Quote:
Originally Posted by NewVista
NTSC has wider red depth, so incompatible with PAL TVs
I'd forgotten that one - another reason PAL sucks.
|
The original NTSC red phosphor was indeed more red than current red phosphors. The problem was that it was also dim, something that was answered by rare earth phosphors, at the expense of colour gamut. All CRTs used since rare earth phosphors were invented (early 1960s?) don't go so far into the red.
There are no practical differences between the colour gamuts in PAL and NTSC. The colour gamut and rendering are largely down to how the cameras are set up and to a lesser extent the CRT. I've seen some really horrible CRTs but that's not a fault of the colour coding system.
As for colour gamut on LCD etc displays, this varies a lot. Sometimes good, sometimes horrible.
I agree about the difference in flicker between 50Hz and 60Hz. This is exacerbated by larger screens. Peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker than central vision. Overall, PAL has slightly better resolution than NTSC but in practice this is usually compromised by receiver design and CRT dot pitch. Comb filter decoders came much earlier to NTSC than PAL. A good PAL comb is more difficult. They certainly improve resolution and reduce artefacts.
Many years ago I spent a fair bit of time staring at the input and output monitors connected to a BBC "ACE" standards converter. High quality monitors, everything properly set up. It was hard to distinguish which was PAL and which was NTSC. Unless you caught the monitors out of the corner of your eye in which case the flicker gave it away.