NTSC / PAL Video settings

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 5 Responses
  • SimonFFM

    Not sure if anyone can answer video specific questions here. I just don't know where to ask without getting into a too nerdy discussion.

    I can set up my camera to either film in NTSC or PAL mode. In Europe they say you use PAL, in America NTSC.

    BUT: I don't film for TV. I use YouTube, Vimeo and American cutting software (Sony Vegas, Final Cut Pro, etc.). So do you think, it is better to film in NTSC mode?

    Or does it maybe not matter at all as long as I stick to the same norm (NTSC or PAL in all clips)?

    Many thanks in advance.

  • rabattski2

    NTSC stands for Never The Same Color. So there you go pal.

  • uan0

    ntsc setting will give you more frames per second (30fps).
    less motion blur in fast moving objects.
    pal is 25fps.

  • uan2

    output for web is normally 25fps (or 24fps to mimic 'film look')...
    ...if you plan to slow down your footage, put a light slow motion into it, to make it more appealing...go with ntsc.

    more important is the resolution of your footage, make sure you are filming at least in fullHD 1920x1080

    also make sure you film in progressive (p next to resolution setting, i.e. 1080p) and not in interlaced (1080i)

  • mugwart0

    depends on what you are using. This option is becoming/ if not already obsolete due to the internet.

    PAL has better colour rendition but worse audio.
    NTSC has better audio.
    NTSC has a higher frame rate thank film/uk tv.
    Pal has like 1 frame more than film!

    You want to shot with the highest pixel ratio and at 24 fps (for internet). You should also think about your colour gamut as well.

    oh and what uan says - PROGRESSIVE and only progressive.

    It also comes down to what codec you use as well.

    • this is all from memory of an exhausted man!mugwart
    • I used to find all of this interesting when using Premiere way in the mid 90's. Back then NTSC had a lower res than PAL as well which is why US TV always lookedfadein11
    • blurry and lower quality over here (UK) - because it was upscaled to PAL.fadein11
    • I know they are not about resolution but back then for a pal project you worked at 768x576 but NTSC presets were significantly lower than that. Crazy.fadein11
    • upscaled to PAL? bluray is higher than palmugwart
    • 768? why? isnt it 720?mugwart
    • Mid 90s adobe premiere presets. Fact.
      Upscaled to pal because uk tv was pal and us was ntsc. Ntsc was lower quality so had to be upscaled. You can find all of
    • This online easily. This was before hd in the birth of digital vid when editing for such antiquated broadcast standardsfadein11
    • You will find the pal and ntsc resolution on this page:
    • 768x576 as i said. Impressed i can even rememberfadein11
    • Adobe is not reliable on media/standards/code... though!mugwart
    • This was in the 90s and those were standards. Whats ya beef? I wasn't even questioning your info lol. Just throwin in some relevant nostalgia. Jeezfadein11
    • Not looking for an argument. Just did loads of video in 90s... Not making it up.fadein11
    • "To convert to a 4:3 full screen aspect ratio, the video would be rendered to a 768x576 or 640x480 frame size by stretching or squeezing the image horizontally"fadein11
    • 0 beef! Well not with you but with Adobe!mugwart
    • I was busy at work and wasnt thinking manners!mugwart
  • SimonFFM0

    I only wonder why this all is so complicated still, because like you say, it's obsolete due to the internet.

    As for codecs I always struggle, too. When I output with the so-called recommended settings by Vimeo or YouTube, the video compression sucks for me.

    Many thanks for the explanations!

    • work to the camera before you work to the final codec format.mugwart
    • its why in film we work at crazy res/ bitrates/ gamutsmugwart
    • Also shot 'flat' and aim to capture info and dont shot to make it look nice. Grading will be your best friendmugwart