.

The main thing, of course, was the availability of titles. When I started collecting, NTSC titles outnumbered PAL by almost 3 to 1 (particularly if you excluded all the opera, ballet and aerial flying-formation teams that clogged up the PAL catalogue in 1992). The other factor was that new NTSC releases were often 6 months ahead of their PAL equivalents, so for those who didn't want to wait, the choice was obvious.

But there were some factors in favour of PAL. Firstly, they were generally cheaper, if only because they didn't have to be imported. Secondly, some users felt that technically they performed better. This was a rather subjective view unless you were going to go into all the technical specifications of each system. PAL certainly ought to have looked better as it uses more lines to make up the picture, but this is offset by the audio capabilities of NTSC. If you wanted isolated music tracks or director commentaries on the analogue audio channels, never mind the likes of AC3 or DTS, you simply had to opt for NTSC.

And a PAL disc, no matter how good theoretically, was only as good as its source material. Encore Entertainment's release of DREAMSCAPE used something that would barely have passed for VHS quality, similarly the PAL release of John Carpenter's PRINCE OF DARKNESS (pan & scan and shoddy video transfer). There were others. The only consistently better thing was that PAL discs came in sturdier card sleeves. Gatefold covers could sometimes be so thick that you couldn't squeeze them into the PVC sleeves that were designed to protect them. (Ironically, this was the reverse of the situation for vinyl record covers where the imported US sleeves were generally made of thicker card compared to the flimsy homegrown LP covers.)

Of course, poor transfers weren't confined to PAL. Some early NTSC releases, such as the MPI editions of episodes of THE PRISONER, were so poor as to be unwatchable. In the end there was no hard and fast rule. In some cases, the PAL version was superior, in others it was undoubtedly the NTSC release. As most people wouldn't be able to get both for a like-for-like comparison you simply made your choice and hoped you picked the better one. But, if you were after a MUSIC title, NTSC was generally preferable if only because PAL discs play at a significantly faster speed, thereby raising the pitch by nearly half a note. This is barely noticeable in speech and general soundtracks, but with a concert movie such as U2 RATTLE AND HUM it is distinctly apparent. Bono is not far short of sounding like Mickey Mouse when compared to the NTSC version. (Even NTSC is not exactly the same speed as the original celluloid reels, but it approximates more closely.)

Another issue that muddied the waters was that some film studios simply didn't license their titles for sale in the UK. Disney, Criterion and MGM are three examples where PAL editions weren't released (although Encore Entertainment managed somehow to put DUMBO out in a CAV LD edition, and splendid it is, too. They also released some other Disney straight-to-video animations), and it was often said that Warner Home Video wouldn't issue LDs in the UK. This wasn't strictly true as several Warner titles were issued in the late 80s/early 90s, among them THE OMEGA MAN, BADLANDS and THE TERMINAL MAN. Some of these came via Blue Dolphin/Tartan Video but some, such as NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2 came out on Warner's own PAL Home Video label.

However, Pioneer had exclusive rights to all Paramount and Universal titles while Encore Entainment got deals with 20th Century Fox and the BBC. There were others, but it simply couldn't be assumed that all available titles would get a PAL release. Some weird stuff DID appear that hardly anyone bought while other really obvious sellers were conspicuous by their absence.

For me, the weird and wonderful world of vintage horror and sci-fi was only ever going to get onto laserdisc through the likes of The Roan Company and Elite Entertainment, so there was no real choice. It had to be NTSC.

I don't think there'll ever be a definitive all encompassing answer to the question. Each format has its pros and cons.

However I do think that when it comes to laserdisc PAL was severley handicapped by the lack of audio choices and poor selection of titles available.

For all people go on about line count and play speed I've never really noticed these being a problem in either format unless directly comparing them side by side.

The one thing I find really annoying about NTSC though is that quite often the red levels are far too high. This is mostly noticeable in TV transmissions and VHS, but sometimes on laserdisc and early DVD.

On the whole though I pretty much can't tell the difference between the two formats but when it comes to laserdisc for me NTSC wins because of the massive number of titles released and the additional sound capabilities.

On a side note, even now us UK lot still don't get any Criterion releases, but we do seem to get identical releases by other companies, such as the Man Who Fell To Earth. To date still the only Criterion DVD (or anything for that matter) I own is the original Solaris, which I have mixed feelings about when it comes to the restoration. The picture quality is fantastic but some scenes meant to be black and white have been 'restored' as colour and vice versa. However I've heard that most Criterion releases are restored much better.

Sorry, got a bit off topic there.

never really got into the whole pal vs ntsc not just on laserdisc but on any format for me how good a disc turns out simply depends on the studio who is putting it out and the effort they put into it i did read that alot of pal laserdiscs are simply vhs transfers dont know if this is true but i can say this i had both the pal and ntsc henry portrait of a serial killer discs and the pal version does look like the vhs print as for the ntsc version the picture was far better alot sharper and more colourful and of course at the time uncut the only pal disc i have ever kept is the jason and the argonauts box set which is superb i remember an interview with ray harryhausen at the time the box set was being put out and when he was asked he said he liked the pal format over ntsc but like i said for me it depends on the quaility of the studio which is putting the disc out

HippieDalek wrote:

I don't think there'll ever be a definitive all encompassing answer to the question. Each format has its pros and cons.

However I do think that when it comes to laserdisc PAL was severley handicapped by the lack of audio choices and poor selection of titles available.

For all people go on about line count and play speed I've never really noticed these being a problem in either format unless directly comparing them side by side.

The one thing I find really annoying about NTSC though is that quite often the red levels are far too high. This is mostly noticeable in TV transmissions and VHS, but sometimes on laserdisc and early DVD.

On the whole though I pretty much can't tell the difference between the two formats but when it comes to laserdisc for me NTSC wins because of the massive number of titles released and the additional sound capabilities.

On a side note, even now us UK lot still don't get any Criterion releases, but we do seem to get identical releases by other companies, such as the Man Who Fell To Earth. To date still the only Criterion DVD (or anything for that matter) I own is the original Solaris, which I have mixed feelings about when it comes to the restoration. The picture quality is fantastic but some scenes meant to be black and white have been 'restored' as colour and vice versa. However I've heard that most Criterion releases are restored much better.

Sorry, got a bit off topic there.

I too find the red levels are too high when watching some films but I put it down to viewing on a plasma tv.
GOOGLED - Plasma TVs have high colour saturation due to the way they emit light. The ability of Plasma tv pixels to be switched off when they are not in use stops the emission of stray light that diffuses colour. This is why tints and hues on Plasma TVs are noticeably more vivid and vibrant.
Not too sure what it all means but I know the colour particularly red on my tv is very vivid.
have you got a plasma or lcd ?

Most of the time NTSC films were uncut like True Lies,Cliffhanger,Face/Off,Commando to name but a few,these films and more were heavily edited on their pal versions, but pal do give a better picture.

Admin wrote:

Have you got a plasma or lcd ?

LCD, but I notice it on all types of TV, most notably tube TVs.

mc211177 wrote:

but pal do give a better picture.

It isn't that cummon with better picture with PAL on Laserdisc though.

I say NTSC is better. There are more titles available, they play at the correct speed, there are multiple soundtracks and the special editions tend to be NTSC exclusive. In some cases it's the only way to watch the widescreen version. The only real advantage PAL has is the extra 96 lines of resolution and that's not always noticeable.