Re: An NTSC Atari looks good on a PAL TV. How come?

[Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:06 AM, Terry Stewart via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The PAL vrs NTSC TV standard complicated things when collecting home
> computers from other countries.
>
> In New Zealand we are on PAL.  PAL Atari 800s are rarer in the world that
> NTSC ones.  That being the case I recently settled on an NTSC one for my
> collection.  Hooking it up to a couple of my PAL TVs (via composite video)
> I was surprised to see a reasonable colour image.  I then dropped in a UAV
> video enhancement board and was surprised to see a very good colour image!
>
> I'm assuming it's because composite input into "relatively" modern can
> handle NTSC and PAL?  Is this a reasonable thought?  The UAV is not an NTSC
> converter, and even the inventor was surprised this worked.
>
> Those interested can read about the adventure here:
> https://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2018-03-06-
> Converting%20-NTSC-Atari-800-for-PAL-using-UAV.htm
>
>
>
As others have said there are many sets on the market today that can do
either/or because supporting one vs the other is a "gimme". However, one
thing you may run into with PAL vs NTSC is that many games depended on the
video refresh timing of 50 or 60 Hz to work correctly and were hardcoded to
work with one or the other instead of determining the correct timing at
runtime. This can cause incompatibility problems with some software.
Another issue with other systems with more display memory (i.e. Atari ST or
Amiga) is that the PAL screen resolution tended to be a few lines higher
which can crop the image off at the bottom when running software designed
for PAL in NTSC mode. The timing problem is a real issue with a lot of C-64
software that you run across since a lot of it on the 'net assumes PAL, so
I ended up converting my Commodore 128D to a PAL system with a PAL VIC-II
chip and the various load option changes (oscillator, etc). Problem I have
now is that I'd rather use a CRT monitor, and most all that were sold in
North America can do only NTSC, so I'm stuck with black and white.

Re: An NTSC Atari looks good on a PAL TV. How come?

[Alexandre Souza via cctalk]

These are very common in Brazil. BTW, most tv chipsets made from 10-15 
years to now can decode at least pal-m/pal-g/pal-n/ntsc. Seldomly they 
can decode SECAM.


Em 07/03/2018 07:49, Peter Corlett via cctalk escreveu:

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:06:03PM +1300, Terry Stewart via cctalk wrote:
[...]

I'm assuming it's because composite input into "relatively" modern can handle
NTSC and PAL? Is this a reasonable thought? The UAV is not an NTSC converter,
and even the inventor was surprised this worked.


PAL is the superset of analogue TV standards. If one is building a TV which
already contains the expensive components required to decode PAL, tweaking the
constants to also decode NTSC is cheap and economies of scale may make it
cheaper than to make the set PAL-only.

It's been about 20 years since I last saw a nominally PAL TV which couldn't
also decode NTSC.

.

Re: An NTSC Atari looks good on a PAL TV. How come?

[Adrian Graham via cctalk]

> I'm assuming it's because composite input into "relatively" modern can
> handle NTSC and PAL?  Is this a reasonable thought?  The UAV is not an
NTSC
> converter, and even the inventor was surprised this worked.

I remember getting my Atari 1200XL back in 2000 or thereabouts and was
surprised to find I got a good picture on my 1996 Toshiba TV. I think as
soon as PAL TVs gained SCART sockets and RGB composite they also got the
capability to handle NTSC signals. Even my cheapo Fuji portable will handle
NTSC and quite probably SECAM and others. If I ever get my hands on a
Thomson TO7 I'll be able to try it :)

Cheers

-- 
adrian/witchy
Owner of Binary Dinosaurs, the UK's biggest home computer collection?
w: www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk
t: @binarydinosaurs
f: facebook.com/binarydinosaurs



On 7 March 2018 at 08:06, Terry Stewart via cctalk 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The PAL vrs NTSC TV standard complicated things when collecting home
> computers from other countries.
>
> In New Zealand we are on PAL.  PAL Atari 800s are rarer in the world that
> NTSC ones.  That being the case I recently settled on an NTSC one for my
> collection.  Hooking it up to a couple of my PAL TVs (via composite video)
> I was surprised to see a reasonable colour image.  I then dropped in a UAV
> video enhancement board and was surprised to see a very good colour image!
>
> I'm assuming it's because composite input into "relatively" modern can
> handle NTSC and PAL?  Is this a reasonable thought?  The UAV is not an NTSC
> converter, and even the inventor was surprised this worked.
>
> Those interested can read about the adventure here:
> https://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2018-03-06-
> Converting%20-NTSC-Atari-800-for-PAL-using-UAV.htm
>
> Terry (Tez)
>

Re: An NTSC Atari looks good on a PAL TV. How come?

[Peter Corlett via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:06:03PM +1300, Terry Stewart via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> I'm assuming it's because composite input into "relatively" modern can handle
> NTSC and PAL? Is this a reasonable thought? The UAV is not an NTSC converter,
> and even the inventor was surprised this worked.

PAL is the superset of analogue TV standards. If one is building a TV which
already contains the expensive components required to decode PAL, tweaking the
constants to also decode NTSC is cheap and economies of scale may make it
cheaper than to make the set PAL-only.

It's been about 20 years since I last saw a nominally PAL TV which couldn't
also decode NTSC.