The PAL video standard. Here is a link to an amusing page that describes the various standards, including the assertion that NTSC stands for Never Twice the Same Color. All I know is, NTSC is an abomination and gives me headaches.
The quality difference between NTSC and PAL is most noticeable with broadcast analogue telvision, which isn't such an issue now that most of the things we watch are from a digital source (DVD, cable, satellite), using an S-VIDEO or RGB connection.
The lower quality is kind of noticeable if you have to play video games all day as part of your job. And we've even noticed it with our satellite TV at home: especially on the late-night adverts for weird pharmaceuticals or home equity loans, the small print is beyond unreadable.
I shudder to think it could be even worse. Thanks for the perspective... I think...
I guess then you're up against the lower vertical resolution of NTSC. And perhaps the poor quality of the source material for the late night adverts.
But I find a massive difference with different connection types - I shudder to think that I used my early computers with an RF aerial-style connection to the TV. It was a massive improvement moving to composite video. Now with digiboxes and DVD players and consoles, composite is the poorest quality, and one can significantly gain picture quality by moving to RGB.
One thing I can't understand though is the 100Hz mode in high-end widescreen TVs - I know it helps to stop the frame/field flicker, but it makes all horizontal motion really nastily juddery.
As you know I am an unreconstructed analogue person, to the extent that I have my climate control in the car set on Fahrenheit.
I've got one of those digital boxes so I can see the Tour de France on ITV2 each year, but blimey isn't everything really shiny and false through that machine? I watch the proper channels in analogue because people actually look like real people, and places look like they do in real life.
The digital future may be shiny and exciting but i think I prefer the way the world looks at the moment.
And yes, when I went to America I was expecting it to be all in funny overbright colours, like American TV programmes were. What took a bit of getting used to was that America is the same colour as the rest of the world is.
Right, I'll go to bed now and stop getting in the way of progress.
Having got used to digiboxes, I find analogue broadcasts looks blurry and out-of-focus. There tends to be more of a 'shimmer' to digital TV, which I guess is because one can see the two fields making up each frame more clearly.
So yes, everything looks more shiny. And precise. Its like cleaning one's glasses, and getting a clearer view of the world.
Perhaps it's cos down here where everyone lives we have a stronger TV signal. Or maybe cos a bloke from John Lewis came round last summer with a big aerial and a small white box that made everything look nice.
But the world is still in analogue as far as I can tell. The trees outside my house are still hanging on to their old format for a bit longer.
So I still maintain the opposite to you - going back to analogue after the Tour de France in digital is like eating a proper strawberry after having one of those bright pink chewy things they sell in sweetshops - that artificial colour doesn't make it nicer.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 07:05 am (UTC)The quality difference between NTSC and PAL is most noticeable with broadcast analogue telvision, which isn't such an issue now that most of the things we watch are from a digital source (DVD, cable, satellite), using an S-VIDEO or RGB connection.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 11:05 am (UTC)I shudder to think it could be even worse. Thanks for the perspective... I think...
no subject
Date: 2004-08-06 12:30 am (UTC)But I find a massive difference with different connection types - I shudder to think that I used my early computers with an RF aerial-style connection to the TV. It was a massive improvement moving to composite video. Now with digiboxes and DVD players and consoles, composite is the poorest quality, and one can significantly gain picture quality by moving to RGB.
One thing I can't understand though is the 100Hz mode in high-end widescreen TVs - I know it helps to stop the frame/field flicker, but it makes all horizontal motion really nastily juddery.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-05 03:25 pm (UTC)I've got one of those digital boxes so I can see the Tour de France on ITV2 each year, but blimey isn't everything really shiny and false through that machine? I watch the proper channels in analogue because people actually look like real people, and places look like they do in real life.
The digital future may be shiny and exciting but i think I prefer the way the world looks at the moment.
And yes, when I went to America I was expecting it to be all in funny overbright colours, like American TV programmes were. What took a bit of getting used to was that America is the same colour as the rest of the world is.
Right, I'll go to bed now and stop getting in the way of progress.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-06 12:23 am (UTC)So yes, everything looks more shiny. And precise. Its like cleaning one's glasses, and getting a clearer view of the world.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-10 03:11 pm (UTC)But the world is still in analogue as far as I can tell. The trees outside my house are still hanging on to their old format for a bit longer.
So I still maintain the opposite to you - going back to analogue after the Tour de France in digital is like eating a proper strawberry after having one of those bright pink chewy things they sell in sweetshops - that artificial colour doesn't make it nicer.