Distinguishing NTSC videos from PAL

[Paul Magnussen]

For my own convenience, I'm trying to create a DVD from some of my
favourite videos downloaded from YouTube.

But when I drag them to Toast and try to record, I get the following
message:

"You are about to create a disc with mixed PAL and NTSC content. Are
you sure you want to do this?

Discs with mixed content may not play on all players."

These are .flv files. How do I tell which are PAL and which NTSC? Get
Info doesn't seem to help, nor does anything else I can think of.

Thanks,

Paul Magnussen

[Salvatore]

On 2012-09-01, Paul Magnussen <magic...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> These are .flv files. How do I tell which are PAL and which NTSC? Get
> Info doesn't seem to help, nor does anything else I can think of.

Check the framerate for the videos. PAL files are recorded at 25 frames
per second. NTSC files are recorded at 30 frames per second.

--
Blah blah bleh...
GCS/CM d(-)@>-- s+:- !a C++$ UBL++++$ L+$ W+++$ w M++ Y++ b++

[gtr]

After a boatload of problems idenifying on only the file time but also
the very specific contents I started using this MedicaInfo Mac (v
0.7.33.3). It was free. I went looking and found it here:

http://mediainspector.massanti.com

As a 2.0 version which is $3.

Not positive, because I don't know your files, but I assume it will
analyze them properly.

[Warren Oates]

In article <HbSdnQ27oPEB49_N...@earthlink.com>,

Is there any reason you need to make an old-fashioned (ha!) DVD? All
modern DVD players will play movies as data files and Toast can make you
the proper disc (UDF). I've never run into the problem you're
describing, and I download stuff from all over the planet as .avi and
.mp4 and so on.
--

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[gtr]

On 2012-09-01 22:38:20 +0000, Warren Oates said:

> Is there any reason you need to make an old-fashioned (ha!) DVD? All
> modern DVD players will play movies as data files and Toast can make you
> the proper disc (UDF). I've never run into the problem you're
> describing, and I download stuff from all over the planet as .avi and
> .mp4 and so on.

I've run into it a number of times when I'm trying to put smaller
videos onto a DVD for whatever reason. I try to segregate them since
NONE of my DVD players are what you'd call "modern".

[dorayme]

I think I made a mistake buying 10 or 20 DVD blanks, might never use
them, I feel as Warren does. All this stuff got suddenl;y much easier
when I got a TV that would play MP4s and the like from USB sticks,
also via DVD and set-top TV boxes. These things are cheap as chips and
far less hassle.

Lately it seems, the only reason I have ever put a DVD in the DVD
player is because I feel sorry for it. I can hear a very low cry
inside of it, it's quite heart wrenching...

--
dorayme

[Warren Oates]

In article <dorayme-6E90C3...@news.albasani.net>,

dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> I think I made a mistake buying 10 or 20 DVD blanks, might never use
> them, I feel as Warren does. All this stuff got suddenl;y much easier
> when I got a TV that would play MP4s and the like from USB sticks,
> also via DVD and set-top TV boxes. These things are cheap as chips and
> far less hassle.

Back in the days before we had a "media player" (at the moment we use a
WD Live streamed through Serviio) I used to buy spindles of a 100 DVDs
when they were on sale for like $20. We'd go through them pretty fast,
mostly data with TV shows, and the occasional "real" DVD. Now there's
about 25 or so left on the spindle and I haven't burned a DVD in I can't
remember how long.

Our Blu-ray player has an ethernet connection that I haven't explored. I
doubt if I can get a shell, though.

I'm "constructing" a new HTPC (oh Warren of the bleeding edge) around a
Zotac ID41. It's a nice little computer. Quicker than spit. Archlinux
and XBMC. XBMC will see my Serviio too (although it has some problems).

[Lawrance A. Schneider]

In article <k1u0ue$1qlh$1...@yojimbo.hack>,

Salvatore <s...@yojimbo.hack.invalid> wrote:

> On 2012-09-01, Paul Magnussen <magic...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > These are .flv files. How do I tell which are PAL and which NTSC? Get
> > Info doesn't seem to help, nor does anything else I can think of.
>
> Check the framerate for the videos. PAL files are recorded at 25 frames
> per second. NTSC files are recorded at 30 frames per second.

Pal is a format that is unwatchable on an American TV. There were three
formats in the "old" days: SECAM, PAL AND NTSC. NTSC was the weakest
and PAL was the best. Even a studio grade TV monitor could not display
a picture as clearly as the average PAL tv. Wikipedia can explain it
all. A good PAL TV displays a better picture than the present 720p and
is some cases better than a 1080p. PAl had only one "width" for viewing
i.e. no 3x4, 16x9, 16x10 etc..

In any event, if you are going to view whatever on a monitor using your
MAC, don't worry about. If you are going to try to view it using an
American DVD player, forget it. There are DVD players that can convert
on the fly between the various formats; they are expensive!!

As I outline above, Wikipedia will give you a very through explanation.

Larry

[Paul Magnussen]

Lawrance A. Schneider wrote:

> Pal is a format that is unwatchable on an American TV.

Not if you have an international DVD player.

Paul Magnussen

[Paul Magnussen]

Warren Oates wrote:

> Is there any reason you need to make an old-fashioned (ha!) DVD? All
> modern DVD players will play movies as data files and Toast can make you
> the proper disc (UDF). I've never run into the problem you're
> describing, and I download stuff from all over the planet as .avi and
> .mp4 and so on.

Our DVD player is oldish; but as it's an international one with a large
conversion buffer that works very well, I don't want to replace it.

Paul Magnussen

[gtr]

On 2012-09-02 07:53:31 +0000, dorayme said:

> I think I made a mistake buying 10 or 20 DVD blanks, might never use
> them, I feel as Warren does. All this stuff got suddenl;y much easier
> when I got a TV that would play MP4s and the like from USB sticks,
> also via DVD and set-top TV boxes.

Hmm. I wonder if there is a gizmo with a usb stick on one end and
video/audio connectors or an HDMI output on the other end?

[gtr]

On 2012-09-02 15:18:47 +0000, Paul Magnussen said:

> Lawrance A. Schneider wrote:
>
>> Pal is a format that is unwatchable on an American TV.
>
> Not if you have an international DVD player.

The TV doesn't matter, the playback machine is the only thing that
matters. I have an American (NTSC only) DVD player which I play
through my American TV, and also have a universal DVD player (NTSC and
PAL) that plays through my American TV.

At least with modern HD American TV's the original format is irrelevant.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Lawrance A. Schneider wrote:
>
> Pal is a format that is unwatchable on an American TV. There were three
> formats in the "old" days: SECAM, PAL AND NTSC. NTSC was the weakest
> and PAL was the best. Even a studio grade TV monitor could not display
> a picture as clearly as the average PAL tv. Wikipedia can explain it
> all. A good PAL TV displays a better picture than the present 720p and
> is some cases better than a 1080p. PAl had only one "width" for viewing
> i.e. no 3x4, 16x9, 16x10 etc..

Actually that's not true. The original NTSC spec had the phase alternating
color sub carrier that PAL gets its name from. Around 1955 it was determined
that it was not needed.

The way that TV signals were propigated in the US (telephone line) by
the networks allowed the color to remain in sync without it and it was dropped.
The problem that caused all the interesting color shifts was that the sets
all had to be aligned (by adjusting the hue control on the TV set, and
at the studio) and they never were.

They could have been but most station engineers did not bother.

Since PAL reset itself every other line, it was not needed. It did over
complicate the sets. The every other line reset was needed because the
BBC used a different method of propigating their programing and it
caused all sorts of phase shifts in the color carrier.

The reason why PAL was so much better than NTSC was the frame rate. PAL
programs (at least in Germany and UK) were 25 frames a second, made up of
two interlaced fields.

NTSC (in the US) was 30 frames a second, made up of two interlaced fields.

The field rates were set because the original V studios used arc lights
which flicked on and off in time with the power line frequency.
Early TV cameras had to be synced with them to keep from having a horizontal
line move down the screen every few seconds.

By the time the US went to color it was not needed, but the system that
won the "color wars" was color on top of an existing black and white signal,
so it had to use the same specs as it.

They both used a 15.7kHz scan oscilator, so that gave PAL TV sets 625 lines of
resolution and the US 525. There was a problem with interference between
the 60 Hz field rate and the 15.7kHz scan, so it was moved to 3000/1001
or 29.97 frames per second.

The other issue was that based on the maxium resolution of 1953 or so, the color
carrier was at 3.57mHz, PAL, devloped 10 years later had it at 4.43mhz, which
gave much clearer pictures.

And there were 16:9 PAL TV sets, if you watch the movie "Love, Actually",
you see a 16:9 CRT TV in Liam Neeson's apartment. Since the movie took
place in London, I'll assume it was PAL.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

[Paul Sture]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 17:09:03 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

> The reason why PAL was so much better than NTSC was the frame rate. PAL
> programs (at least in Germany and UK) were 25 frames a second, made up
> of two interlaced fields.
>
> NTSC (in the US) was 30 frames a second, made up of two interlaced
> fields.
>
> The field rates were set because the original V studios used arc lights
> which flicked on and off in time with the power line frequency.
> Early TV cameras had to be synced with them to keep from having a
> horizontal line move down the screen every few seconds.

Light bulb moment. 50 Hz mains in the UK, 60 Hz in the US.

> And there were 16:9 PAL TV sets, if you watch the movie "Love,
> Actually", you see a 16:9 CRT TV in Liam Neeson's apartment. Since the
> movie took place in London, I'll assume it was PAL.

Yes I had a 16:9 PAL set in 1996 (bought in the UK but its menus
suggested it would run OK elsewhere in Europe).

My current Sony Trinitron (yep - I'd have to rearrange the furniture to
use a modern flat screen) supports 16:9 and others too. IIRC it supports
PAL and SECAM, for the French programmes.

At first I sometimes had to set the picture format manually for a given
programme, but the broadcasters got better at sending whatever it needs
to do this automatically, and since I got a digital set top box I can't
recall having to do this manually.

--
Paul Sture

[Lawrance A. Schneider]

Boy oh boy!!! Certainly, I did not want to start a squabble.

I tried to give a short explanation!

As I said, you can get a DVD player that will convert on the fly between
the formats; as I said, they are expensive. You can/could buy a TV that
would do the separate formats; they are also expensive.

Pal was and is the best format. Yes, you could buy studio grade TVs in
America and they were expensive.

I'm not sure about the separate (dual) PAL formats. I don't feel like
doing the research now, but I believe England had 720p sets for the rich
back in '96.

Wiki will explain it to most people's ad nauseam level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

For those not quite at that level yet, look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency

Within, you will see a map of Japan. Looking at the map will help
explain why Japan is having so much trouble (aside from radiation)
recovering from the earth quake! 50 - 60 - DC Don't you just love not
planning ahead!

Also within, there is a short section on military power systems. Note:
"Transformers and motors for 400�Hz are much smaller and lighter than
at 50 or 60�Hz, which is an advantage in aircraft and ships."

Just for fun, we are not exactly 60 Hz; just a little less.

By the way, I am not wealthy; thus my concern with expense. My company
(me) at one time installed satellite equipment. I have a horizon to
horizon 12' satellite dish and a Chaparral 140. With it, I used to
watch French (SECAM) and English (PAL) from my home; pre-internet! I
watched Nelson Mandela walk to greet the people when he was freed in
real time! I watched his inauguration in real time and heard the full
complete singing of N'kosi Selele Africa; a truly moving experience!!!
I wish I had taped it; if anyone has it, PLEASE send me a copy as I've
never been able to find the complete version as sung at the inauguration.

Larry

[Patty Winter]

>In article <2012090209424439071-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>> The TV doesn't matter, the playback machine is the only thing that
>> matters. I have an American (NTSC only) DVD player which I play
>> through my American TV, and also have a universal DVD player (NTSC and
>> PAL) that plays through my American TV.
>>
>> At least with modern HD American TV's the original format is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant; your universal DVD player is converting the PAL
signal to the NTSC format needed by your television.


In article <llaassllaaass-2E8...@east.AltBinaries.com>,

Lawrance A. Schneider <llaass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>As I said, you can get a DVD player that will convert on the fly between
>the formats; as I said, they are expensive. You can/could buy a TV that
>would do the separate formats; they are also expensive.

In the U.S., DVD players that can convert PAL to NTSC are among the
cheapest ones available. I got one at a major retailer for about $50
that was easily converted to all-regions playback with just a few
keystrokes on the remote control. Most of the DVDs I play on it are
PAL as well as from a different DVD region so they're converted on
the fly to the format needed by my TV.


Patty

[Warren Oates]

In article <llaassllaaass-2E8...@east.AltBinaries.com>,
"Lawrance A. Schneider" <llaass...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I said, you can get a DVD player that will convert on the fly between
> the formats; as I said, they are expensive. You can/could buy a TV that
> would do the separate formats; they are also expensive.

You can convert them to .mkv and play them on any new Blu-ray player
costing 60-ish dollars or any new DVD player costing 25-ish dollars.

[gtr]

On 2012-09-03 15:21:13 +0000, Patty Winter said:

>> In article <2012090209424439071-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>
>>> The TV doesn't matter, the playback machine is the only thing that
>>> matters. I have an American (NTSC only) DVD player which I play
>>> through my American TV, and also have a universal DVD player (NTSC and
>>> PAL) that plays through my American TV.
>>>
>>> At least with modern HD American TV's the original format is irrelevant.
>
> It isn't irrelevant; your universal DVD player is converting the PAL
> signal to the NTSC format needed by your television.

I did not understand that distinction.

[gtr]

On 2012-09-03 15:54:43 +0000, Warren Oates said:

> In article <llaassllaaass-2E8...@east.AltBinaries.com>,
> "Lawrance A. Schneider" <llaass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As I said, you can get a DVD player that will convert on the fly between
>> the formats; as I said, they are expensive. You can/could buy a TV that
>> would do the separate formats; they are also expensive.
>
> You can convert them to .mkv and play them on any new Blu-ray player
> costing 60-ish dollars or any new DVD player costing 25-ish dollars.

Seemingly, as is usually the case, all you have to do is go buy a new gizmo.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Patty Winter wrote:
>
>>In article <2012090209424439071-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>
>>> The TV doesn't matter, the playback machine is the only thing that
>>> matters. I have an American (NTSC only) DVD player which I play
>>> through my American TV, and also have a universal DVD player (NTSC and
>>> PAL) that plays through my American TV.
>>>
>>> At least with modern HD American TV's the original format is irrelevant.
>
> It isn't irrelevant; your universal DVD player is converting the PAL
> signal to the NTSC format needed by your television.
>

That was part of the DVD spec. DVD's came in very specific frame rates
with very specific resolutions.

The frame rates were 24/1001 (NTSC film), 25 (PAL) and 30/1001 (NTSC video).
ALL players converted them to match the TV Sets they were sold for, it had
nothing to do with zones.

US DVD players were hard wired to NTSC output, ones sold in PAL zones had
PAL hardwired. Well, some of the did, of the two that I bought around 2002,
one had a switch on the back that was PAL/AUTO (auto being NTSC for NTSC
frame rates, and PAL for 25 fps).

The other had a set up option of NTSC, PAL and multisystem (same as
auto above).

All of the ones I have bought since had the setup option.

At one point I was buying a $30 player every 6 months because my kids would
leave the one in their bedroom on all the time, and it wore a groove in
the head support rails at the begining of the disk.

After a while, I just stopped buying DVDs and they stopped noticing the
player stopped working.

[bi...@mix.com]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> writes:

> By the time the US went to color [...] the system that won the "color

> wars" was color on top of an existing black and white signal, so it
> had to use the same specs as it.
>
> They both used a 15.7kHz scan oscilator, so that gave PAL TV sets
> 625 lines of resolution and the US 525. There was a problem with
> interference between the 60 Hz field rate and the 15.7kHz scan, so
> it was moved to 3000/1001 or 29.97 frames per second.

I work in television program production in the USA. Here's something I
posted to a private newsgroup - I can only post my part here, but I was
reposnding to a question about why we're shooting at 23.976fps. As can
be seen, the interference mentioned above concerned the horizontal sync
and color subcarrier frequencies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps someone is wondering, where the heck did such an odd
frame rate (as opposed to plain old 24.000 frames per second)
come from?

24p was originally suggested for digital television because it's
easy to convert to other formats. But then we have yet to escape
the past when the sync frequencies were tweaked to accomodate tv
as it was broadcast. When you're done reading this short excerpt,
you'll know more about it than 99.9% of the people I have to put
up with in my work -

| *Television Broadcasting: Equipment,*
| *Systems and Operating Fundamentals*
|
| By Harold E. Ennes (Howard W. Sams & Co, 1978)
|
| [Pages 72-74]
|
| 2-10. LUMINANCE AND CHROMINANCE MODULATION LEVELS
|
| The word "compatability" implies that conventional monochrome
| receivers be able to reproduce a color telecast in black and white.
| This requirement immediately fixes the bandwidth for colorcasting
| as no more than the established 6 MHz per television channel.
| Therefore, the addition of the color information must be by a
| method that will not add to the required bandwidth.
|
| The pickup tube in a monochrome camera is scanned at the line
| frequency of 15,750 Hz. When the scanning beam sweeps across the
| target at this frequency, the beam is changed in amplitude in
| accordance with the charge pattern that corresponds to the focused
| image. The resultant rate of voltage changes (frequency of voltage)
| will always be some multiple of the initial scanning rate of 15,750
| Hz. (Fig. 2-17A) [ See http://MIX.COM/Interleaving.jpeg ] There-
| fore, the major signal components lie at integral multiples of the
| line-scanning rate.
|
| These clusters of signal information decrease in amplitude as
| they get farther from the carrier frequency. Gaps formed between
| the signal components contain no great amount of information at all.
| These _gaps_ occur at _odd multiples of one-half the line frequency._
| Thus, if we generate a subcarrier at some odd multiple of one-half
| the line frequency, subcarrier sidebands will lie in the gaps formed
| by the harmonics of the line frequency (Fig. 2-17B). This process
| is termed "interleaving" in color-TV systems. The color subcarrier
| is placed high in the band, and its maximum-amplitude sidebands
| occur where the monochrome sidebands are small. As the color
| sidebands get farther from the subcarrier and nearer the monochrome
| (main visual) carrier, they decrease in amplitude and produce
| minimum effect in that region, where the monochrome sidebands are
| larger.
|
| Since there are an odd number of lines (525), an odd multiple of
| one-half the line frequency is also an odd multiple of one-half the
| frame rate. A frame is composed of two (interlaced) fields. For
| each field, a point on one line that is made brighter by the color-
| subcarrier sidebands lies directly above a point on the succeeding
| line, which is made darker. When the viewer is far enough from the
| screen that the lines are not distinguishable, this "space-integration"
| effect cancels any brightness variations caused by the presence of
| color sidebands in the composite signal. Also, a "time-integration"
| occurs since the brightness variations in corresponding lines of
| successive frames are 180 degrees out of phase, provided the color
| sidebands fall at exactly one-half multiples of the frame frequency.
| (Since during a frame the color frequency passes throught a whole
| number of cycles plus one-half cycle, the patterns produced by the
| subcarrier in corresponding lines successive frames are one-half
| cycle, or 180 degrees, out of phase.) Since interference between
| the two carriers cancels, it is only necessary for the receiver to
| demodulate each signal with respect to its own carrier.
|
| The frequency of the chrominance subcarrier is 3.579545 MHz. This
| is an odd multiple of half the line frequency for proper multiplexing
| (interleaving) with the luminance signal, as pointed out above. This
| frequency is not so high as to cause interference with the sound
| carrier or restriction of the chrominance bandwidth. At the same
| time, it is not so low that conventional monochrome receivers will be
| visibly affected by chrominance information in nonlinear circuits.
| At frequencies above 3.5 MHz, most monochrome receivers have atten-
| uation of 10 to 25 dB or more.
|
| The chrominance subcarrier frequency was also chosen so as to result
| in minimum beat-frequency interference with the sound carrier. To
| achieve this result, it is necessary that the frequency offset between
| the sound and chrominance carriers also be an odd multiple of one-half
| the line frequency.
|
| Thus, the necessary choice of the chrominance subcarrier frequency
| has resulted in a slight change in actual line and frame frequencies
| from those of previous monochrome standards. To make the chrominance
| carrier frequency an odd multiple of half the line rate, the _new_
| line rate becomes 15,734.26 Hz. This is a reduction of about 0.1
| percent, and is well within the range of existing monochrome-receiver
| hold controls. The new field rate then is:
|
| 15,734.26
| --------- = 59.94 Hz
| 525/2
|
| Thus, stations no longer use "line-lock" circuits to lock the field
| rate (and, hence, all synchronizing signals) to the power line frequency
| (60 Hz). The color subcarrier frequency is generated by a crystal
| oscillator, and counters are used to obtain a driving signal for the
| conventional sync generator [...]

A 59.94Hz field rate is a 29.97Hz frame rate. 24p was chosen because
it's easy to convert to other frame rates, but then it got bastardized
down to 23.976 so it can easily go to 29.97. Which is (if not 30.00
itself) where we should be shooting, because it looks better.

But, at 23.976 one can cram an extra ten minutes on a 40 minute tape.
Not at all unlike the way we used to shoot 35mm film using just three
perforations per frame, instead of four. The frame size is smaller,
yes, but no one much cared because they got an extra seven minutes on
a 2000 foot magazine of film.

This is, of course, to say nothing of our still even using tape. That
is almost history now, but only because stock is getting really hard to
even find, heh...

Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number