In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
NTSC gives the best pictures in the studio.
SECAM records best.
PAL transmits best.

The reality is much more mundane. NTSC was perfectly fine. It gained a
bad reputation becuase of problems in distribution, which were managment
issues, not technical ones.

Given receivers were fitted with a front panel hue control, it must have
been a known issue. PAL sets have no such device.

The BBC, adopted the original NTSC specification calling it PAL. It
included the alternating line phase (hence the name), that was found to
be unecessary in the US.

I wonder just how available were the delay lines needed when NTSC was
introduced? They were quite an expensive component years later.

For what may have been a good technical reason when the 405 line system
was developed in the 1930's, by the time the new system was designed
around 1960, there was absolutely no technical reason that the US
system, as implemented, would not work in the UK. (50 fields/25 frames
versus 60 and 30).

Well, film uses 24 fps. Probably for a good reason. Which makes 25
somewhat closer. But not going for NTSC allowed the use of 625 lines. And
therefore better resolution.

The political reason was to keep the UK electronics companies in work,
to avoid cheap sets made in much larger quantities in the US. At that
time, there was no electronics industry to speak of in Japan, so it was
not a threat.

The US have never been at the forefront of producing 240 volt 50 Hz
anything - they tend to stick to the local markets.

The PAL is better hype was exactly that, it was to make you think that
technically it was different than NTSC and ripping off the british
public was a good thing.

That would have had more weight if only the UK had adopted PAL.

SECAM on the other hand really was designed to make TV Sets incompatible
with NTSC/PAL and more expensive.

The French often go their own way.

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.