Talk:PAL

message: I added Greece as a PAL country. Although many sources still point it as a SECAM country, it has
actually been dual-standard for some time, while today almost all TV stations and TV sets are
designed for PAL operation and dual-standard TV sets are becoming rare, but I don't have the exact date of the transition... EpiVictor 10:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Romania under PAL B/D category. I removed Sardinia because the idea of a list with countries and territories is to list territories, when there is no nation-wide standard (which is not the case for Italy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.164.14 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2005 (UTC)

text: It would be best if you could reference it first. Girolamo Savonarola 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries

message: The statement that PAL has 625 lines per frame is incorrect. Yes, the standard dictates 625 lines but only 576 lines are viewable, the rest being used for information such as sync data and captioning. PAL DVDs are MPEG-2, not PAL standard. The PAL classification merely indicates they have 576 lines at 25fps, and as such aren't 625 lines at all. Defsac 10:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It stems from the confusion of colour standards and the informal usage of the term "PAL" to describe a 625/50 signal, which is quite widespread but, strictly speaking, wrong. Some authors aren't quite consistent about this. Of couse, SECAM colour encoding - usually! - rides on a 625/25 signal, as PAL does - usually. From this point of view they are "similar". But the actual colour encoding - which is what PAL and SECAM are really about - are completely different. In this respect, PAL is much more similar to NTSC. Someone feels to correct the article accordingly? Regards Anorak2 13:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Anorak2 12:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right about the vertical (field) rate being 59.94. The reason for this was the horizontal and vertical rates were lowered by 1000/1001 to reduce visible interference between the color subcarrier of 3.579545MHz and the monochrome video. The harmonics of monochrome video mostly fall between harmonics of color information in a process called interleaving.  The harmonic relationship between them is: V (59.94), H (V*262.5=15734.264 Hz), color (H*455/2=3.579545 MHz) It had nothing to do with horizontal blanking. True 525/60Hz video is monochrome and would display on any NTSC monitor because it was designed to be backwards compatible with monochrome TV. In fact, the National Television System Committee was also responsible for the B+W standard that came out in 1941, long before its color standard in 1953. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC. Whitcwa (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Encoding

message: Should any one interested putting something like this?
NTSC: Never Twice Same Color
PAL: Perfection At Last
I heard this from an old friend once working in thompson. So it should be related information :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliUtkuSelen (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (In the old Commodore Amiga days we said: PAL = pay additional luxury ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.199.54 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but I don't think it really fits in the short introduction...in this and the NTSC article, it immidiatly seems as if PAL is unquestionably the best system. 84.48.18.24 11:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronyms 

message: The article claims PAL was launched in 1967. BBC Two in the UK started broadcasting monochrome 625-line video in 1964. It later went to full-colour PAL (without breaking the old system). Do the monochrome broadcasts qualify as 'PAL', and shouldn't this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourohfour (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No they don't. Monochrome 625/50 is not PAL, the term was unknown before the introduction of colour. Incidentally, the UK and France were latecomers to that standard. Most of mainland Europe has been broadcasting 626/50 since 1950 or thereabout. Anorak2 13:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a point of interest, PAL colour was under test by the BBC throughout 1965. I believe these tests were made on a 'spare' uhf frequency [which would nowadays be used for BBC-1, or ITV-1]. Colour was not introduced on BBC-2, until it had been fully tested, and technical conditions observed. Also, a b/w transmission is colourless, so can be received on any television set, provided it meets the transmission system [e.g. B/G, I etc.] requirements. (RM21 00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Introduction 

message: According to this page: http://www.cube-europe.com/special.php?sid=techfaq , PAL60 runs at the standard PAL resolution, not at the lower NTSC one. Is this correct, or is this mode specific to the GameCube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.235.128 (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PAL-60 from regular VCRs or DVD players outputs 525 scan lines at 30 frames/60 half-frames per second, and only converts the colour to PAL at 4.43 MHz. The whole point of this signal is to enable VCRs to play NTSC to PAL TVs, but cheaply. It relies on the fact that most TVs can be persuaded to sync to almost any resolution and frame rate, but they need the colour in their native system anyway. Changing the original resolution before outputting the image would defeat the whole "cheapo" point of PAL-60, as it would involve expensive circuitry. The downside is that you get a non-standard signal that no other device can record. I don't know what the GameCube does (the page appears to be gone), but if it doesn't give a 525/60/PAL signal it's not PAL-60 "as we know it". Anorak2 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL60 

message: The chart of resolution and high-def info at the bottom makes no sense to the uninitiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.181.41 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution chart 

message: Unless anyone has any objections, let's settle on a consistent spelling system; this appears to be the earliest version in the list (although for some reason you can select an "older" version, its date is actually later, so this is probably a bug somewhere).
It uses a mix of UK and US spellings. Since the "Wikipedia is American" argument doesn't wash (the contributors are a mix, and Wikipedia's own policy is that the earlier spelling is used- not useful in this case as original article had a mix), let's vote on this once and for all, and have it over by the New Year.
Votes:-
* UK (commonwealth) spelling. Fourohfour 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agreed.  But what the Americans use doesn't qualify as English as they haven't used that language for over two and a half centuries.  20.133.0.13 (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling; two week deadline 

message: will a NTSC DVD player work with a PAL television and vice-versa?
: In the general case,. An NTSC player outputs an NTSC signal which the PAL TV will not "understand", and vice versa. At best you get a black&white picture, possibly rolling and distorted.
: However, since the 1990s most TVs sold in PAL countries are multi-standard to varying degrees. Most will be able to accept NTSC signals as input. Likewhise, DVD players sold in PAL markets are usually multi-standard. With most of these, you can even select what signal format they should output.
: The reverse is not necessarily true for TVs and DVD players sold in NTSC markets. Anorak2 12:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Somebody help me please! I'm about to buy a new JVC hardrive camcorder in United States,and I want to learn that it works in Turkey which is in Europe and using PAL...it's written NTSC,as the analog video format on the camcorder..Do I have some problems about that,should I buy it or what I'm going to do??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.69.173 (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No they're completely incompatible. Don't import NTSC equipment into the PAL world or vice versa, you'll have problems either way. Anorak2 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compatibility Between USA (NTSC) and Turkey(PAL..) 

message: I think the "PAL#Countries and territories that use PAL B, G, D or K" section is getting long and cumbersome, and should be moved to a separate article. Ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intgr (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... "List of countries and territories that use PAL"... does that sound right? --StuartBrady (Talk) 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move list of countries to a separate article? 

message: Hey guys, 
I ran accross the article selling the innovation: french and german color tv devices in the 1960s by patrick fridenson []
that's what it says on the PAL and SECAM:
The first movers were Americans, because America represented the
largest potential marketf or color TV. They consisted on one side of RCA
and on the other of a group of firms working with the TV network CBS. For
the sake of production costs and viewers' interests, RCA called for a unified
system, which was reached in 1953 by a committee which gathered
representatives of some twenty companies and labs and was named NTSC
(National Television System Committee). However, this system
had many practical drawbacks, and it was soon nicknamed "Never The Same
Color".
The challengers were the Frencha nd the Germans. They invented
ways to correct the color variations of NTSC. The paradox is that although
Radio Industrie and Telefunken, the French and German companies which
earlier had separately developed black and white TV devices, were now
working together on color TV, they finally gave birth to two different devices:
the French SECAM (its French nickname was "Supreme Effort Against
America") and the German PAL (called by the French "German
Provocation").''
Is it worth putting that in the articles about PAL and SECAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevnik (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Selling the Innovation" 

message: I was wondering if an illustration of a phase error would improve the article... So I've knocked up two images , which show normal and alternated phase respectively, with a 20 degree phase error. Any thoughts on these? --StuartBrady (Talk) 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: Which effect is refered to in the paragraph where it is said that "hardware is also available to correct this effect? Is it about the speed up effect or the telecine judder effect? Either way it should be said more accurately what can be done with that hardware. I don't see how converting signal from PAL to NTSC would fix the speed up effect. It might be that the whole paragraph should be removed. It seems like a misplaced advertisement. 81.197.16.160 05:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A PAL to NTSC converter cannot correct the speed up after it has been applied. The converted video will show it too. A theoretical hardware solution would be to play the video at 24fps (i.e. non-standard, would require a modified VCR) and apply a realtime frame conversion to 25fps. That would result in a video at proper speed, but probably with some bad judder effects (which is the main reason why it's not done). Tenlab company sells no such thing, just regular standards converters. So IMHO the paragraph should be removed. Anorak2 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How will PAL to NTSC converter correct speed-up? 

message: Just reading through the article, it is all ok until you get to Multisystem PAL support this seems to be out of context, the rest of section 2 needs re-ordering I think --GeorgeShaw 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Layout

message: Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Singapore use PAL for broadcasting. However they use NTSC-J for gaming. Maybe, it's worth mentioning--w_tanoto 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia / Hong Kong / Singapore 

message: I'm Argentine, I've been working at TV stations and I've never seen a station broadcasting in NTSC as the article says. Usually PAL-B/G is used inside the stations and transcoded to PAL-N just before being broadcasted. ¿Why does the article mention NTSC, is it an error? Barcex 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL-N versus PAL-Nc 

message: PAL is NOT 720x576, because PAL and NTSC does not got a fixed X-axis resolution. With analog broadcasted PAL you cannot display 360 (720/2) distinct lines because of bandwith limitation.
Hence the image comparing different TV formats is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.106.124 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In analogue systems we refer to resolution in 'line pairs', where a line pair consists of a white line/black line pair.  The horizontal resolution of the analogue 625 line TV system constrained by a 5MHz bandwidth is approximately 260 line pairs.  This would equate to a digital resolution of 520 pixels, but the analogue line pairs can be displayed anywhere along the horizontal plane whereas a similar pattern on a digital system is constrained to the locations of the discrete pixels on both the source signal and the display device (which may or may not not match - and almost certainly won't match if there is an analogue conversion in the path as is usually the case when playing a DVD). 20.133.0.13 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong TV format in pixels 

message: Depending on the sound system in use, it also increases the pitch of the soundtrack by 70.67 cent — ⅔ of a semitone, which only the minority of people with absolute pitch will notice.
I can hear the difference and I'm practically tone-deaf... Also the telecine page calls the pitch difference "noticeable". Is there a source for the claim that only people with absolute pitch can notice the change? Msgohan 08:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged as needing citation.  Acdx 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "70.67 cent — ⅔" is incorrect. A 4% increase in frequency will make more of a difference on very low notes, but not so such on high notes. For example, the note A2 has a frequency of 110hz, add 6hz and you're playing the next note up which is a Bb2. However if you add 6hz to an A5 (which is 880hz), then your no where near a Bb5 (which is 932.3hz). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.34.251 (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone can't do elementary arithmetic.  A 4% increase on 110Hz is 114.4 Hz.  A 4% increase 880Hz is 915 Hz, which is 0.67 of a semitone in both cases. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see some detail in the article on the speed difference. I listen to fan-made audio commentaries for movies and TV, and the 4% or so (in my practical experience, it's about 3%) difference is a major point of difficulty and confusion. Sharecrow and RiffTrax have actually created software to keep the commentary in synch with the movie. --Tysto (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's discussed in Broadcast television systems. The speed up has to do with frame rates, thus it applies to all 25 Hz television standards, including some that don't use PAL colour encoding, and excluding some that do. It has nothing to do with PAL per se (even though it's commonly but misleadingly called "PAL speedup"), as PAL does not define frame rates at all. This is why it's not discussed in this page. Anorak2 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Film to PAL speedup pitch

message: However, some movie enthusiasts prefer PAL speed-up over NTSC's 3:2 pulldown, because the latter results in telecine judder, a visual distortion not present in PAL speed-up video. This is not an issue on modern upconverting DVD players and PCs, as they play back 23.97fps-encoded video at its true frame rate, without 3:2 pulldown.
Surely most PC monitors will be set to 60Hz or higher, which will necessitate the use of repeated frames in the same manner as the pulldown process, only progressively rather than interlaced? Wouldn't this result in exactly the same kind of 'judder' as on an ordinary television?
172.142.32.137 14:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3:2 pulldown doesn't change the frame rate (24 to 23.97 a minimal difference), it just adapts it to a 60Hz interlaced display, by reducing the repeated frames issue. On progressive displays motion judder can still be present if the frame rate in not set to a multiple of the original (for example 72Hz (24Hz*3)). The pulldown removal only restores the original 24fps progressive signal. Hope this helpsRicnun 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3:2 Pulldown

message: picture always lousy? i never heard that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.168.196 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  right there in the beginning 

message: this map is old and now false, Korea is NTSC, continental China as well and Russia is PAL. should be corrected. Paris By Night 11:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? South Korea is NTSC, North Korea is SECAM, that is what the map shows. Mainland China is indeed PAL, but the map says so. Russia is SECAM, you're wrong there but the map shows it correctly. Anorak2 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Russia was still SECAM last time I was there (August 2009). 20.133.0.13 (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 20th centuries map... :(

message: Ok, what joker removed the explanation for PAL speedup (in itself stupid) and left the redirects in place? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAL_speedup&redirect=no
--IceHunter (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, when I removed all references to frame rate and scan raster from this page. I didn't know this redirect existed, fixed it now. Anorak2 (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pal speedup removeal 

message: What would happen if I tried to play a PAL tape on an NTSC VCR? --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tape would play too fast, and the head drum would not synch with the PAL frame rate. The result would be a completely carbled picture which (if you can see anything at all) would play too fast. Anorak2 (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: It looks as if colorimetry info on this page is out of date, or incorrect:
The page says the following:
* PAL and NTSC have slightly divergent colour spaces, but the colour decoder differences here are ignored.;
* PAL supports SMPTE 498.3 while NTSC is compliant with EBU Recommendation 14.
* I assume the second bullet still refers to colourimetric info.
* I cannot find the relevant standards.
* There is no section on Colourimetry, there should be, to match the Serial Digital Interface article
See the following for basic references to colourimetry in consumer broadcast:
broadcasting_colorimetry_standards
(Also available in Wayback machine, without images)
RobMosys (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL Colourimetry incorrect?

message: Care to add any picture displaying "Hanover bars"? I've only ever hear them mentioned by Americans and consider them a myth, actually. Or do you actually mean dot crawl or its complimentary effect where improper isolation of cheap composite cables results in crosstalk from the luma to the chroma wire (while dotcrawl is the other way around)? After googling for hours, I've found this technical diagram at least, but it didn't tell me much either. --87.154.23.91 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Composite cables don't have separate luma and chroma lines. Crosstalk between luma and chroma (dot crawl and rainbows) is caused by the fact that luma and chroma are on the same wire and that their frequencies overlap.Totsugeki (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hanover bars" 

message: What broadcast standard does Lebanon use, wikipedia says PAL, but most other sources including World Radio TV Handbook 2008 say they use SECAM.
Anyone able to confirm?
Cheers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.54.57 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably migrated from SECAM to PAL some time ago. In any case it is B/G. VHS tapes should be MESECAM (i.e. not French SECAM), but better yet PAL. Anorak2 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanon

message: I'd like to see some picture examples of the types of distortions mentioned in the article especially in the PAL vs. NTSC and PAL vs. SECAM sections as I've never seen an NTSC or SECAM broadcast and can't visualise very well what these distortions might look like. 83.147.180.181 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but difficult to create. I have an tv standards converter and could try to create screenshots with exaggerated NTSC or SECAM defects, but I'll have to find the time. :) Anorak2 (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article could do with more pictures

message: I've edited the line in the intro paragraph stating that this page discusses only the color encoding aspect of PAL, as this is clearly not the case anymore, and it would not make much sense to defer discussion of all other core aspects of the PAL system to other pages on more general topics. Like the NTSC article, which gives a broad overview of all aspects of the analog encoding system, the PAL page should be where visitors can find all information regarding the PAL specification, including frame rate and resolution. --71.104.232.71 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike NTSC, the term PAL only refers to a colour encoding system.  It has nothing to do with frame rate, lines or resolution.  Indeed PAL is not cofined to 625 line/50 field systems.  Brazil uses PAL colour on their 525 line/60 field system. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Frame rate & Resolution

message: However, owing to their FM nature, the colour signal remains present, although at reduced amplitude, even in monochrome portions of the image, thus being subject to stronger cross colour.
I can't figure out what this means. 151.200.47.86 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: I'm currently involved in one of those NTSC-vs-PAL arguments that pop up in electronics groups. Looking at this article, I find it biased towards PAL (which I consider inferior to NTSC), with a lot of material I consider downright wrong. For example, the writer claims that PAL was developed at Telefunken, when it was actually the original NTSC proposal. (I have printed proof of that.) He also doesn't explain any distinction between static and non-linear phase correction, nor does he explain in detail how these corrections work. This article leaves too many unanswered questions. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what to do. Cite your printed literature! Fix the article - that explanation of the consequences of FM for chroma is a good observation to make in the article, for example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardly NPOV

message: The introduction expands the acronym as Phase Alternate Line, whereas in the text it is described as Phase Alternating Line. I checked some EBU documents, and they seem to mostly use "Phase Alternation Line" as the expansion, although a couple have "Phase Alternation by Line" instead. At the very least the article should be consistent. 24.4.198.162 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  'Alternating' seems the most common expansion: Article corrected. 86.166.69.208 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text: As with many acronyms it seems there are different interpretations of what the letters stand for - examples below. I don't believe the article should state one interpretation categorically unless some definitive source can be linked to. That's not to say that the text should not use a consistent term but the definition should not say there is just one interpretation if there is more than one. Here are the examples taken from reasonably good sources: "Phase Alternate Line" (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/PAL?q=p.a.l. http://thelawdictionary.org/phase-alternate-line-pal/). "Phase Alternation Line" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/438956/PAL-system). Ablonus (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct name?

message: All printed and web references I could find for PAL/N, as well as ITU documentation point out that PAL/N has a 4.5 MHz sound.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.23.238 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL-N: I believe the bandwidth and sound separation are wrong for PAL/N. It should be 4.5 MHz. 

message: I have removed this section as there were many things wrong with it (it was mostly uncited original research, and very much not npov). If it is to be reinstated it needs to be rewritten, context and sources need to be provided regarding the dispute (sounds very esoteric, but if sources are provided i find it interesting to keep), and references for the technical material are needed. 79.103.119.81 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL vs SECAM misconception removal 

message: According to the table "Countries and territories that once used PAL" Lithuania switched to DVB-T on 29 October 2012. That's in the future! Should it be 2011? or is that the intended date in which case it shouldn't be in the table yet.Rpt0 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did Lithunia stop using PAL? 

message: Someone (probably someone who patrols Wikipedia adding tagging similar looking "bugs" on many pages in a hurry) added the "please rewrite this list as prose" template tag to the list of countries using the system.  Given the very nature of this information, a list is the most readable, most understandable, most easily editable (this list needs to be updated a lot due to DVB-T conversion of countries) way to present this information.
I have thus removed that tag as and replaced it by a comment advising future patrols not to mark this particular list for conversion to prose. 2001:16D8:DD73:0:AD74:C2E4:6865:13EA (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed the "prose" tag from the list of countries etc. 

message: May I please point out (without being pointlessly flamed) that this article (which should be dealing with the PAL analogue colour-TV encoding system) currently gets itself heavily bogged down into discussions of different broadcast standards that happen to use PAL (System B/G, System I etc). It therefore also gets bogged down with debates about things like numbers of scan lines and frame-rates - none of which have anything directly to do with PAL as a system.
The NTSC article also suffers from these issues, though to a lesser extent because there are (or were) fewer television systems using NTSC.
I note that there are already some articles on CCIR television systems, System B for instance, though not all CCIR-specified television systems have their own pages. This ought to be fixed. Additionally, there's little coherence in how those system-specific pages are named or written. System A for instance is documented under 405-line television system.
A proper article on PAL could dispense with all the existing arguments about the frequency of the colour subcarrier, the line rate or the frame rate. All of that belongs in the broadcast-system specific pages. The PAL article certainly should list the broadcast systems that have ever been used with PAL and maybe in which countries - and that can include the UK's System A even though it was never adopted for real. Test transmissions were made using that combination.
It's an interesting question where discussions about colorimetry belong. I suspect it ought to be dealt with in the "broadcast system" pages because the PAL system itself is independent of such details. It *is* the case that colour-difference equations used with European PAL are the same as those in NTSC despite the fact that the assumed colour primaries are different. But is this true of all PAL implementations?
Issues such as dot-crawl, Hanover bars and delay-lines should certainly be in a PAL article. The mathematical relationship between colour subcarrier frequency, line-scan frequency, frame rate and sound subcarrier frequency should be in a PAL article (since it all influences  dot-crawl), but the actual chosen values for all of those values should be in the pages on the relevant CCIR standard.
I can offer to do some of this, but it's going to be a big job. I reckon Wikipedia would benefit from it though. Comments please? Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article spans several topics 

message: I checked all my local tv channels, they are all PAL, I didn't find any SECAM channel.--158.181.7.186 (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyrgyzstan is PAL 

message: According to IRE_(unit) the PAL sync tip should be 43 IRE->300mV below the blanking level, the blanking level being usually at 0V. As opposed to this the PAL oscillograms on this page seem to show the blanking level being at about -0.85V and the sync tip at -1.45V. The peek level seems to be close to the expected 0.7V. What's the explanation for the difference wrt. the IRE unit page?
--Seipher (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscilloscope sync voltage levels 

message: Under countries and territories using PAL-N, it says
That doesn't make sense to me. It is either H.264 video or PAL, but how could it be both? One is digital and the other is analog. Should the stuff about digital television be removed or should the entry be removed altogether? Digital Brains (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina: H264 video over ISDB-T, at 576i@50 Hz (SD) 

message: in the article it says that the length of active video in a scan line is 51,95 μs, every source on the internet claims it's exactly 52 μs. Could you perhaps rovide a soirce, prefferably an ITU document that clearly says what is the exact length of active line in PAL image? I can find it neither in 470 nor 601. SF 77.113.115.221 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active video line 

message: The article refers to the weighted sum of electrical signals R', G', and B' as "Luminance." Luminance is defined as radiometrically linear, while electric signals are not. Their counterparts, R, G, and B are radiometrically linear, however, and are related to R', G', and B' through the electro-optical transfer function (EOTF).
In the interest of accuracy, and to prevent confusion, I have changed references to "luminance" to the correct term, "luma," and have added primes to the symbol Y where necessary.
2603:7080:9600:A967:DB8F:1666:A2C5:CE26 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luma, not luminance 

message: The section didn't made much sense (PAL is analog, so it can't be digital) and was completely unreferenced, so I removed it. 4throck (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital PAL/PAL 2.0 

message: The second last paragraph exclusively talks about how PAL users had an inferior experience when playing games developed for NTSC systems, as if the entire european home computer market was just a receiver of US/Japanese productions. In fact, games developed for PAL systems also played poorly for NTSC users. Frame stutter is only a problem if the update rate of the game does not match the update rate of the display. If both are aligned at 50 Hz, the perceived motion is flawlessly fluid (I can attest that). 92.198.35.206 (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbearable US-centric bias on the PAL/NTSC section about games 

message: China never used SECAM in formal broadcasting, you can google it simply, and both of China and former Yugoslavia adopted PAL.  please stop adding them as SECAM countries to this article without sources, otherwise they'll need to be removed again. --Corchorifolius (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced contents about China and former Yugoslavia 

message: Is there any convenience about the unique and different implementation of teletext systems on PAL-N? I couldn't find information about this implementation and I removed description about the implementation for being maybe dubious. HarmonZach (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teletext on PAL-N