Once again, the resultant image is of less actual resolution than the original image, as information is discarded spatially and made up temporally. There is less jerkiness visible.Ĭonverting PAL to NTSC: 576 lines of resolution are reduced to 480 lines of resolution, and frames need to be inserted to go from the 25 frames per second of PAL to the 30 frames per second of NTSC. Thus, NTSC video is lower in resolution than PAL video, but because the screen updates more frequently, motion is rendered better in NTSC video than it is in PAL video. PAL is higher in resolution (576 horizontal lines) than NTSC (480 horizontal lines), but NTSC updates the on-screen image more frequently than PAL (30 times per second versus 25 times per second). However, this does not necessarily translate into a superior image.
There is a 20% increase in resolution for a PAL (DVD) as compared to an NTSC (DVD). The ratio of height to width for PAL is 1.22 whereas for NTSC it is 1.46. PAL format is 352 x 288 pixels 25 frames per second (fps) while NTSC is 352 x 240 30 fps. I culled the following info from my notes. Hardware-based conversions are far superior, yet not quite the same as the original.
#Encode pal to ntsc dvd software#
I can tell you software based conversions are always bad: flickery, loss of color, paleness of image, loss of sharpness, etc. I’ve converted between NTSC/PAL and PAL/NTSC any number of times. Re-encoding is not simply a metter of changing the bit rates.