North American programs filmed in soft focus

Hi...

I have *always* wondered about this so I'm gonna ask you, the experts now.

Whenever you watch programs from North America (USA/Can) they always seem to be filmed in soft focus... they look very sort or blurry...

I have always noticed this since I was very young... and although newer progs seem to be a little less "blurry", they still are... whilst our programs seem so crisp in comparison (as do European programs).

A great comparison was to watch World Idol when they had clips from all of the Pop Idols around the world and when there were bits from Canada (especially) they just looked so 'soft' and blurry whereas ours looked crisp.

Why is this? Is it the defacto equipment they use? I mean, even news reports on ITV News that have come from US networks are the same... so you can tell they weren't made by ITN.

To any US members: do you notice that British programs look crisp?

Hope anyone can explain this!

Thank You

The US standard is 525 line NTSC... the UK standard is 625 line PAL. Obviously the fewer lines you use the less resolution you have, however the conversion process from NTSC (sometimes it's said that stands for Never Twice Same Colour) is not going to help the picture quality either.

Recently I've seen some shocking conversions - some of the material from American Idol on ITV has been appalling. I know it's being arced and zoomed but that doesn't excuse how bad it is.

I wondering how I can program a computer in soft focus...

It's spelt programme when you are talking about television and program when you are in the computing arena. There's a very large difference, is there not, in something on a TV and computer code?

A lot of you should be sat down with a dictionary and a thesaurus and taught how to use your native language properly as you're an absolute shower when it comes to mangling the English language...

It's not being ARCed *and* zoomed.... ARCing from 4:3 to 16:9 normally (but not always) involves zooming into the picture.

The quality will also depend on the state of the original - if it was dubbed off onto an old beta tape it won't look that good once ARCed and converted into a digital format

and later...



I do hope the first sentence was deliberately grammatically incorrect, otherwise you've made yourself look very silly indeed!

Yes as far as I'm aware the biggest problem is with the conversion process. When I was out in Mexico (I believe it's NTSC there too) the picture didn't look as bad US programmes shown here do. Then again I didn't have a PAL set on which to compare...

Actually, don't they use "program" in the US, instead of programme? Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

It appears blurry because of the differences in Resolution and Frame Rate.

NTSC is 640x480 at 29.97 frames per sec with Brighter unstable Colour
PAL is 768x576 at 25 frames per sec with duller stable Colour
HDTV is 1024x768 at 30-60 frames per sec, with pure RGB Colour

When NTSC shows are converted to PAL, they merge some of the frames together to decrease the frame rate, and also stretch the image to our resolution. Both of these produce a blured effect.

Most modern american programmes are filmed in HDTV format now, and converted seperatly to PAL or NTSC etc. Which produces a clearer image and conversion, which is why bigger budget american shows, are widescreen and very crisp images.

The colours between PAL and NTSC are also tricky with conversion. Because the luminacy levels do not match up, you can get colourful, yet softer images, or dull crisp images. Hence the often used Nickname of N ever T he S ame C olour!

If you have nothing worthy to contribute, don't bother at all. I don't need a patronising English lesson from you and to be told how bad my grammar is. This is an informal forum, we all get things wrongs sometimes (as you have done so ironically above) but to denigrate me in such a way is wholly offensive and rude. Fellow members and friends be warned... this user contribution to the forum isn't worth listening to.

Thanks for the info, guys

NTSC is 640x480 at 29.97 frames per sec with Brighter unstable Colour
PAL is 768x576 at 25 frames per sec with duller stable Colour

If we're going to get technical, we might as well get it right!

First off, PAL and NTSC are simply methods for encoding the colour signal - they are not tied in any way to the framerate or picture resolution. You could quite easily have 625-line 60Hz NTSC and 525-line 50Hz PAL. However, it's become convenient shorthand to say "PAL" for 625/50 and "NTSC" for 525/60. FWIW, PAL also has a wider colour gamut than NTSC.

Secondly, in the modern component digital world, PAL and NTSC are obsolete expressions anyway! If you're receiving digital TV and you have your digibox connected to your TV via RGB or S-Video, then there's no PAL (or NTSC) involved anywhere - similarly with DVD.

And finally, the concept that NTSC provides "unstable colour" - hence the sobriquet Never Twice the Same Colour - needs qualifying. NTSC did indeed used to be notorious for chroma phase shifts, but only on RF transmissions picked up via an aerial - that's why NTSC sets usually have a "tint" control on them (it's basically just a means of adjusting the chroma phase).

If you connect an NTSC video source to a TV via AV line inputs, there are absolutely no chroma phase issues.

Erm... no. the sentence is grammatically and factually correct as you program a computer and watch a TV programme

I had a long discussion with my English teacher about that very point many years ago

"I wondering"???

Thank you James, I'm glad it wasn't just me that spotted this!

I think you might need to read it again Mick, or maybe print it out and take it to your English teacher!