Shooting in movie mode: PAL and/or NTSC?

[Johnish]

Can anyone clarify for me please if the HX100v is switchable between PAL and NTSC. While I live in a PAL country I want a to shoot NTSC and if in fact it is not switchable then I shall need to be sure to specify NTSC when I order from B&H.

Many thanks.

 

[Stephen McDonald]

Can anyone clarify for me please if the HX100v is switchable between PAL and NTSC. While I live in a PAL country I want a to shoot NTSC and if in fact it is not switchable then I shall need to be sure to specify NTSC when I order from B&H.

I've gone all through the Owner's Manual and the User's Guide for the HX100V, trying to find an answer to that. The English versions are the same for all countries and PAL video with 50i/50p and NTSC video with 60i/60p are listed, but nothing I can find says anything about switching from one to the other. I assume that the video system that a camera uses, is determined by the version of firmware that's installed, which is different for PAL and NTSC countries.

There are many models of camcorders that can be switched to either PAL or NTSC, but it doesn't appear that this type of camera has that option. I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong about this, but it seems likely you'll have to buy a camera with firmware for NTSC.

I'm disappointed in one thing about the digital and HDTV revolution. They were telling us that the different TV and video systems would be merged and there would be world-wide compatability. However, the different systems have been sustained. It's apparently too painful and costly a process to make half the world shift over. There has probably also been a stubborn attitude by both sides, refusing to cede their systems to the other.

Another issue is the tie to the hertz of the electrical power of the different regions. Why any of these things had to be set up differently in the first place, I don't know. Electrical devices run better and last longer on 240 volts, but it's a lot more dangerous to have it going into appliances we hold in our hands. When I was four years old, as an experiment I stuck a couple of nails into a 120-volt outlet. I got quite a jolt, but if I'd been living in Europe, that would probably have been my last earthly act.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627

 

[Hirsti]

You cannot switch between PAL/NTSC on the HX9V
If you buy in Europe you get a PAL 50p, if you buy in USA you get a NTSC 60p

Nowadays with most HDTV's allowing input and switching from both formats and Computers don't use the formats then it really doesn't matter if you get either model.

Obviously check before hand that your TV is one that accepts either transmission before running out and buying

 

[Johnish]

Well Stephen, kinda like which side of the road one drives on. Raised in New Zealand (on the left) and moved to Canada and Mexico (on the right) for 25 years and now back in New Zealand (sometimes down the middle), and not unlike your 'experiment' I have, on the odd occasion, pulled out and headed off on the wrong side. Why on earth people decided to be 'different' God only knows, but it is very inconvenient.

Thank you Hirsti, I shall be sure to specify NTSC. It's not my TV (don't have one) I need to consider, it's my other cameras and my preference for 30p (or 60P) versus 25p and 50p. In as much as I publish on my Internet website and given that 99% of my work is outdoors, no florescent light flicker problem, then good as gold shooting NTSC in a PAL country. I imagine it is no big deal to make the cameras switchable, as is my Sony EX1, but there may be market segmentation considerations involved.

Thanks for your inputs; much appreciated.

 

[paldrive]

I have just received a tx100 and as it is a PAL it records 1080p at 50p. It works ok but, as I have a TV that accepts both pal and ntsc up to 60p, I was wondering if the NTSC tx100, which records at 60p, should have been better because of the 10 more frames per second (smoother video?).

I have searched the net but I didn't find any comparison between the two versions or an eventual conclusion about the results of recording 1080 60p vs 50p. In the past, before HD, pal was considered superior but now with HD those differences should be surpassed. So I ask your opinion about this matter.

In a video sample I downloaded, which was recorder with a 60p tx100, I noticed some tearing during pans; my 50p does not produce any tear at all even with crazy fast pans: can tearing occur because of 60p?

And then, as recording bandwith is 28mbs both for pal and ntsc version, 60p frames should theoretically contain less data than 50p ones (28/60

Finally, is that true that filming under house lights having a different hertz frequency (i.e. 50hz lights filmed at 60p) produce flashy video?

Thankyou very much for your suggestions!

 

[Johnish]

Paldrive, I’m not an ‘expert’ by any means when it comes to the finer technical points about video technology. I suggest you head over to DVINFO dot net where you will find all kinds of nerds who will argue this and that till the cows come home. My experience is that the difference between 50 p and 60p when viewed on my high end 24” monitor using VLC player is indistinguishable whereas the difference between 25p (and of course 24p so beloved by the would-be block-buster amateur film makers) is indeed quite noticeable. The 24p people love the jerky motion and detest 30p because they say it looks like ‘video’. From my limited testing 30p nicely lit, carefully exposed and touched up in a pro NLE software program (I use Vegas Pro 10) 30p and everything above, including 50p and 60p, is the most pleasing.

Seems to me the NLE software available today is nothing short of miraculous in that you can drop most anything on the timeline and render off to whatever takes your fancy and be sure of very good results.

But just like there are pixel peepers here whose primary love is with the gear (no offense intended guys) there are video gearheads who have made it their life’s focus to deconstruct the technology surrounding the making of moving pictures rather than the content. And of course both are important if you want to be the next Peter Jackson.

I understand that the intended end use is somewhat important in determining what setting one shoots with but in as much as most of my publishing in on the Internet I’m more than happy with a final render 1280 x 720 30p MP4 output using the standard template in Vegas Pro 10.

Can’t help with the tearing in ‘crazy fast pans’ as I’ve no experience with that. If you have a high end pro camera and the mind of a rocket scientist I believe that is all manageable but shooting video with a camera such as the HX100v (I have one on order) with next to no manual control you're kind of stuck with it. The difference between 50p and 60p and the bit rates associated...I will go out on a limb and suggest you would be hard pressed to see the difference (all else being equal which it never is).

Couple of days ago I did a test shoot using my EX1 set to HD 30p in a bar lit by fluorescent lighting here in New Zealand, a PAL country running 50 Hz power supply. The flickering was unacceptable but so was the mood created so I turned off the fluorescent light and installed several regular tungsten bulbs, carefully placed, and created the ambiance I was after. But yes, if you’re doing a quick shoot unrehearsed and spontaneous under fluorescent as described above then flickering is a problem. I believe it might be possible to deal with that in post but I’ve no experience.

Maybe someone here with a HX100v, either PAL or NTSC, might shoot some footage, 50p or 60p, and see if there is a visible difference when played on a TV such as yours. I would suggest (after such a long-winded response) that for day-to-day amateur shooting which will invariably include shooting indoors under florescent lighting one should stick with PAL in a Pal country and NTSC in an NTSC country and shoot 50p and 60p rather than 24p and 25p but it really is a matter of taste.

Hope that’s of some help

Cheers...

 

[Stephen McDonald]

When the television systems we've used since the late 1940s were established, the broadcast frequencies that were allocated for transmitters were given a 6 Megahertz bandwidth. With analog signals, there was only so much that could be accomplished within those channels. The NTSC committee chose to have 480 scanning lines that were visible onscreen, with 60 interlaced scans per second, each carrying half the lines for a full frame.

The PAL committee chose instead to have about 100 more scanning lines, but have only 50 interlaced scans. The PAL system produced a sharper picture, but there was always a slight flutter that could be detected, from the slower scanning frequency. If only they had allocated 8 Megahertz for each channel, they could have had the best of both systems and there would have been no incompatibility around the world.

Now that cameras and camcorders are shooting HD video, with 1080 scanning lines for everyone, the carried-over 50 hertz PAL scanning frequency from the days of standard-definition and analog broadcasting, presents a disadvantage. If there's a way that the 60 hertz NTSC scanning frequency can be used on a practical basis in a PAL country, it would be best for HD video. However, the HDTV broadcast systems in PAL countries use a different system, called DVB-T, while NTSC countries use the ATSC system. These systems continue using the old scanning frequencies and anything shot with one system's specifications would have to be converted to be shown on the other's system. This is done routinely, but not without some added time and effort. Whether or not the converted digital video shows any degradation, as occurred with analog conversion, I'm not certain.

I have just received a tx100 and as it is a PAL it records 1080p at 50p. It works ok but, as I have a TV that accepts both pal and ntsc up to 60p, I was wondering if the NTSC tx100, which records at 60p, should have been better because of the 10 more frames per second (smoother video?).

I have searched the net but I didn't find any comparison between the two versions or an eventual conclusion about the results of recording 1080 60p vs 50p. In the past, before HD, pal was considered superior but now with HD those differences should be surpassed. So I ask your opinion about this matter.

In a video sample I downloaded, which was recorder with a 60p tx100, I noticed some tearing during pans; my 50p does not produce any tear at all even with crazy fast pans: can tearing occur because of 60p?

And then, as recording bandwith is 28mbs both for pal and ntsc version, 60p frames should theoretically contain less data than 50p ones (28/60

Finally, is that true that filming under house lights having a different hertz frequency (i.e. 50hz lights filmed at 60p) produce flashy video?

Thankyou very much for your suggestions!

--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627