PAL appeared after NTSC, improving the image resulotion from 480 lines to 576 with a unnoticeable cost in framerate: 60hz to 50hz.

But with HDTV come along, this resolution gain is going to disappear, with 1280x720 progressive and 1440x1080 interlaced being ubiquitous in the world market.

So why are PAL territories sticking to PAL? Why not keep PAL compatible TVs that support 576i, but display HDTV at 60hz.

Most PAL TVs nowadays support PAL 60 anyway, so it's not like it makes any sense.

Is this a marketing ploy, or is there a logical reason for this?

Backwards compatibility.

That's the main reason I can think of.

-Steve

"with a unnoticeable cost in framerate: 60hz to 50hz"

From myself who finds the flicker at 60hz sad, I have to ask have you seen 50hz in action? Those who are used to it, live with it, but it is truely distracting. High contrast scenes really suck and look like double bladed 24fps film. Yuck. Flicker, flicker, flicker.
PS- I have to ask based on your logic. Shouldn't ntsc be dead as well?
The answer: Millions and millions of people own TV's/VCR's/DVD's that aren't going anywhere despite how much we induldge in this HD revolution. SD in King. Don't forget it.

"with a unnoticeable cost in framerate: 60hz to 50hz"

From myself who finds the flicker at 60hz sad, I have to ask have you seen 50hz in action? Those who are used to it, live with it, but it is truely distracting. High contrast scenes really suck and look like double bladed 24fps film. Yuck. Flicker, flicker, flicker.
Don't forget that majority of new TV's sold in Europe are 100Hz, so people will see even less flicker than you see in North America with 60Hz. Besides, film-transfered-to-video still looks better at 50Hz than with a horrible 24p pulldown for 60Hz land. I'd rather have a 4% speed up with half step down pitch correction, to achieve a very natural film motion, than 3-2 pulldown any day. Long live 50Hz!

And my next question is, why with all the 18 (?) ATSC HDTV standards I've yet to see the one that supports 24p (or perhaps 48i or 48p) for real, without any pulldown tricks? I mean what is the point of 24p if you never see it without pulldown (always gets upsamled to 60Hz instead of 24/48Hz)? And why is 25/50 is still not supported? Sounds like a marketing ploy to me coming from North America market. At least Europe is flexible, they include everything they can into their TV sets, and so have a big advantage over anyone in 60Hz land.

why with all the 18 (?) ATSC HDTV standards I've yet to see the one that supports 24p (or perhaps 48i or 48p) for real, without any pulldown tricks?
Don't know what you're referring to. The ATSC standards do provide for direct 24P broadcast, in both 1080 and 720 resolution. If a broadcaster chose to broadcast that signal, the television would receive and display it in its full 24p native state, with no pulldown or any other complications.

I mean what is the point of 24p if you never see it without pulldown (always gets upsamled to 60Hz instead of 24/48Hz)?
It doesn't. You can play 24p off of any hollywood DVD on a progressive-scan-capable DVD player, watch it on an LCD or other progressive-scan display, and see the full 24p signal with no pulldown.

You can play 24p off of any hollywood DVD on a progressive-scan-capable DVD player, watch it on an LCD or other progressive-scan display, and see the full 24p signal with no pulldown.
If that's the case then:

1) The flicker would be even greater than in PAL, but it's not, so it's still being resampled into 60Hz. We have a progressive Panasonic plasma display at home, as well as I saw many others elsewhere with the same visual results. This Panasonic plasma is also multi-system capable, so I know what real PAL looks like on it, it still flickers more, so if 24p were, as you claim, shown in real 24fps, then I'd definitely see more flicker than even PAL, but I don't. Therefore it's not real 24fps, but a 24p signal displayed at 60Hz.

2) The motion would be very similar to what you see in movie theatres or in film transfered to PAL, but it does not look like that.

In short, what I'm trying to say is even if you see the "real" 24p on your progressive display, it's still being shown with 60Hz refresh rate instead of something more matching, like 24, 48 or 96 Hz. And that all translates into motion still being not as crisp as the films transfered to PAL and shown with 25, 50 or 100 Hz refresh rate. I mean the picture is smooth, the interlacing lines are gone, but the movement is far from being film-like. That's the same effect if you'd be showing some 24p WMV file on a 75Hz computer monitor. Yes, you'll see it in 24p, but the refresh rate of the monitor is far from being optimal for that task. PAL equipment on the other hand multiplies really well with 25p (25, 50, 100 Hz).

My final point is, if everybody is so obsessed with 24p, then why not make the displays and playback equipment that can actually show this material with a matching refresh rate instead of traditional 60Hz, and also not being encapsulated into a 29.97fps stream? And my other question is still open: how come 25/50 signal is not a part of ATSC? It shouldn't have been that difficult to include. Or is it for political reasons?

You have to look at what kind of pull-down your progressive display supports. I'm not sure how all of them work... but one of the Pansonic TV's has what's called a "3-3" pull-down, where it changes the refresh rate of the screen to 72 Hz, displaying each frame 3 times. This seems like a perfect solution for 24p display.

I've been looking to see what exactly the Sony displays feature - but I suspect any that advertise a 2-3 pulldown display each full frame 2 and then 3 times respectively, within the 60 Hz progressive signal.

-Steve

But "NTSC" has it's ludicrous 29.97fps frame rate, not 30fps, and it has the diabolic drop frame timecode system to account for it. Nobody in the rest of the world is going to change to such a system. Indeed, as NTSC is used by less people than PAL, it should have been the USA changing it's system to adapt to the rest of the world with the introduction of HD. This would be easier than going in the other direction as most North American TV is shot on film at 24fps, which could be sped up to 25fps giving more room in the schedule for commercials.

Graeme

Also, don't forget that shooting NTSC in a PAL country with lights flickering at 50Hz looks like poo. Why would anyone want to switch to a video format that would give your interior camcorder shots a lovely 10Hz lighting flicker?

What do they do in Japan where they have both 50hz and 60hz electricity??

Graeme

They shoot NTSC and live with flickery lights in the 50Hz areas :).

The Z1 does have a 'flicker removal' option, but I don't know how well it works.

I think I see a flicker removal filter, if I can manage it.....

Graeme

The main reason for the framerates is indeed the power cycle. I really do not
want to shoot 30 fps / 60 hz here in PAL land with a 50 hz power cycle. I've
never really seen the PAL flicker, but perhaps I am used to it that I don't see
it. But film is projected at 48 fps (basically) which is still below 50 fields per
second for PAL and most people don't complain with that either.

Most people actually seem to prefer PAL over NTSC (color and resolution wise).

Apart from the framerates the HD standards at least feature the same resolutions,
which is great. I would much rather drop interlaced instead of the different framerates.

Flicker is dependent on the brightness of the image - bright areas seem to flicker more, and also when you're not looking directly at them.

For example, if I look at the bottom (say my OS X dock) of a generally white screen (say the Google start page) when my CRT is set to 60hz, flicker is incredibly noticable.

Setting the refresh rate to 100Hz solves the flicker, at least in my completely unscientific and uncotrolled test.

BTW, LCD, plasma and TFT screens do not in my experience have any noticable flicker, no matter what the refresh rate.

The main reason for the framerates is indeed the power cycle.

But in Europe most TV sets nowadays have PAL 60, for NTSC DVDs and gaming.

I just don't see what's the use of 720p50. Why not unify the formats throughout the world? NTSC and PAL had their reason to exist due historical issues, but going HD it's ridiculous to keep this obsolete difference.

I'm guessing maybe big broadcasters and studios are worried about piracy, but what about the internet?

Dave: the "problem" is not in the display. The "problem" is in the recording. If
you record at 60 or 30 frames per second in a PAL country you can (sometimes,
depends) see lights flicker due to the fact they are running on 50 hz....

I can display NTSC movies just fine on my multi-standard set here.

I just got back from Argentina where they have PAL. The first time I turned on the TV in my hotel room I did notice a flicker. I got used to it almost immediately however, and it didn't bother me at all. I also did a big project in PAL, and have to say that I enjoyed working in that format much more than NTSC. We were projecting video on two huge screens with 10,000 lumen projectors and the additional resolution was certainly a plus. In fact, I'm starting another project right now where we will do more large screen projection in Philadelphia and I'll probably use PAL for that as well since the projectors and computers don't care about the format. Widescreen PAL seems like a nice intermediate between NTSC and HD.

Yes, the Z-1 does have a flicker reduction setting in the menus but I haven't tried it. It only works in 60i mode however. Also, you should only have flicker problems with flourescent or gas discharge lamps I think. Halogen and incandescent lamps should have enough filament latency to smooth out any alternating current flicker.

Dave: the "problem" is not in the display. The "problem" is in the recording. If
you record at 60 or 30 frames per second in a PAL country you can (sometimes,
depends) see lights flicker due to the fact they are running on 50 hz....

I can display NTSC movies just fine on my multi-standard set here.


I see, that's pretty bad. I never used a NTSC camera in a PAL country, but I guess that's an issue.

So, what if everyone goes 50Hz? According to Boyd it doesn't look that bad, but I'm assuming that 720p60 is better than 720p50: same resolution, lower framerate.

NTSC countries are going to have the better HDTV format from now on...

when my CRT is set to 60hz, flicker is incredibly noticable.

Setting the refresh rate to 100Hz solves the flicker.

BTW, LCD, plasma and TFT screens do not in my experience have any noticable flicker, no matter what the refresh rate.

You're comparing apples to petunias. Your CRT monitor is a progressive scan device, so 60Hz will flicker, especially under the strobe of ambient flourescent lighting. A television is interlaced and the image is seldom so static. You've already discovered that LCD and plasma displays are not interlaced and actually have no refresh. Changing the refresh rate of your graphics adapter, so long as it is within the input range of the monitor, will have no effect on them.

I thought the whole issue with 'digital' was to get away from the PAL/NTSC argument. HDV uses a true/full 8 bit color system (more than PAL or NTSC) and supports digital progressive displays(formerly known as computer monitors) . In other words, on my progressive lcd/computer display, it doesn't matter where you shoot, I can watch it. Unless you give me some old interlaced SD crap, then I have a problem.

Besides, this whole display issue is nothing more than a consipracy with the CIA and KGB fronting for their French masters. Yes, just blame it on the French.:)

Oh and to set something straight, PAL was not introduced *AFTER* NTSC or
as a better standard. It just evolved in Europe instead of the US. Different
places different needs (the one driving thing for the differences was of course
the power differences between the continents).

I would've loved one standard as well, but we just aren't there yet...

However I wouldn't be suprised if PAL countries will gradually shift over to 60
frames per second or higher, so perhaps one day we will have one set of
standards that can be displayed everywhere.

Is PAL countries do move to a higher speed, they'll probably decide on 100fps. There's no way they'd ever move to a multiple of 29.97. However, moving to 150fps which would be a multiple of both 25 and 30. Finally NTSC would have to drop it's ludicrous non-integer frame rate and all countries could share the same frames per second equally.

Graeme

You're comparing apples to petunias...

really? ...And I thought I was comparing monitors.

Okay, so let's say two guys buy the HVX and shoot their own footage. One is in Europe and shoots at 720p50 and the other in the US and shoots 720p60.

They both burn their stuff on a HD-DVD and go overseas (US to Europe and vice-versa). So what happens? Does both of their footage just works with no problems or are there issues here?

Hopefully HDTV will just switch between refresh rates when the HD-DVD is inserted and play it in 60Hz or 50Hz accordingly.

You'd hope so.... But although all TVs in Europe made in the last 15-20 years or so would play NTC with no bother, I don't think any mass-market North American TVs have ever played PAL.

The good news is that, I think, all modern displays for HD, projectors, LCD, Plasma will play both NTSC and PAL, so they should play HD at 50p or 60p ok too.

Graeme

I'd hope so Graeme, but that isn't my experience. I just finished a PAL project using my Z1. I tried to view it on my 3 month old Panasonic 37" plasma TV, 9 month old Samsung 22" widescreen LCD TV, and a two year old Sony 17" widescreen LCD. None of them would lock into the signal. The spec sheets for all of these screens indicate they use the NTSC system. Maybe I'm just unlucky though? :-) I did not try 50i HDV, just 50i PAL 720x576. The only way I was able to edit my footage was by using the Samsung screen plugged into my G5's second DVI port with FCP in digital cinema desktop mode.

PAL appeared after NTSC, improving the image resulotion from 480 lines to 576 with a unnoticeable cost in framerate: 60hz to 50hz.
..
So why are PAL territories sticking to PAL? Why not keep PAL compatible TVs that support 576i, but display HDTV at 60hz.
..
Is this a marketing ploy, or is there a logical reason for this?

Ohh, you sure know how to ask them ;)

The reason is back wards compatibility, if you seen 60i or 30 converted to film (1fps off from PAL signal) or PAL, the results are not so good without some phenomenal processing algorithm. Smudgy, happy vision if done wrong. And as the world isn't all things American, or all things their minority NTSC partners they stick with something easily live convertible with existing footage, and footage from existing SD cameras.

Their are other advantages, and I don't know wherever this is common or just my TV set. Switching from PAL to NTSC is shocking, less display, and colour, and the colour is suddenly off. So PAL does provide a much richer, Cinema like, experience on my TV. Because you have the slower rate you have higher resolution, or in HDTV less compression ratio, for better image.

Reasons why 50i not such a problem. TV's are designed to have a pixel decay rate that reduces the flicker (just turn off the fluorescent light). Some of the population hardly (or apparently all Americans that come over here and are not used to it) notices flicker at 50hz, some still notice it above 60i. But on modern TV's all this canbe digitally buffered and theoretically displayed at 100, or 120Hz, thus eliminating flicker.

So, except for sports etc, all Television would be better viewed at 25fps, with support at 50fps. You get better lower compression image quality. With HDTV we have the opportunity to display 25/50fps all around the world. So why is NTSC market so far behind still sticking to 30/60 ;)

But "NTSC" has it's ludicrous 29.97fps frame rate, not 30fps...<snip>
Graeme

29.97 fps ludicrous? I don't know, kind of fits right in with all our other incredibly logical measuring systems:
5280 feet = 1 Mile
3 feet = 1 Yard (and hey, a Yard is REALLY close to a Meter)
12 inches = 1 foot
Finally inches are split into convenient 1/16th increments.


Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Nice try Philip! :-)

Graeme

PAL appeared after NTSC, improving the image resulotion from 480 lines to 576 with a unnoticeable cost in framerate: 60hz to 50hz.

But with HDTV come along, this resolution gain is going to disappear, with 1280x720 progressive and 1440x1080 interlaced being ubiquitous in the world market.

So why are PAL territories sticking to PAL? Why not keep PAL compatible TVs that support 576i, but display HDTV at 60hz.

Most PAL TVs nowadays support PAL 60 anyway, so it's not like it makes any sense.

Is this a marketing ploy, or is there a logical reason for this?

I think the reason this question has created so much discussion is that it actually ignores the real problem. Instead of making different cameras that work at different framerates, Sony, Pana, JVC etc should be making units that work at both standards (they do it with decks after all). There could be some huge technical challenge that I'm overlooking here, but I suspect the only reason that manufacturers continue to bring out US and European models with different frame rates is to discourage cross-border trading (US units are typically cheaper by 10 - 25% depending on brand).

BTW the "flicker" that everyone refers to is more related to the interlaced format, and the display technology. As others have pointed out 100Hz refresh rates tend to negate this. Yes you will get a sharper image at higher refresh rates (less motion blur) but I reckon if you did a blind test between modern NTSC and PAL TV's then you wouldn't be able to tell the difference...

This really seems like a very well informed discussion. Now talking about refresh rates, isn't doubling the refresh rate for a signal that is only broadcasted at 50i actually degrading overall viewing of the picture, or "upsampling"the image? I say this because I have a professional sony crt monitor displaying at 50i, and a Panasonic 1080i ready crt tv, and while the picture does looks brighter in the Panasonic, you canvery well see much more pixelization and overall picture imperfection compared to the sony monitor, much like a uprezed video.

My footage shot with a dvx100a just seems much more correct and solid viewed on a 50i monitor than on a 100hz capable tv. I've tested this with old sony triniton tv's vs the new ones, and it indeeds makes a very big difference. Brighter at 100hz, but picture imperfection everywhere.

Anyone care to explain this phenomenon?

Nice discussion, but you all forget one thing - refresh rates are irrelevant for plasma and LCD tv's. They are all progresive devices, that uses a framestore for building the picture. Then they determine what pixels should be changed, and change only those pixels.

The may buffer several consecutive frames, and interpolate the final picture from those. This is the reason why a flat tv usually delays the picture 10 to 20 frames. This can be noticed if you have a ldc tv with speakers hooked up to a surround system. Turn the speakers up, while you play a DVD on the surroundsystem, and notice the delay in sound. The sound from the build in speakers are delayed to be in sync with the picture, but the sound from the DVD played on the surround system are not, so you'll get a delay effect.

Here in PAL-world the 720p versus SD is a little different as a prime quality enhanced PAL signal is not that different to 720p for a consumer. Espcially not on average grade plasmas. Here it is a big problem that the cheapers tv's DSP is usually bad at resizing the picture. It is very different if the player delivers a signal withe the right resolution to the display. This is the case if you use a one of better DVD-players or a pc. This gives a much better quality.

And this leads me to belive that Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 can be very important in gettings HD to us PAL's, as these devices can play native HD-video.