NTSC or PAL for Broadest Viewing Worldwide?

Soniclight wrote on 9/8/2006, 4:41 PM
Yes, I'm well aware how different parts of the world use PAL/SECAM and the U.S. NTSC. The pixel difference is huge -- almost double for PAL, and the line difference large also. The plan is that my short film be viewed behond the shores of where I live (the U.S.), therefore:

>>> Q-1: Would it be wiser for me to have my Project properties in PAL, or would that mess up viewing in NTSC (or even the film's web .wmv versions?

That said, the U.S. exports so much in film and TV shows and much of the rest of the world in PAL/SECAM doesn't seem to have a problem. Either they convert from NTSC or the material is all exported from the U.S. in non-U.S. compatible formats.

Please note also that my project will be "faux widscreen:" it will have the black bars on top and bottom to give a film-like look. I am not planning to work in or for HD, so for now it seems that basic NTSC 720 should be fine. But this brings me to:

>>> Q-2: NTSC DV (720x480) vs. NTSC Standard (720x486). Which one should one choose so as to be the most TV broadcast compatible?

________________________

Whatever the format/s you would suggest as being the best, please specify what settings would be best so that I can make sure my project has the most broad and flexible viewing potential.

Thank You.

Comments

farss wrote on 9/8/2006, 5:07 PM
As you've noted PAL is superior in some ways. However most kit in PAL countries will play NTSC, so for simple global distribution of DVDs NTSC would be the way to go.
Much of the higher end TV production in the US is shot on film, very easy to produce both PAL and NTSC scans.

As to Q2:

The only difference is the field order, if you're shooting DV then use the NTSC DV template.

One general comment.

Shooting 4:3 NTSC and letterboxing to 16:9 doesn't leave you much vertical resolution, it's going to look pretty soft compared to what most PAL viewers are used to. Seriously I'd be shooting native 16:9, preferably HDV. Apart from my fairly old Dad I don't know anyone who doesn't have a 16:9 TV, shooting and delivering true anamorphic 16:9 is the way to fly. For those still with 4:3 TVs, they get it letterboxed, the rest of us get the full res verion. Your workflow cripples the quality for those with the good gear for viewing at no gain for those without it.

Again just the view of a curmudgeon.
RBartlett wrote on 9/8/2006, 11:52 PM
You didn't mention whether you are making a film for media distribution or for broadcast distribution/syndication?

If DVD:

If I walk into a store in the UK, in the special interest and world section I will find "DVD for Worldwide playback" discs in NTSC format. Some players might baulk, slightly more TVs might baulk but the discs are correctly being sold. I'm sure some product gets returned (or given to a relative who has the means to convert it for them).

One option for you the maker is to offer a premium PAL version for ordering on a worldwide basis, however point out that this is a conversion. Assuming you don't have a native PAL original. Make sure that the arrival of the first order and it's payment covers your effort to make the disc.

Aspect-ratio for outside north-america and whether this is pressed or burned media are probably more important for you to consider than making a PAL version specifically. Folks that output a min of between 300 and 1000 units usually go for pressed discs for all manner of reasons.

If DV/tape for broadcasting:
At each "sale" discuss the requirements for acceptance with the engineers. 486 formats infer you are upping the anté as most economic prosumer tape formats are 480 for NTSC. If your source is DV 4:3 then if you want to force 16:9 you might want to sit your footage into a file format in with a wider/taller format through upconversion (maybe 1280x720 or 1440x1080). Again, see what ingest formats are accepted (if any) from hard disk.
Soniclight wrote on 9/9/2006, 6:52 AM
Thank you both for your feedback and it has made reconsider things.

I like to consider all the "little people" in the world, that is, I balk at U.S. and developed nations centric ideas that everyone has all the latest gadgets and HD TVs, but I might as well increase my resolution from the get-go.

Meaning that dumbing down (turning higher res to lower) is easier and better all around than fuzzing up (e.g. pushing a measly 360 pixel height image area to look half-way decent in PAL or HD and the like.

The DVD factor is also important for that is most likely how it will be sold the most or at least introduced into the market -- as an "extra" for a book or vice versa. If I'm confident enough about its competitive quality, I would would also enter it in some short film contests, even Sundance.

As to DV shooting, I'm not planning on doing much myself for I simply do not have the equipment or studio, etc. for it. Besides, this short film will be mostly a seamless collage of:

--- Work done with pan/cropped/Alpha tracked high res stills (photography and photrealistic 3D)

--- Screen video capture footage of NASA World Wind and Celestia for Earth shots captured with Fraps

--- And if I'm lucky enough to find someone to shoot the simple central scene that ties the project all together, it will most likely be shot by at least prosumer level camera.

So let me put it this way. All these things considered...

>>> Q-3: What resolution and format would you choose if you were in my shoes?

Thanks.
Soniclight wrote on 9/9/2006, 1:55 PM
bump