@Emanuel P. Wtf r u talking about dude? Crts works at 60Hz, most of Nes, Snes, 2D PS1 games, and PS2/Gamecube games runs at 60Fps if they're connected to a crt tv
@@Alessandro-wj1vp actually, the fps a game can reach doesn't depend only on the TV... If a game is at a moment where there are lots of things going on and it struggles, you won't get the fps the tv can give you. The fps of a game doesn't always match with the refresh rate of a TV.
Like almost all PS1 games, the PAL version is higher res and has superior colours but a more lacking frame rate. It doesn't seem like a huge deal here in Crash as apparently the game was decently optimized for the different signal, but some games (like Final Fantasy IX, or almost any Squaresoft game from that era) are quite terrible ports of the NTSC version with black bars and clearly slower gameplay.
There's literally no difference in color as long as you use RGB, which there's no reason not to if you live in a PAL country where consumer RGB was plentiful. Actually higher resolution only applies if the game was properly converted though, and not just an afterthought like most PAL versions.
@@Eddies_Bra-att-ha-grejer The issue with color is due to the NTSC color space being different than PAL, which is more aligned with the modern rec709/sRGB color space used on HDTVs. My understanding is that RGB signal will be better but will still output in a different color space, hence color differences will still be greater for NTSC vs PAL.
@@Eddies_Bra-att-ha-grejer That's not how it works, you are not magically outputting sRGB with an RGB cable. TVs would *then* have color problems, especially NTSC which deviates more from sRGB color space. As you say, there is 50 vs 60 Hz, which means there are signal differences. You will have better color on separate RGB signals but you still need to color correct to not have big differences between color spaces (as shown here, where NTSC is worse due to more deviation from sRGB).
@@tiagomnm Aside from the Famicom (which outputs composite directly from the video chip) basically all consoles generate an RGB-signal which can then be converted into NTSC or PAL. A TV that receives a PAL or NTSC-signal has to convert it to RGB to feed that into the tube. If you feed the TV a regular RGB signal then it can feed that directly into the tube instead.
I used some $2.5 aliexpress hdmi to av on Ice Age 2 (played on PS3 2nd revision), and in NTSC, the game while being way darker feels somewhat "cinematic" Didn't test PAL and a direct composite output yet (scart and s video as well)
To everyone making comments about 50 vs 60hz The 50hz slowdown was more of an 8bit/16bit problem due to the CPU clock/multipliers having to be synchronized to the appropriate video frequency, the internal clock frequency in the 32bit era was that much higher (33.8688 MHz for the CPU). Because the system clock has to be divisible into the local video frequency, it has to be rounded accordingly, and as a result you get a noticeable slowdown at lower clock speeds (which is why the effect is very noticable on older systems). given the clock speed that Ps1 would have been running at 33.8688Mhz, slowdown would have actually been practically unnoticeable as the rounding would have been much more slight ), however in a few titles unfortunately it was quite noticeable, I'm not quite sure of why this is but i suspect it is because of programmers not accounting for the video timing difference well.
scootitupm8 ok so? They’re both great. Just accept it. It’s not our fault that the ntsc had the shittier video quality and bad colour resolution AND bad colours. In addition it ain’t my fault that PAL is slower and has bad frame rate. I love both. There’s not comparing. But there’s people like you who have to be biased. Not to be rude.
@Mississippi Mike ok one I was not not mad, two i accept opinions since everybody has freedom of speech but I’m also giving my opinion on their opinion.
PAL= 720x576 at 25fps max NTSC= 720x480 at 30fps max That's the maximun you can get on these profiles! Games on PSX runs usually at 320x240, that's why it runs so good and smooth. The max resolution you can get on psx are: 640x480 (480i) or 640x240 (240p). So you'll only get the best NTSC/PAL resolutions using a DVD Player, set-top boxes or devices that support those native resolutions! That's interesting how this video looks more like a CMYK vs RGB systems.
but if it runs at 240p non interlaced, it updates only every other line twice per frame. so it is approx 60fps. in 480i ~30fps is updating each of the two fields once per second.. so if you update only everyother field like in 240p it updates ~60 times a second ... so 60fps. that's how shadows worked on old nes.. the dark shadows flicked on 30 times and off 30 times every second, thats why the flicker was so fast... 60fps for 240p. 30fps for 480i
This is a very interesting video, because the Crash trilogy are some of only a handful of console games that were truly optimised for both PAL and NTSC. Most games were, of course, optimised for NTSC and then ported to PAL, while some games were optimised for PAL (most of these were never released in NTSC territories). Most discussion of pre-seventh generation games regarding the benefits of the PAL or NTSC version revolve around fixed glitches, or perhaps extra content in the PAL version. In other words, are the extras worth paying the price of borders and sometimes slow gameplay. 99% of games ported from NTSC to PAL have black borders of some sort top and bottom. The vast majority of pre-sixth generation games are also 16.6% slower in PAL. I haven't been able to notice a difference in speed in sixth generation PAL games, even those that do not have a 60Hz mode, though there are exceptions (FFX comes to mind). Most pre-fourth generation games also have 16.6% slower audio. Some NES games sped it up, but resulted in a higher pitch (see Metoid, Castlevania 3 as examples). This problem even manifested itself in the fourth generation. I live in a PAL region, and buy most games for my Genesis as Mega Drive games from Europe, because of lower shipping costs. I can do this because there was no region lock pre-1993 between the Genesis and PAL Mega Drive, and also because most of them were not optimised in any way for PAL, and so play perfectly in my NTSC Genesis. Crash Bandicoot 1-3 on PS1 were fully optimised for music, gameplay speed and had no borders. This means that they are among the very few games that we can truly compare PAL and NTSC for gaming. PAL Crash 2 has is probably the best verion of that game, in addition to PAL Crash 3, though that one's more arguable. Unfortunately, Crash Team Racing was not optimised for borders, otherwise it would be the definitive version of the game. You can play Japanese Crash Team Racing if you really want the PAL fixes in NTSC, but if you can't read Japanese that's not a satisfactory option either (also the characters look different in Japan).
PAL colours are more natural and vibrant, resolution is superior, the graphics can be better because the limit is 25p/50i whereas NTSC has to sacrifice something to gain that 30p/60i
Ntsc is better when it came to speed, it has the same colour as PAL exactly. But resolution wise, Ntsc has a lower resolution. ntsc had to sacrifice the resolution not colour really since they are exactly the same but more saturated in pal. But a more majority of people would want it to play at the right speed then a slower speed accurately. Pal was best when it came to showing more resolution to a screen and giving it a sharper and more detailed look with a slightly nice saturated colour to cleanse your eyes. But when it game to speed sometimes it can be extremely excruciating when it came to speed. Like look at bloody sonic 1... theres not really that much of a difference to crash 1 the differences that he jumps down quicker in ntsc and slower in pal, the boxers fall slower and in the lost city and sunset vista the blocks that push you off go slower. So it’s a tie between ntsc and pal at the moment
Stray-Zero You're actually comparing how they look from the video?... Have you ever played it? On NTSC and PAL they look identical and nothing like the video, the footage In the video is waaayy more saturated then the actual game.
MechaMinilla99 I got chipped ps1. I’ve noticed that plenty of pal games look better colour wise. But whenever I can I choose ntsc do to speed. Both pal and ntsc tested on official ps1 scart rgb cable
Thanks for the comparison. Might be difficult to see a genuine difference through RUclips, though with all the compression and frame blending. If we could get a copies of the uncompressed files that you recorded direct from the TV that would be much better.
***** Mylisz się, co do klatek. FPS nigdy nie było i nie będzie zawsze tym co ilość Hz. Pal miał zawsze 25-29.97 fps. 50 to miał herców. Ale tak, większość ludzi preferowała PAL od NTSC - lepsza rozdzielczość i kolory, kosztem drobnej różnicy klatek. :)
***** I tu właśnie odpowiedziałeś sobie na nurtującą wątpliwość. Emulator sztucznie wyciąga więcej fps. Ekrany telewizorów na PAL to co innego. Najlepsze jest to, że masz to napisane na Wikipedii jak wół
+EZ Assegai Well that's only your personal feeling and I honestly don't care about your personal opinion. Just a facts. Some people like much more 'better details' on their screen. And maybe you didn't see clearly or your eyes simply suck (i ment maybe you are daltonist or something.. :/ ) but there is one thing you said conversely - here you have proof that the PAL hides those ugly "candy colours", NTSC just shows it. No offense.
Just Some Person *Imagine having a T-120 VHS tape which in PAL would last for 3 hours instead of 2 and still have a superior colour and resolution* This comment was made by VHS-PAL gang
PAL FTW!!!! we have PAL in Australia/New Zealand and europe but i tried NTSC on a TV (a Panasonic CRT from the mid 90's) PAL had a much better colour quality but i understand worse framerate on PAL PAL=Better colour quality and resolution NTSC=better framerate SECAM=didnt seem too much diffrent than NTSC actually when I tried it but my favourite is PAL
SECAM and PAL are technically similar except Modulation techniques... SECAM use FM (requires additional process to demodulate FM signal), PAL use QAM... Technically, demodulated SECAM FM signal automatically become PAL...
I live in New Zealand. We definitely got screwed over in terms of gaming with PAL. PAL just sucks because the games run slower. And most games were not optimized from NTSC as well as this one was. PAL N64 is really bad too. With PAL you're not playing the games as they were designed and intended to be played. PAL is roughly 17% slower. Everytime I play PAL Ocarina of Time it annoys me because of how slow it is compared to NTSC. I collect NTSC games because PAL is generally crap.
On the NTSC version there was a lot of "warping" of the edges of objects, and the colors are off. As for frame rate, I'm not sure if NTSC was 30 fps, and PAL was 25, honestly, there was some difference maybe, but nothing groundbreakin though.
This game appears to have been developed for PAL regions first as the logo is round on the PAL version and oval on NTSC. So the colours are better in PAL.
Matthias Rivadeneira Emulators don't use PAL or NTSC, unless your PC for whatever reason has analogue video, in which case it would be the video mode appropriate for your region.
+Oliver J.D. but a PAL Ps1 or SNES game played on an emulator will still have 50Hz unless you force NTSC right? thats why I want to replay some of my favorite games with the US version, especially plattformers like Crash Bandicoot. Also when PAL games are slower why is the music of many SNES and Ps1 games the same speed? Did they adapt the tracks to fit the format?
***** i'm no expert but i think you confused fps with hertz, i think NTSC has 30fps and PAL has 25fps and the resolution of both are 720x480 and 720x576 so yes PAL have better resolution but some loss of frame per second. IMHO the difference it's really thin and with the quality of the games that we had i don't understand why bother with one or another standard
TheJoebus666 hey, this was when everyone used shittastic CRTs. NTSC only showed its horrible-ness on PVM and BVMs. Digital formats has become equal to PAL nowadays with 720p making 576i useless.
A few notes that came to mind after watching multiple comparisons done by this guy: - Dunno how these are captured, but NTSC looks a bit wonky. With me CRT TV, they're both the same but NTSC just has more color saturation (read: as if NTSC adjusts the color saturation setting of the TV to be higher). - Game image with old games is all over the place at times (that why screen adjust is there, to center the game image). In general they're made to be so that they won't fill the screen completely, because CRT and overscan. There's this black area that always has been there, but CRT overscan just hides it. With LCD the wrong impression is given since the area is now showing. It's designed to be that way. That black area is supposed to be there. Now, this changed in PS3 gen, but there's some exceptions with old games. In PAL region, Sly 3 on PS2 fills the whole screen, so you see less with a CRT due to overscan. The area which otherwise is black now has part of the image on it, so... - I failed to see people noticing in any of these videos, but as you can see the game image doesn't fill the screen horizontally in any of them. Even with NTSC, which fills the screen more yes, but only vertically. Which leads me to the next area of interest... - How much games fill the screen is determined somehow and differently. With Colin McRae Rally 2.0, the image didn't fill the screen horizontally, but NTSC filled it more vertically but looked stretched at the same time. Now with me CRT TV, this happens as well, games using NTSC fill the screen more vertically, but leave the same amount of horizontal filling to it. Now, PAL games on me CRT? They leave slight black areas to all sides. NTSC only leaves the same amount as PAL games to the left and to the right. But, what if a game has some programmed black bars to it? Consider PS1 Crash Bandicoot games (at least the first three, can't recall if this applied to CTR). As you can see here with Crash 1, both versions fill about the same amount of the screen. But when played with a shitmulator, PAL version fills the screen area completely. NTSC version(s) leave slight black bars. But on me CRT screen, all versions of the first 3 Crash games fill pretty much the same screen area of me CRT TV despite what version I'm playing. Now, if you didn't get it, NTSC/U shows the same screen area, but has those black bars as a part of the actual game image. Thus, when NTSC gets stretched, the game image fills around the same area as the complete PAL image does. Go figure. - That black area around the image is also how I notice if emulator has been used. These shitmulators can't produce that, which causes some issues with some games, especially if you fiddle with the screen centering option of a game. Although it should be pretty clear when someone uses an emulator for videos (look for unused screen area on all sides, there's not any at the very least on the left and right side, chances are they're either cropped out (who does this) or the game is being emulated). I can usually tell, thus I laugh at people in the comments asking about such things. - Framerate doesn't equal game speed. It's just the refresh rate. Now, some games, like Crash games have optimization done to them. Thus, you travel the same amount with PAL 50 fps (1 second) as you would with NTSC 60 fps (also 1 second). With Colin McRae Rally 2.0, the game refresh rate is higher in NTSC, but PAL one has a faster speed - something many seemed to fail to realize despite it being clearly shown. - If you read this to the end, conglaturations [sic].
PAL is much better. Not so long ago I compared Laserdisc movies on both systems on the same TV (it supported both standards) and difference is staggering. On NTSC colors almost always are tinted and generally subtler tones are lost and also resolution is worse than on PAL and color dot patterns much much more visible. For games I always preferred 60Hz but with either PAL color encoding (older consoles like PSX in PAL countries after modding supported this before RGB cables became popular) and later RGB. This is due to games not having more resolution and 60Hz gives better gaming experience usually. Also PAL flickers much more but TV sets had slow phosphors and everyone was used to it so it was not an issu. Overall Europe had it better imho, especially since all modern TV's had RGB inputs.
I still have an NTSC Laser Disc Player here in Australia. I had a Sony Trinitron Pal TV with NTSC playback and the NTSC laser Disc's did look pritty good. After that i got into NTSC DVD discs in some titles but i had to unlock the player back then.
PAL better resolution, better colours. Bonus: MUCH BETTER jewel cases (NTSC are just standard CD cases). NTSC only has better framerate. Conclusion: PAL obviously better overall. NTSC probably better for emulators but... I prefer playing with the console anyday.
But it's not like on nowaday's hardware, back then, it could run at most at 30fps in the US and 25fps in Europe. But ! Because games based their speed from that frame number, when you take a game made for 30fps and you put it on a european system, you'll get a slower gameplay ! And because most game companies were lazy, they didn't do the work to re-adjust that ratio, so most games in Europe ran too slow in the 80's/90's ...
***** That sounds really odd to me, first I've heard of headaches from high frame rate. 30 FPS in VR could make you feel horribly sick. even 60 is quite uncomfortable for a lot of people.
If I recall correctly Crash Bandicoot used an unconventional higher resolution mode on the PS1 which may have had an effect to having similar framerate on both PAL and NTSC unlike most games.
Just to clarify something the human eye can see an equivelent to FPS, in movies they do use 23,97 fps but this is only possible due to motion blur. The eye fixes the blur and makes it into a good picture. Also if you are gaming where the picture are quite static and refreshed in a sertain rate then your eyes must sort of syncronnnize with the display to see a fluent picture. But this is just impossible becouse your brain does what ever it needs to do. This means thatt with a low hz monitor you could be able to see some stuttering. This can give you sore eyes or a headace. Using a faster screenn cann improve this. There for you could connclude that the PAL system is superior in color and therefor gave a better gameplay. But when playing extensive periods the NTSC would be more soothing to your eyes.
Yes I'm so salty, because I like to play games at full speed and with no black borders along with plenty of titles that were never released in the PAL regions.
The pal version seemed to have prominent blur effects when you slowed it down. I'm not sure whether this is to make it look smoother, or whether it has the opposite effect.
Unnatural supersaturated color problem is solved with NTSC games if you use RGB SCART cable (not the cheapest) for PAL CRT. Maybe it works in NTSC CRT (RGB modded) or PVM/BVM. It's my own experience.
With consoles connected through rgb scart there is no difference in color between Pal and Ntsc. In fact, with consoles there is not really such a thing as Pal or Ntsc. The "Never The Same Color" stigma only aplies to tv broadcasts and connecting consoles through Rf or composite video connections. A "Pal" console has more lines in the image, so a higher resolution, than an "Ntsc" console but the screen update is about 17% slower. 50Hz compared to 60Hz. This has nothing to do with the framerate a game is running at. The conclusion is that the Ntsc version of a game is almost always superior to the Pal version. The exceptions are some games developed in Pal territories like Colin McRae rally. Some games like the Wipeouts and Crash Bandicoots have good Pal versions but still the Ntsc versions are the preferred ones.
RGB video isn't NTSC or PAL. Only RF/composite is NTSC. Basically an NTSC/PAL signal is just a regular B/W TV signal with the color modulated inside the signal (it's extremely complex). Which meant that a regular B/W TV would show a normal picture just fine, but a color TV could demodulate the color signal and display a color image.
@ggl sucks they're not, different countries different spelling! I'm in the Netherlands so I can choose to my liking. You say Paris, we say Parijs. You say Miland, we say Milaan and the Italians say Milano.
So PAL seems a bit more colorful but dark and has a tiny bit less Frames while NTSC seems a lil washed out but not dark and has a tiny bit more frames than PAL. Welp, that is a pain to know if I should download Vigilante 8 for PAL or NTSC
If the VHS tape is in a multi standed VHS machine and the TV has PAL playback in AV. I have had most of my PAL CRT TV's that has NTSC playback on the AV rca and svideo inputs. If you are using a flatscreen TV like a LCD or OLED you will be fine.
If this was screencapped from emulator, there wouldn't be that big color differences between NTSC and PAL. Do PAL consoles work differently to NTSC ones? I mean not games, just consoles
+Guy Who Knows Too Much PAL consoles only ran 50 horsepower but NTSC ran 60 horsepower and there was a difference. they even named saga consoles diffrenty (here its a mega drive and in the US its genuses) but nauty dog gave the PAL disk 150% (around that) and it worked
Trust me, I'm a retro gamer in europe, I know how bad stuff was here. If you want a serious shitty example of how europe got fucked over just look up the pal version of sonic 1. It speaks for itself
***** I own a physical copy of Abe's Exoddus on ps1 so I know what the issues are with that one. Pal constantly got the short end of the stick and it really did suck. I mean things have begun to fix up now but PAL gamers really did have to put up with a lot of shit due to lazy developers
Color doesn't seem right. Your TV wasn't configured for NTSC, it's very reminiscent of what happened when I booted my NTSC console on my PVM - I thought it was broken or something until I hit reset on the monitor (it's a PVM-2043MD). You can clearly see red isn't red, but purple for some reason.
How can I emulate the 50hz PAL version on PCSX2, I can't seem to get it to work... it just runs as slow as NTSC no matter what I change.. This is a big deal in speedrunning. I read that PCSX2 cant change Hz but only FPS, and from what I can tell it's the 50Hz that is making the game go faster? anyone knows?
LordKowen you can see far over 25 fps! that just a myth movie producers made up! you can see infinty frames, but only if the screen supports it! a 60hz screen will only display 60fps and so on! :DDD
yoyoyoshio267 Actually you will notice the difference if you look at it for long enough and then switch, the human eye actually does have a limit to how many frames per second one can view and the peak seems to be at 70fps as scientists have discovered, the emotional impact is just lost beyond that suggesting the brain really cannot comprehend over 70fps.
***** Fact is, human eye does not see FPS. It sees light, and such high frames per second as beyond 120 the brain will automatically just skip frames so its completely worthless to even go to such high frame rates. Not to speak of the costs and equipment needed to film all this garbage fps. What good is 120 fps when 50 fps does the job just fine?
OK this is for everyone who is fighting ok the capture from tesing was using Coaxial aka RF from NTSC from my screen testing and the Pal version of crash was using S-Video the best i did was using a PS1 using Scart with both NTSC and Pal NTSC looked better but Pal still had slightly better loading on a Playstation 2 using Component They Both look very good but Pal dies here as there was some blurriness in the picture now the Playstation 3 using Hdmi at 1080p NTSC and Pal Tie using the mobile version of EpsxE tho made pal run faster as the ntsc version had some lag and EPSXE on PC had no difference but on the Sega Dreamcast using VGA and Bleem PS1 emulator Pal wins the battle has since its 25fps and different yet slightly more progressive image made it run better and look good except it wasnt perfect with lag but the NTSC version lagged worse so Bleem takes Pal ,but if resolution doesnt matter then i tested the PS1,PS2, PS3 , and Dreamcast Bleem again with Composite and found that NTSC and Pal on PS1 are almost matching with frame differences while the PS2 smoothed the NTSC version more the the Pal version and the PS3 tied both of them and the Dramcast had the same results ,but i did try digital Pal and NTSC version on the PSP and Ps Vita luckily i had all crash and spyros on my Vita before the patch . and on the PSP at 272p and using it on a tv at 480p Crash 1 looks better on NTSC Port-ably but the real piece of cake was on the Tv it had the same as the NTSC PS2 using component ,but the PSP Pal version has worse image Port-ably when using it on a Tv at i believe 576p or 480p depends on PSP 2000/3000 and GO 576p on GO 480p on 2/3000 made the Pal version on the PSP look over saturated but look more vibrant ,but now with this the Ps Vita / Vita Tvs and note i couldnt find a Pal vita Tv so i bought a Austrain one i think its another form of pal ,but anyways on a Pal Vita Slim and OLED and my Japanese Vita Slim and US Vita OLED Japan is NTSC i got the best out of NTSC on the OLED vita at 544p and the best LCD image from the Pal Slim honestly as the Pal image wasnt as viberant but was sharper on the LCD Pal like the PS3 version but now on the Vita TV it goes to NTSC for faster game speeds and for the last test a modded Xbox NTSC model and i ran it through a PSX emulator and using component at 1080i i got the Pal version to win at better image and frames going more smooth as the NTSC version was between 27-29.97 frame the Pal version on the Xbox made a crystal clear 25 frames and all levels so wht console did you play crash on and what was it NTSC-J NTSC-U/C Pal50Hz or Pal60Hz
No, it's about utility frequency not frames per second. The UK established 50 Hz as the standard for power in Europe where the US and most of Asia use 60 Hz. Now in the modern era that doesn't matter, but when TV standards were created everybody used CRTs and the mains transformer on the CRT operated under AC - so the refresh rate of the TV was set to 60 Hz in the US/Japan and 50 Hz in Europe. Being that is a limiting factor on redrawing the screen if you simply buffered the rate at which the screen was redrawn the system would throttle the CPU roughly 20% to match the draw rate. That was the default standard for most cartridge-based games, and because they worked (even though they were slower) there was no real encouragement on many titles from Japanese and U.S. companies (with much larger markets) to rewrite the way the clock worked in something that , 1. wasn't broken and 2. was overwhelmingly written in assembly code and would be a pain to rework. Something that is most apparent in Sonic but another fine example is the Wave Race 64 video done by the author of this video. Now, the redrawing of the screen does actually have an effect on frame per second, but it's an interlaced format so in order to sync the actual changes on the video with the raster redraw(without dropping frames) PAL systems outputted at 25 fps (interlaced for 50 redraws per second) and NTSC outputted at 30 fps (unless using an RF modulator as the difference in the subcarriers in broadcast NTSC made it 29.976 requiring an alternating interlace correction) redrawn at 60 Hz. For more reading and examples of this, here you go. www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-25-nintendo-using-inferior-50hz-mode-for-european-wii-u-virtual-console
MechaMinilla99 I got chipped ps1. I’ve noticed that plenty of pal games look better colour wise. But whenever I can I choose ntsc do to speed. Both pal and ntsc tested on official ps1 scart rgb cable
NTSC: has a higher frame rate (around 60fps) faster loading times, but has a lower quality in terms of graphics and crash moves slower. PAL: crash moves much faster, has a higher resolution and better colours, but has a very choppy framerate (around 25) and has longer loading screens.
25 years ago it did not matter, people just played games and enjoy. It is only now "experts" from NTSC/PAL sects have come out. I have both PAL and NTSC consoles, and the image from the LCD monitor does not mean anything.
The color of NTSC is slightly reddish. Adjusting the tint control fix the problem. PAL don't need tint control because they don't suffer from phase shift inherent with NTSC.
In that case, the images are going straight from your emulator to your screen. On the console, the images must be converted to NTSC before being fed though composite video to a TV (or in this video, a capture card of sorts). This video demonstrates that PAL is able to preserve colors more faithfully than NTSC.
The game was pal optimised. Basically instead of just letting the game run slower, like other companies did at the time, naughty dog decided to optimise the game’s speed to run correctly in Pal territory. Now despite the fact that Pal games run at 25fps/50fps they run around 0.06% faster than NTSC. If that doesn’t make sense then imagine this. If an NTSC game was locked at 25fps and a Pal game ran at 25fps, then the pal game would actually run 0.06% faster. Since the games (despite fps) are running at the same speed cause of pal optimisation that means the pal port is 0.06% faster
That became less frequent as gaming grew more modern. Back when the speed of the game was directly = to the frame rate that happened a lot because people localizing into Europe were too lazy to fix this in the port.
*face palm* no NTSC means you run at 60hz refresh rate with inferior colours. That can be a frame rate lock of 30 or 60 fps. PAL used to mean you had supirior colours but a refresh rate of 50hz with frame rate locks of 25 or 50 fps. In the modern age PAL means you have superior colours to NTSC, Both can reach up to 144hz (or higher) nowdays which can reach frame rates of... well... i know gaming pc’s that hit 900fps so there’s the answer to that. Oh and PAL stands for Phase Alternating Lines.
I did notice a difference, on the Naughty Dog logo, the dog house and lettering are both the same size but the background is compressed on the PAL version. Also I think the colour difference is due to the way the capture device used handles NTSC or PAL composite video, I'm assuming both versions were played on the same console with the same cabling, either that or the PS1 is outputting an offset hue in NTSC mode, I don't know, I usually play RGB so the colours look the same regardless.
The online comparison videos are pointless, all they are showing is how well your TV or emulator is at converting PAL / NTSC signals; you are not actually seeing the real format. The only way to do this properly would be to buy 2 real PAL and NTSC CRT's and film them, which is of course very hard to do anyway.
No wonder we can not see the differences like back then. It was not tested & recorded on a CRT TV. Originally the PAL Versions have Blackbars, then 50 instead of 60 hz, and noticeable lower FPS Rates ... Pal = 25 FPS and NTSC 29,97 FPS. So NTSC was smoother, borderless full screen, and simply the better decision.
+pooperscoop54321 He's European. Europe for a reason I cannot explain uses commas as decimals and decimals as commas. So 30 thousand is written as 30,000 in the US and 30.000 in Europe. 29 point 97 is written as 29.97 in the US and 39,97 in Europe. Can anybody clarify why Europe does this?
***** wow when your talking about the difference between25 fps and 30, well, it's not huge is it? For all the difference i'd rather the game looked better.
ManDude Im a big pc gamer I understand what your saying. But what i'm saying is i'd rather have a good looking game at 25 fps. Than a shit off colour resolution at 30fps.
I'm probably repeating what everybody else is saying here, but it looks like NTSC is slightly less choppy than PAL, however the colors aren't as true looking in NTSC as PAL. I'm an advocate for smooth frame rate over trueness of color, so NTSC gets my vote.
@James Birmingham Well, looking at it now again, I do notice the resolution change and some changes in the saturation of colours. After looking it up online, the PAL version seems to have fewer framerates but more lines, but I think that would be more noticeable to see on the actual television.
NTSC: Better Fps
PAL: Better Resolution
NTSC: Better refresh rate
@@powerslave0606 FPS is basically refresh rate
True but you can adjust the coloring on your TV but you can't adjust the frame rate per second.
@Emanuel P. Wtf r u talking about dude? Crts works at 60Hz, most of Nes, Snes, 2D PS1 games, and PS2/Gamecube games runs at 60Fps if they're connected to a crt tv
@@Alessandro-wj1vp actually, the fps a game can reach doesn't depend only on the TV...
If a game is at a moment where there are lots of things going on and it struggles, you won't get the fps the tv can give you.
The fps of a game doesn't always match with the refresh rate of a TV.
Like almost all PS1 games, the PAL version is higher res and has superior colours but a more lacking frame rate. It doesn't seem like a huge deal here in Crash as apparently the game was decently optimized for the different signal, but some games (like Final Fantasy IX, or almost any Squaresoft game from that era) are quite terrible ports of the NTSC version with black bars and clearly slower gameplay.
There's literally no difference in color as long as you use RGB, which there's no reason not to if you live in a PAL country where consumer RGB was plentiful. Actually higher resolution only applies if the game was properly converted though, and not just an afterthought like most PAL versions.
@@Eddies_Bra-att-ha-grejer The issue with color is due to the NTSC color space being different than PAL, which is more aligned with the modern rec709/sRGB color space used on HDTVs. My understanding is that RGB signal will be better but will still output in a different color space, hence color differences will still be greater for NTSC vs PAL.
@@tiagomnm When the console outputs to RGB PAL and NTSC literally doesn't exist. It's just 50hz vs 60hz then.
@@Eddies_Bra-att-ha-grejer That's not how it works, you are not magically outputting sRGB with an RGB cable. TVs would *then* have color problems, especially NTSC which deviates more from sRGB color space.
As you say, there is 50 vs 60 Hz, which means there are signal differences.
You will have better color on separate RGB signals but you still need to color correct to not have big differences between color spaces (as shown here, where NTSC is worse due to more deviation from sRGB).
@@tiagomnm Aside from the Famicom (which outputs composite directly from the video chip) basically all consoles generate an RGB-signal which can then be converted into NTSC or PAL. A TV that receives a PAL or NTSC-signal has to convert it to RGB to feed that into the tube. If you feed the TV a regular RGB signal then it can feed that directly into the tube instead.
i prefer 60hz over 50 any day for all games, smoother is better, but def agree about better colors and res in pal
DrGreenThumbNZL with an RGB mod this entire comparison is mute.
@@theobserver4214 You don't need to RGB mod ps1, it has RGB output built in.
The colours are the same on both. The NTSC footage only looks works due to being captured with either a cheaper SCART cable or SCART to HDMI adaptor.
The colors looked more vibrant on the pal version.
That's only because the uploaded used either a cheaper SCART cable or SCART to HDMI adaptor on the NTSC PS1.
@@MichaelM28 Wrong, PAL has superior colour and supports RGB natively.
That's why we Brazilians have the best and most unique system. Pal-M. Which takes some attributes from both NTSC and PAL. Cough cough (just kidding)
@@josemarques131 verdade o pal dos brasileiro é melhor 😏
I used some $2.5 aliexpress hdmi to av on Ice Age 2 (played on PS3 2nd revision), and in NTSC, the game while being way darker feels somewhat "cinematic"
Didn't test PAL and a direct composite output yet (scart and s video as well)
PAL actually has 4480 more pixels than NTSC.
thanks for the notice so pal gamers keep gaming on
yyy nope.
when you choose 1080/1920 resolution on pal and ntcs is still 1080/1920!!!! sry for my english
to dlaczego to ntsc takie różowe?
That becomes irrelevant once you start emulating. Then you can set any resolution you want.
To everyone making comments about 50 vs 60hz
The 50hz slowdown was more of an 8bit/16bit problem due to the CPU clock/multipliers having to be synchronized to the appropriate video frequency, the internal clock frequency in the 32bit era was that much higher (33.8688 MHz for the CPU).
Because the system clock has to be divisible into the local video frequency, it has to be rounded accordingly, and as a result you get a noticeable slowdown at lower clock speeds (which is why the effect is very noticable on older systems). given the clock speed that Ps1 would have been running at 33.8688Mhz, slowdown would have actually been practically unnoticeable as the rounding would have been much more slight ), however in a few titles unfortunately it was quite noticeable, I'm not quite sure of why this is but i suspect it is because of programmers not accounting for the video timing difference well.
It was still a problem with the 32 and 64 bit era (hell, even the 128bit era with ps2)
It was a major problem well into the PS2 era. Ever played the PAL version of Final Fantasy 10...?
Have y'all played the PAL versions of resident Evil(s) or Tekken(s)???
Super noticable for those who have played both versions of said titles.
PAL is my pal. :D
Agreed
PAL is better than ntsc
scootitupm8 ok so? They’re both great. Just accept it. It’s not our fault that the ntsc had the shittier video quality and bad colour resolution AND bad colours. In addition it ain’t my fault that PAL is slower and has bad frame rate. I love both. There’s not comparing. But there’s people like you who have to be biased. Not to be rude.
@Mississippi Mike ok one I was not not mad, two i accept opinions since everybody has freedom of speech but I’m also giving my opinion on their opinion.
are we actually talking about what version of the game is better?
So glad to discover that there doesnt really seem to be any speed related issues/differences.
PAL= 720x576 at 25fps max
NTSC= 720x480 at 30fps max
That's the maximun you can get on these profiles! Games on PSX runs usually at 320x240, that's why it runs so good and smooth. The max resolution you can get on psx are: 640x480 (480i) or 640x240 (240p).
So you'll only get the best NTSC/PAL resolutions using a DVD Player, set-top boxes or devices that support those native resolutions! That's interesting how this video looks more like a CMYK vs RGB systems.
NTSC is 29.97 FPS actually. They couldn't make it 30fps due to frequency problems.
but if it runs at 240p non interlaced, it updates only every other line twice per frame. so it is approx 60fps.
in 480i ~30fps is updating each of the two fields once per second..
so if you update only everyother field like in 240p it updates ~60 times a second
... so 60fps. that's how shadows worked on old nes.. the dark shadows flicked on 30 times and off 30 times every second, thats why the flicker was so fast... 60fps for 240p. 30fps for 480i
@@PointB1ank if you double NTSC's framerate it goes like 59.94 or 60 i think
This is a very interesting video, because the Crash trilogy are some of only a handful of console games that were truly optimised for both PAL and NTSC. Most games were, of course, optimised for NTSC and then ported to PAL, while some games were optimised for PAL (most of these were never released in NTSC territories).
Most discussion of pre-seventh generation games regarding the benefits of the PAL or NTSC version revolve around fixed glitches, or perhaps extra content in the PAL version. In other words, are the extras worth paying the price of borders and sometimes slow gameplay. 99% of games ported from NTSC to PAL have black borders of some sort top and bottom. The vast majority of pre-sixth generation games are also 16.6% slower in PAL. I haven't been able to notice a difference in speed in sixth generation PAL games, even those that do not have a 60Hz mode, though there are exceptions (FFX comes to mind).
Most pre-fourth generation games also have 16.6% slower audio. Some NES games sped it up, but resulted in a higher pitch (see Metoid, Castlevania 3 as examples). This problem even manifested itself in the fourth generation. I live in a PAL region, and buy most games for my Genesis as Mega Drive games from Europe, because of lower shipping costs. I can do this because there was no region lock pre-1993 between the Genesis and PAL Mega Drive, and also because most of them were not optimised in any way for PAL, and so play perfectly in my NTSC Genesis.
Crash Bandicoot 1-3 on PS1 were fully optimised for music, gameplay speed and had no borders. This means that they are among the very few games that we can truly compare PAL and NTSC for gaming. PAL Crash 2 has is probably the best verion of that game, in addition to PAL Crash 3, though that one's more arguable. Unfortunately, Crash Team Racing was not optimised for borders, otherwise it would be the definitive version of the game. You can play Japanese Crash Team Racing if you really want the PAL fixes in NTSC, but if you can't read Japanese that's not a satisfactory option either (also the characters look different in Japan).
PAL colours are more natural and vibrant, resolution is superior, the graphics can be better because the limit is 25p/50i whereas NTSC has to sacrifice something to gain that 30p/60i
SMGJohn The graphics can’t be better as the PAL machine has to render a higher resolution
Yes I agree with you. I live here in the Philippines, and it uses NTSC, but even so, PAL is better, even with slower speed.
Ntsc is better when it came to speed, it has the same colour as PAL exactly. But resolution wise, Ntsc has a lower resolution. ntsc had to sacrifice the resolution not colour really since they are exactly the same but more saturated in pal. But a more majority of people would want it to play at the right speed then a slower speed accurately. Pal was best when it came to showing more resolution to a screen and giving it a sharper and more detailed look with a slightly nice saturated colour to cleanse your eyes. But when it game to speed sometimes it can be extremely excruciating when it came to speed. Like look at bloody sonic 1... theres not really that much of a difference to crash 1 the differences that he jumps down quicker in ntsc and slower in pal, the boxers fall slower and in the lost city and sunset vista the blocks that push you off go slower. So it’s a tie between ntsc and pal at the moment
If this was done with S-Video or Composite PAL will have better colours but with a good RGB setup it’s the same
In PAL, the timings are slightly faster, so Crash moves faster and jumps higher.
the same thing happened with Super Mario Bros. on NES.
PAL looks so much better
Stray-Zero You're actually comparing how they look from the video?... Have you ever played it? On NTSC and PAL they look identical and nothing like the video, the footage In the video is waaayy more saturated then the actual game.
MechaMinilla99 I got chipped ps1. I’ve noticed that plenty of pal games look better colour wise. But whenever I can I choose ntsc do to speed. Both pal and ntsc tested on official ps1 scart rgb cable
MechaMinilla99 your opinion means zero to me. PAL looks better, you cannot make me think otherwise
yup, more resolution and the color doesn't shift
@@cookiesontoast9981 PAL = more colors, more vertical lines, less refresh rate. Source: wikipedia.
Thanks for the comparison. Might be difficult to see a genuine difference through RUclips, though with all the compression and frame blending. If we could get a copies of the uncompressed files that you recorded direct from the TV that would be much better.
Well that it's clear. PAL has won by contrast and higher resolution :)
***** Mylisz się, co do klatek. FPS nigdy nie było i nie będzie zawsze tym co ilość Hz. Pal miał zawsze 25-29.97 fps. 50 to miał herców.
Ale tak, większość ludzi preferowała PAL od NTSC - lepsza rozdzielczość i kolory, kosztem drobnej różnicy klatek. :)
*****
I tu właśnie odpowiedziałeś sobie na nurtującą wątpliwość. Emulator sztucznie wyciąga więcej fps. Ekrany telewizorów na PAL to co innego. Najlepsze jest to, że masz to napisane na Wikipedii jak wół
Seba92000 Even though PAL has 5 less fps it has more lines that give you more visual information, so that it seems to run smoother.
+KoopaXross
Sorry, but dunno what you just wanted to prove.
+EZ Assegai
Well that's only your personal feeling and I honestly don't care about your personal opinion. Just a facts. Some people like much more 'better details' on their screen. And maybe you didn't see clearly or your eyes simply suck (i ment maybe you are daltonist or something.. :/ ) but there is one thing you said conversely - here you have proof that the PAL hides those ugly "candy colours", NTSC just shows it.
No offense.
**Imagine running at 50hz instead of 60hz**
This comment was made by NTSC gang
*Imagine only having a resolution of 640*480*
This comment was made by the PAL gang
@@rebelscum1925 *Imagine not setting the resolution higher than the native res when using an emulator*
This comment was made by NTSC gang
Just Some Person *Imagine having a T-120 VHS tape which in PAL would last for 3 hours instead of 2 and still have a superior colour and resolution*
This comment was made by VHS-PAL gang
Dever *Imagine still using VHS*
This comment was made by DVD and Blu-Ray gang
Sheen Estevez Yes, but PAL DVDs are still higher resolution than NTSC ones.
basically then ntsc looked a bit shit and off colour (pink crash?) but ran about 5fps more. Europeans were so lucky.
PAL FTW!!!! we have PAL in Australia/New Zealand and europe but i tried NTSC on a TV (a Panasonic CRT from the mid 90's) PAL had a much better colour quality but i understand worse framerate on PAL
PAL=Better colour quality and resolution
NTSC=better framerate
SECAM=didnt seem too much diffrent than NTSC actually when I tried it
but my favourite is PAL
SECAM and PAL are technically similar except Modulation techniques... SECAM use FM (requires additional process to demodulate FM signal), PAL use QAM... Technically, demodulated SECAM FM signal automatically become PAL...
Sony Trinitron PAL-M is better. Better color with NTSC resolution and frame rate.
I live in New Zealand. We definitely got screwed over in terms of gaming with PAL. PAL just sucks because the games run slower. And most games were not optimized from NTSC as well as this one was.
PAL N64 is really bad too. With PAL you're not playing the games as they were designed and intended to be played. PAL is roughly 17% slower. Everytime I play PAL Ocarina of Time it annoys me because of how slow it is compared to NTSC.
I collect NTSC games because PAL is generally crap.
I wish we got the NTSC PlayStations here in Australia. Our TV’s have NTSC playback on them here in Australia.
My NTSC Crash Bandicoot in my Sony Wega 21" with a good display configuration don´t look anything close to this crap, Crash is almost pink WTF.
RGB Scart + NTSC games via the swap trick = best of both worlds in the PAL region
That results in a 1% speed difference though. Not really noticeable unless you're a perfectionist though.
@@Frolsa84 well I think it's noticable actually. I played wipeout and true NTSC seemed faster!
On the NTSC version there was a lot of "warping" of the edges of objects, and the colors are off. As for frame rate, I'm not sure if NTSC was 30 fps, and PAL was 25, honestly, there was some difference maybe, but nothing groundbreakin though.
This game appears to have been developed for PAL regions first as the logo is round on the PAL version and oval on NTSC. So the colours are better in PAL.
That is something
@@josemarques131 I suppose it’s because ntsc has 224 scanlines and pal has 240.
It’s stretched as this game uses full PAL resolution, and the NTSC version is stretched down to accommodate.
It isn’t crushed otherwise
@@Obviousthrowawayaccount ntsc is less horizontal pixels. So the round circle appears wider and oval.
@@iwanttocomplain less vertical. The logo is stretched upright.
Both use 512 horizontal res.
NTSC For framerate, PAL for everything else.
+EZ Assegai nowadays PAL and NTSC have same FPS pretty much
Matthias Rivadeneira The framerate is the same as it ever was :P
Matthias Rivadeneira Emulators don't use PAL or NTSC, unless your PC for whatever reason has analogue video, in which case it would be the video mode appropriate for your region.
+Oliver J.D. but a PAL Ps1 or SNES game played on an emulator will still have 50Hz unless you force NTSC right? thats why I want to replay some of my favorite games with the US version, especially plattformers like Crash Bandicoot.
Also when PAL games are slower why is the music of many SNES and Ps1 games the same speed? Did they adapt the tracks to fit the format?
Yes, PS1 Music was CD-ROMs so they couldnt change music tempo, and for SNES They Optimized for PAL50
The color is off in the NTSC recording. I know because I have the actual game and an original NTSC PSX.
Interestingly the brazilian TVs are PAL-M (a mix of PAL and NTSC), but the games we receive are American
in my opinion, NTSC has better frame rate while PAL has higher resolution
***** i'm no expert but i think you confused fps with hertz, i think NTSC has 30fps and PAL has 25fps and the resolution of both are 720x480 and 720x576 so yes PAL have better resolution but some loss of frame per second. IMHO the difference it's really thin and with the quality of the games that we had i don't understand why bother with one or another standard
spaistik Depends on the game, consoles run at 60/50FPS (NTSC/PAL), but some games run at half of that in order to process more things without lagging.
***** Crash 1-3's resolution is 520x256.
***** I meant internal resolution.
***** Do you even know how the PS1 works.
I just play the NTSC version on PC, so it's 30fps and 4K, I used to play the PAL version on my PS1 though.
NTSC= Never Twice the Same Colour! :D
Never
The
Same
Colour ?
Perfect
As
Likely ?
NTSC - Now That's Shit Colour!
TheJoebus666 hey, this was when everyone used shittastic CRTs. NTSC only showed its horrible-ness on PVM and BVMs. Digital formats has become equal to PAL nowadays with 720p making 576i useless.
A few notes that came to mind after watching multiple comparisons done by this guy:
- Dunno how these are captured, but NTSC looks a bit wonky. With me CRT TV, they're both the same but NTSC just has more color saturation (read: as if NTSC adjusts the color saturation setting of the TV to be higher).
- Game image with old games is all over the place at times (that why screen adjust is there, to center the game image). In general they're made to be so that they won't fill the screen completely, because CRT and overscan. There's this black area that always has been there, but CRT overscan just hides it. With LCD the wrong impression is given since the area is now showing. It's designed to be that way. That black area is supposed to be there. Now, this changed in PS3 gen, but there's some exceptions with old games. In PAL region, Sly 3 on PS2 fills the whole screen, so you see less with a CRT due to overscan. The area which otherwise is black now has part of the image on it, so...
- I failed to see people noticing in any of these videos, but as you can see the game image doesn't fill the screen horizontally in any of them. Even with NTSC, which fills the screen more yes, but only vertically. Which leads me to the next area of interest...
- How much games fill the screen is determined somehow and differently. With Colin McRae Rally 2.0, the image didn't fill the screen horizontally, but NTSC filled it more vertically but looked stretched at the same time. Now with me CRT TV, this happens as well, games using NTSC fill the screen more vertically, but leave the same amount of horizontal filling to it. Now, PAL games on me CRT? They leave slight black areas to all sides. NTSC only leaves the same amount as PAL games to the left and to the right. But, what if a game has some programmed black bars to it? Consider PS1 Crash Bandicoot games (at least the first three, can't recall if this applied to CTR). As you can see here with Crash 1, both versions fill about the same amount of the screen. But when played with a shitmulator, PAL version fills the screen area completely. NTSC version(s) leave slight black bars. But on me CRT screen, all versions of the first 3 Crash games fill pretty much the same screen area of me CRT TV despite what version I'm playing. Now, if you didn't get it, NTSC/U shows the same screen area, but has those black bars as a part of the actual game image. Thus, when NTSC gets stretched, the game image fills around the same area as the complete PAL image does. Go figure.
- That black area around the image is also how I notice if emulator has been used. These shitmulators can't produce that, which causes some issues with some games, especially if you fiddle with the screen centering option of a game. Although it should be pretty clear when someone uses an emulator for videos (look for unused screen area on all sides, there's not any at the very least on the left and right side, chances are they're either cropped out (who does this) or the game is being emulated). I can usually tell, thus I laugh at people in the comments asking about such things.
- Framerate doesn't equal game speed. It's just the refresh rate. Now, some games, like Crash games have optimization done to them. Thus, you travel the same amount with PAL 50 fps (1 second) as you would with NTSC 60 fps (also 1 second). With Colin McRae Rally 2.0, the game refresh rate is higher in NTSC, but PAL one has a faster speed - something many seemed to fail to realize despite it being clearly shown.
- If you read this to the end, conglaturations [sic].
PAL is much better. Not so long ago I compared Laserdisc movies on both systems on the same TV (it supported both standards) and difference is staggering. On NTSC colors almost always are tinted and generally subtler tones are lost and also resolution is worse than on PAL and color dot patterns much much more visible. For games I always preferred 60Hz but with either PAL color encoding (older consoles like PSX in PAL countries after modding supported this before RGB cables became popular) and later RGB. This is due to games not having more resolution and 60Hz gives better gaming experience usually. Also PAL flickers much more but TV sets had slow phosphors and everyone was used to it so it was not an issu. Overall Europe had it better imho, especially since all modern TV's had RGB inputs.
I still have an NTSC Laser Disc Player here in Australia. I had a Sony Trinitron Pal TV with NTSC playback and the NTSC laser Disc's did look pritty good. After that i got into NTSC DVD discs in some titles but i had to unlock the player back then.
I just love Naughty Dog!
I have a television, while the colors of NTSC games look just fine they look very strange, what kind of television may i be using?
PAL better resolution, better colours. Bonus: MUCH BETTER jewel cases (NTSC are just standard CD cases). NTSC only has better framerate.
Conclusion: PAL obviously better overall. NTSC probably better for emulators but... I prefer playing with the console anyday.
Naughty Dog are just SO FU€&*NG PERFECT.
One thing I take away from this is how good the game looked!
People arguing on frame rates and quality... Smh...
As long as as frame rate is constant and non laggy, It's ok with me.
Tycro Rogers yep i love watching a black screen at 60 fps
But it's not like on nowaday's hardware, back then, it could run at most at 30fps in the US and 25fps in Europe. But ! Because games based their speed from that frame number, when you take a game made for 30fps and you put it on a european system, you'll get a slower gameplay ! And because most game companies were lazy, they didn't do the work to re-adjust that ratio, so most games in Europe ran too slow in the 80's/90's ...
It's gonna be even worse as VR becomes more of a thing. 90 FPS is the new 60
***** That sounds really odd to me, first I've heard of headaches from high frame rate. 30 FPS in VR could make you feel horribly sick. even 60 is quite uncomfortable for a lot of people.
***** You should tell this to the Oculus team, this is probably something they should know about.
It seems this comparison is S-Video vs RGB
If I recall correctly Crash Bandicoot used an unconventional higher resolution mode on the PS1 which may have had an effect to having similar framerate on both PAL and NTSC unlike most games.
I find it funny how this video showed up RIGHT after I saw the “Why Every Game Is Slower in Europe” video XD
PAL is better
Never Twice the Same Color :S
Just to clarify something the human eye can see an equivelent to FPS, in movies they do use 23,97 fps but this is only possible due to motion blur. The eye fixes the blur and makes it into a good picture. Also if you are gaming where the picture are quite static and refreshed in a sertain rate then your eyes must sort of syncronnnize with the display to see a fluent picture. But this is just impossible becouse your brain does what ever it needs to do. This means thatt with a low hz monitor you could be able to see some stuttering. This can give you sore eyes or a headace. Using a faster screenn cann improve this. There for you could connclude that the PAL system is superior in color and therefor gave a better gameplay. But when playing extensive periods the NTSC would be more soothing to your eyes.
+Taeke van der Kooi i like the way you think. nice comment. good point.
Lol! That was wrong on so many levels it isn't even funny! Hahah!
+MadFinnTech then please enlighten us what is actually true..
All these salty Americans standing up for ntsc.
Yes I'm so salty, because I like to play games at full speed and with no black borders along with plenty of titles that were never released in the PAL regions.
@@waifubreaks1572 i'm not american but i'm salty for you
@@kidzeroxxx Lot of JRPGs never made it to PAL regions. Like Xenogears, Chrono Cross, Valkyrie Profile, Persona 2 Eternal Punishment, and Einhander.
@@waifubreaks1572 if you played it on ps2 with component cable, 480p 60hz will display on your hdtv
Quality over Frame rate.
PAL is more clear and better
No anti-piracy screen in the NTSC version
The pal version seemed to have prominent blur effects when you slowed it down. I'm not sure whether this is to make it look smoother, or whether it has the opposite effect.
Actually this is only noticeable on television, you can record video but you can't see it in here.
PAL is considerably better
id take NTSC for the better framerate any day, from a guy who grew up with PAL games
i do not see the difference between 25 and 30 fps
The NTSC version = faster but looks bland
PAL = slower but has more vibrant colors and a film-like quality.
Difference:
PAL: Jumps are higher , quality is better , 25 fps (ps1) 50 fps (emulator)
NTSC: Jumps are lower , colors are like neon , 30 fps (ps1) 60 fps (emulator)
Unnatural supersaturated color problem is solved with NTSC games if you use RGB SCART cable (not the cheapest) for PAL CRT. Maybe it works in NTSC CRT (RGB modded) or PVM/BVM. It's my own experience.
haha you guys missed the privacy screen and crash is red!
With consoles connected through rgb scart there is no difference in color between Pal and Ntsc.
In fact, with consoles there is not really such a thing as Pal or Ntsc.
The "Never The Same Color" stigma only aplies to tv broadcasts and connecting consoles through Rf or composite video connections.
A "Pal" console has more lines in the image, so a higher resolution, than an "Ntsc" console but the screen update is about 17% slower. 50Hz compared to 60Hz.
This has nothing to do with the framerate a game is running at.
The conclusion is that the Ntsc version of a game is almost always superior to the Pal version.
The exceptions are some games developed in Pal territories like Colin McRae rally.
Some games like the Wipeouts and Crash Bandicoots have good Pal versions but still the Ntsc versions are the preferred ones.
RGB video isn't NTSC or PAL. Only RF/composite is NTSC. Basically an NTSC/PAL signal is just a regular B/W TV signal with the color modulated inside the signal (it's extremely complex). Which meant that a regular B/W TV would show a normal picture just fine, but a color TV could demodulate the color signal and display a color image.
@ggl sucks color is American spelling!!!😊
@ggl sucks www.grammarly.com/blog/color-colour/
The same goes for behaviour vs behavior
@ggl sucks they're not, different countries different spelling!
I'm in the Netherlands so I can choose to my liking.
You say Paris, we say Parijs.
You say Miland, we say Milaan and the Italians say Milano.
@ggl sucks sigh
So PAL seems a bit more colorful but dark and has a tiny bit less Frames while NTSC seems a lil washed out but not dark and has a tiny bit more frames than PAL. Welp, that is a pain to know if I should download Vigilante 8 for PAL or NTSC
i wonder if a pal vhs play would work and a ntsc tv
If the VHS tape is in a multi standed VHS machine and the TV has PAL playback in AV. I have had most of my PAL CRT TV's that has NTSC playback on the AV rca and svideo inputs. If you are using a flatscreen TV like a LCD or OLED you will be fine.
If this was screencapped from emulator, there wouldn't be that big color differences between NTSC and PAL. Do PAL consoles work differently to NTSC ones? I mean not games, just consoles
The pal tv standard has a larger colour palette than NTSC does which is why pal looks slightly more colourful
+Guy Who Knows Too Much PAL consoles only ran 50 horsepower but NTSC ran 60 horsepower and there was a difference. they even named saga consoles diffrenty (here its a mega drive and in the US its genuses) but nauty dog gave the PAL disk 150% (around that) and it worked
pal use to suck. we dont need to do roket science to proove that pal was VERY SLOW
Trust me, I'm a retro gamer in europe, I know how bad stuff was here. If you want a serious shitty example of how europe got fucked over just look up the pal version of sonic 1. It speaks for itself
*****
I own a physical copy of Abe's Exoddus on ps1 so I know what the issues are with that one.
Pal constantly got the short end of the stick and it really did suck. I mean things have begun to fix up now but PAL gamers really did have to put up with a lot of shit due to lazy developers
My NTSC rgb do not look like that. Mine has more colour than PAL.
NTSC is rgb and PAL is limited.
This video is wrong.
I reached the 500 comment.
man would live to see a Crash Bandicoot 2 comparison!
PAL is color corrected while NTSC is not.
Color doesn't seem right. Your TV wasn't configured for NTSC, it's very reminiscent of what happened when I booted my NTSC console on my PVM - I thought it was broken or something until I hit reset on the monitor (it's a PVM-2043MD).
You can clearly see red isn't red, but purple for some reason.
How can I emulate the 50hz PAL version on PCSX2, I can't seem to get it to work... it just runs as slow as NTSC no matter what I change..
This is a big deal in speedrunning.
I read that PCSX2 cant change Hz but only FPS, and from what I can tell it's the 50Hz that is making the game go faster?
anyone knows?
You need to change you bios from an ntsc console to a PAL console.
pal better
If my Pal Crt supports 60hz, can i use a ntsc console with composite on it...or does it only support 60hz pal consoles? thx
The colours on ntsc look nice lol
Do PAL games on the PS1 run a bit slower similar to the SNES and Genesis?
Does NTCS ps1 games really look like that? Can't be, the colors seem way too saturated
whic is better for video recording. pal or ntsc ?
ntsc
Actually PAL is newer than NTSC ..actually PAL was built addressing some errors in NTSC
if memory serves, the Pal version runs at 5 fps slower than the NTSC version... :3
that's imperceptible to the human eye. PAL always win ;)
LordKowen you can see far over 25 fps! that just a myth movie producers made up! you can see infinty frames, but only if the screen supports it! a 60hz screen will only display 60fps and so on! :DDD
yoyoyoshio267 Actually you will notice the difference if you look at it for long enough and then switch, the human eye actually does have a limit to how many frames per second one can view and the peak seems to be at 70fps as scientists have discovered, the emotional impact is just lost beyond that suggesting the brain really cannot comprehend over 70fps.
***** Fact is, human eye does not see FPS. It sees light, and such high frames per second as beyond 120 the brain will automatically just skip frames so its completely worthless to even go to such high frame rates. Not to speak of the costs and equipment needed to film all this garbage fps.
What good is 120 fps when 50 fps does the job just fine?
***** 60fps is optimal... i find 45 is the best for a realistic look, but 60 is best for comfortable watching! ^w^
OK this is for everyone who is fighting ok the capture from tesing was using Coaxial aka RF from NTSC from my screen testing and the Pal version of crash was using S-Video the best i did was using a PS1 using Scart with both NTSC and Pal NTSC looked better but Pal still had slightly better loading on a Playstation 2 using Component They Both look very good but Pal dies here as there was some blurriness in the picture now the Playstation 3 using Hdmi at 1080p NTSC and Pal Tie using the mobile version of EpsxE tho made pal run faster as the ntsc version had some lag and EPSXE on PC had no difference but on the Sega Dreamcast using VGA and Bleem PS1 emulator Pal wins the battle has since its 25fps and different yet slightly more progressive image made it run better and look good except it wasnt perfect with lag but the NTSC version lagged worse so Bleem takes Pal ,but if resolution doesnt matter then i tested the PS1,PS2, PS3 , and Dreamcast Bleem again with Composite and found that NTSC and Pal on PS1 are almost matching with frame differences while the PS2 smoothed the NTSC version more the the Pal version and the PS3 tied both of them and the Dramcast had the same results ,but i did try digital Pal and NTSC version on the PSP and Ps Vita luckily i had all crash and spyros on my Vita before the patch . and on the PSP at 272p and using it on a tv at 480p Crash 1 looks better on NTSC Port-ably but the real piece of cake was on the Tv it had the same as the NTSC PS2 using component ,but the PSP Pal version has worse image Port-ably when using it on a Tv at i believe 576p or 480p depends on PSP 2000/3000 and GO 576p on GO 480p on 2/3000 made the Pal version on the PSP look over saturated but look more vibrant ,but now with this the Ps Vita / Vita Tvs and note i couldnt find a Pal vita Tv so i bought a Austrain one i think its another form of pal ,but anyways on a Pal Vita Slim and OLED and my Japanese Vita Slim and US Vita OLED Japan is NTSC i got the best out of NTSC on the OLED vita at 544p and the best LCD image from the Pal Slim honestly as the Pal image wasnt as viberant but was sharper on the LCD Pal like the PS3 version but now on the Vita TV it goes to NTSC for faster game speeds and for the last test a modded Xbox NTSC model and i ran it through a PSX emulator and using component at 1080i i got the Pal version to win at better image and frames going more smooth as the NTSC version was between 27-29.97 frame the Pal version on the Xbox made a crystal clear 25 frames and all levels so wht console did you play crash on and what was it NTSC-J NTSC-U/C Pal50Hz or Pal60Hz
So no speed diffrence ?
There is... NTSC is 60 fps and PAL is 50 fps. Not a very noticeable difference in real time
This game is clearly time corrected. Go watch PAL vs. NTSC with games like Sonic the Hedgehog or Wave Race 64.
No, it's about utility frequency not frames per second. The UK established 50 Hz as the standard for power in Europe where the US and most of Asia use 60 Hz.
Now in the modern era that doesn't matter, but when TV standards were created everybody used CRTs and the mains transformer on the CRT operated under AC - so the refresh rate of the TV was set to 60 Hz in the US/Japan and 50 Hz in Europe.
Being that is a limiting factor on redrawing the screen if you simply buffered the rate at which the screen was redrawn the system would throttle the CPU roughly 20% to match the draw rate.
That was the default standard for most cartridge-based games, and because they worked (even though they were slower) there was no real encouragement on many titles from Japanese and U.S. companies (with much larger markets) to rewrite the way the clock worked in something that , 1. wasn't broken and 2. was overwhelmingly written in assembly code and would be a pain to rework.
Something that is most apparent in Sonic but another fine example is the Wave Race 64 video done by the author of this video.
Now, the redrawing of the screen does actually have an effect on frame per second, but it's an interlaced format so in order to sync the actual changes on the video with the raster redraw(without dropping frames) PAL systems outputted at 25 fps (interlaced for 50 redraws per second) and NTSC outputted at 30 fps (unless using an RF modulator as the difference in the subcarriers in broadcast NTSC made it 29.976 requiring an alternating interlace correction) redrawn at 60 Hz.
For more reading and examples of this, here you go.
www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-25-nintendo-using-inferior-50hz-mode-for-european-wii-u-virtual-console
Crash seems to be faster in the PAL version.... at least in this game... but not in Crash 3 T.T
NORMALIZATION OF IGNORANCE Even then, that’s a pretty big difference. 25FPS stutters on modern monitors, whereas 30FPS is cleanly showed
MechaMinilla99 I got chipped ps1. I’ve noticed that plenty of pal games look better colour wise. But whenever I can I choose ntsc do to speed. Both pal and ntsc tested on official ps1 scart rgb cable
NTSC: has a higher frame rate (around 60fps) faster loading times, but has a lower quality in terms of graphics and crash moves slower.
PAL: crash moves much faster, has a higher resolution and better colours, but has a very choppy framerate (around 25) and has longer loading screens.
25 years ago it did not matter, people just played games and enjoy. It is only now "experts" from NTSC/PAL sects have come out. I have both PAL and NTSC consoles, and the image from the LCD monitor does not mean anything.
The color of NTSC is slightly reddish. Adjusting the tint control fix the problem. PAL don't need tint control because they don't suffer from phase shift inherent with NTSC.
usually ntsc was for Never The Same Color
brunoignaciogi PAL was for Peace At Last.
+Jatworks Swirl
Your TV must be Sony because you said "Hue". Most non Sony TV called it "Tint" but they are identical :)
I have the ntsc version of crash bandicoot and those colors don't look like that
Maybe you used a diffrent cable.
TsunaTsurugi I used emulator
Crash looks purple in this video, the actual game isnt like that.
In that case, the images are going straight from your emulator to your screen. On the console, the images must be converted to NTSC before being fed though composite video to a TV (or in this video, a capture card of sorts). This video demonstrates that PAL is able to preserve colors more faithfully than NTSC.
Ted Sase I remember playing the ntsc version in my console and i don't remember those colors being that way
Why is the N T S C makes the hue pink
The problem is that the games are imported from USA or Japan and there are rendering on the NTSC system. 😢😬
NTSC was on America and PAL was on Europe
-3fps or Better Res? I Say Better Res FPS may look smoother but not much of differnce
Is crash like faster is the pal version or some shit I blinked and he already was at the end of the level
The game was pal optimised. Basically instead of just letting the game run slower, like other companies did at the time, naughty dog decided to optimise the game’s speed to run correctly in Pal territory. Now despite the fact that Pal games run at 25fps/50fps they run around 0.06% faster than NTSC.
If that doesn’t make sense then imagine this. If an NTSC game was locked at 25fps and a Pal game ran at 25fps, then the pal game would actually run 0.06% faster.
Since the games (despite fps) are running at the same speed cause of pal optimisation that means the pal port is 0.06% faster
The speed difference is hardly noticeable. We should petition to use the PAL format in the US.
What about SECAM?
i have the ntsc version and crash doesnt looks pink
and I thought pal is slower than NTSC?
That became less frequent as gaming grew more modern. Back when the speed of the game was directly = to the frame rate that happened a lot because people localizing into Europe were too lazy to fix this in the port.
eriol It is with a gopro
Wow. Now I understand where NTSC gets it's joke acronym from. I mean really those colors are saturated so badly.
why are the NTSC version colors messed up? crash fur looks red, and there is a darker tint to all the colors?
Because NTSC can’t display colours properly!!
NTSC means 60Fps but PAL is 50/55Fps dude
*face palm* no NTSC means you run at 60hz refresh rate with inferior colours. That can be a frame rate lock of 30 or 60 fps.
PAL used to mean you had supirior colours but a refresh rate of 50hz with frame rate locks of 25 or 50 fps.
In the modern age PAL means you have superior colours to NTSC, Both can reach up to 144hz (or higher) nowdays which can reach frame rates of... well... i know gaming pc’s that hit 900fps so there’s the answer to that.
Oh and PAL stands for Phase Alternating Lines.
as a ntsc gamer I will continue to play games in my region because I kinda have no other choice
PAL pluses:
- Higher resolution
- More detailed
NTSC pluses:
- More colors
- More framerate
PAL can display colours better than NTSC due to the absence of NTSC’s flaws lol
NTSC pro number 3:
- No LibCrypt copy protection bullshit and such
I did notice a difference, on the Naughty Dog logo, the dog house and lettering are both the same size but the background is compressed on the PAL version.
Also I think the colour difference is due to the way the capture device used handles NTSC or PAL composite video, I'm assuming both versions were played on the same console with the same cabling, either that or the PS1 is outputting an offset hue in NTSC mode, I don't know, I usually play RGB so the colours look the same regardless.
The online comparison videos are pointless, all they are showing is how well your TV or emulator is at converting PAL / NTSC signals; you are not actually seeing the real format. The only way to do this properly would be to buy 2 real PAL and NTSC CRT's and film them, which is of course very hard to do anyway.
No wonder we can not see the differences like back then. It was not tested & recorded on a CRT TV. Originally the PAL Versions have Blackbars, then 50 instead of 60 hz, and noticeable lower FPS Rates ... Pal = 25 FPS and NTSC 29,97 FPS. So NTSC was smoother, borderless full screen, and simply the better decision.
Nebujin 383 ntsc 30 fps. 30,000 is ridiculous.
+pooperscoop54321 He's European. Europe for a reason I cannot explain uses commas as decimals and decimals as commas. So 30 thousand is written as 30,000 in the US and 30.000 in Europe. 29 point 97 is written as 29.97 in the US and 39,97 in Europe. Can anybody clarify why Europe does this?
What should I sacrifice? Picture quality or frame rate...
***** wow when your talking about the difference between25 fps and 30, well, it's not huge is it? For all the difference i'd rather the game looked better.
Crazycupmuffin 25 FPS is not smooth at all, 30 FPS is already really smooth.
ManDude Im a big pc gamer I understand what your saying. But what i'm saying is i'd rather have a good looking game at 25 fps. Than a shit off colour resolution at 30fps.
Crazycupmuffin Fair enough. I too prefer PAL resolution.
ManDude I feel sorry for all those poor ntsc players when this came out. Having to play as a pink bandicoot and all lol.
Excuse me, but have you heard about our lord and saviour SECAM?
pal looks better right?
pal runs at less 2 frames but has more pixels.
Crash and the naughty dog logo look pink in the nstc version
I'm probably repeating what everybody else is saying here, but it looks like NTSC is slightly less choppy than PAL, however the colors aren't as true looking in NTSC as PAL. I'm an advocate for smooth frame rate over trueness of color, so NTSC gets my vote.
PAL is not 50hz, european utility frequency is,
PAL at 60hz is a thing
They're both the same to me.
@James Birmingham Well, looking at it now again, I do notice the resolution change and some changes in the saturation of colours. After looking it up online, the PAL version seems to have fewer framerates but more lines, but I think that would be more noticeable to see on the actual television.