Does PAL or NTSC system affects pixel resolutions.

[kohcarver2]

Hi everybody, i am new to this forum and i hope someone can help me with this probelm.

Does anybody knows if PAL or NTSC systems affects or "limits" the pixel resolution? Currently i have a 1.2 MP PAL CCTV camera attached to an MPEG4 encoder before the video is output to a TV screen.

Camera: 1.2MP PAL system, 20x zoom
Encoder : suppport MPEG 1, 2, 4
TV : PAL system

Therefore does it make sense if i have a higher MP camera so that i can capture better resolution even if i zoom into the details of an object.?? If the pixel resolution quality is limited by the PAL system, how do i do a compatibility check to see what is the best MP size i should get for my camera??

Thanks a lot for any help and suggestion given.
regards

[guns1inger]

How is this camera connected to the encoder ?

[kohcarver2]

The camera is connected to the encoder using normal rca video cables.

[jagabo]

NTSC = 720x480, 59.94 fields per second
PAL = 720x576, 50 fields per second

<edit>
fixed frame rates!
</edit>

[Cornucopia]

guns1inger asked that because it might be possible for a camera to be connected via USB2 or Firewire and be spitting out raw pixels, to be encoded for the TV system from within the computer. THESE kinds of cameras would allow you to make full use of all the pixels available to the camera (might even be able to ignore the Bayer Pattern and create a much higher resolution monochrome camera).

But it doesn't sound like yours is that kind of camera. If you've got regular RCA video out, it's already been formatted for that system.

In this case, that means:

PAL system (which IS the limiting factor here):
25fps, (Interlaced?)
YUV colorspace (possibly still 4:2:2?)
Uncompresses (yet?)
D1 sampling--720x576 (=414,720 pixels, or 0.4 MP) or 704x576 (=405,504 pixels, or 0.4MP),
which meanss it's using only 1/3 of the available pixels.

UNLESS..., your camera is a 1-chip camera using ADSPEAK and is exaggerating it's pixel count by counting the pixels BEFORE Bayer Pattern color processing. If so, then your actual equivalent pixel count of the camera should be called 1/4 of the stated, which is .3MP.
This is quite possible (and common ).

What is the model of your camera?

Scott


>>>>>>>>>
edit: jagabo, you got the frame rates switched!

[guns1inger]

In fact, if the signal is coming via RCA, there is a good chance that it is substantially less than 720 x 576 in reality. However, the better the camera, the better the image to soe degree. The question is - at what point do the returns diminish so much that the cost isn't worth it. I would suggest you are at that point.

[edDV]

This is my best guess.

If coming by rca composite connector it is already analog PAL.

625/50 interlaced lines with horizontal and vertical blanking
576 active scan lines
4.43MHz PAL subcarrier for colour modulation.

Horizontal resolution would be determined by the processing between the CCD and the PAL encoder chip. Short of a spec, you would measure "horizontal lines of resolution" from a resolution test chart off a good monitor connected to the rca cable. U and V bandwidth will be less than 1 MHz.

The MPeg4 encoder would sample this into something like 352x288, 352x576 or 720x576 YV12.
http://www.avisynth.org/mediawiki/wiki/YV12_FAQ

[kohcarver2]

Brand of the camera is Sony FCB-EX980SP.
From the specs, its stated that the video output is

VBS:1.0Vp-p (sync negative)
Y/C output

But i am using RCA cable to connect to the encoder before going to the LCD or TV

[edDV]

...
Therefore does it make sense if i have a higher MP camera so that i can capture better resolution even if i zoom into the details of an object.?? If the pixel resolution quality is limited by the PAL system, how do i do a compatibility check to see what is the best MP size i should get for my camera??

The specs on that camera (from manual) are shown below. Key issues:

Y/C (S-Video) or composite PAL outputs available
Camera horizontal resolution in PAL is 460 "lines of resolution".
At 4:3 aspect that is equivalent to about 575-640 pixels by 576 lines. It is similar performance to a consumer camcorder but has a better lens and more modes.

By contrast a prosumer camcorder like a Sony VX-2100 would have 530 "lines of resolution" for a closer match to 720x576. It would also have digital video transfer (IEEE-1394) for a better transfer than analog capture.

Megapixels aren't the only key factor. The single CCD EX-980 must share pixel resolution over RG&B where the VX-2100 uses 3xCCD of 340K pixels per component. What counts is the resolution at camera output. Since this is determined by shooting a test chart, the total camera (including lens) is being evaluated.

[ultramarine]

which is better? pal or ntsc?

[edDV]

which is better? pal or ntsc?

Depends on use. Digital transfer is better than analog transfer.

NTSC vs PAL is usually a regional issue. Singapore uses PAL.

[jagabo]

PAL has more spacial resolution. NTSC has more temporal resolution.

[edDV]

PAL has more spacial resolution. NTSC has more temporal resolution.

That is effectively the difference within component digital television (ITU-Rec 601) but historical issues force use of one or the other by geographic region.

Nations first separated based on vertical field scan frequency 50Hz or 60Hz.

50Hz nations standardized on 625 vertical lines (576 visible).
60Hz nations standardized on 525 vertical lines (480-486 visible).

50Hz nations standardized on either the PAL or SECAM modulated subcarrier for color.
60Hz nations standardized on the NTSC modulated subcarrier for color.

These composite television standards (analog and digital versions) are being decommissioned in favor of component digital standards (based on ITU-Rec 601) and high definition extensions. All component digital systems are based on YUV components not Y/C (an analog modulated subcarrier). In other words, there is no NTSC, PAL or SECAM in component digital video, only an accomodation for these legacy standards.

What remains of PAL (704x576/25) and NTSC (704x480/29.97) are frame rates and frame sizes. High definition extensions standardize frame sizes to 1280x720 and 1920x1080 so only legacy frame rates remain.

[ultramarine]

Oh.... I don't understand all this. My dvd players plays both ntsc and pal.

My eye can't tell the difference on picture clarity between PAL & NTSC.

But ... somehow, i find NTSC smoother. So I use ntsc. Is this because its 29.97fps?

[guns1inger]

Is your TV multi-format ?
Does your player output NTSC for NTSC and PAl for PAL ?

If your player outputs NTSC for PAL then it is converting on the the fly, and you won't actually be seeing native PAL. My player can convert NTSC to PAL, or play it as NTSC. As I have a multi-format TV, I elect to have the format retained (NTSC for NTSC, PAL for PAL) and the results are always smooth, regardless of format.

[ultramarine]

Thanks.

[kohcarver2]

Sorry edDV,

The specs for the cameras shown by you is similiar but these are not the actual one. The camera i am using is FCB-EX980 SP. It has 740K pixels resolution which is more then the above models.

But overall i still don get it, does that means i using a better camera than my encoder (Mpeg 4)can support or does it means the more the pixel is better and it does not matter whether is it PAL or NTSC system???

[edDV]

Sorry edDV,

The specs for the cameras shown by you is similiar but these are not the actual one. The camera i am using is FCB-EX980 SP. It has 740K pixels resolution which is more then the above models.

But overall i still don get it, does that means i using a better camera than my encoder (Mpeg 4)can support or does it means the more the pixel is better and it does not matter whether is it PAL or NTSC system???

Do you have a manual for your camera that can tell us "horizontal resolution" measured in "lines"? As said above, pixel resolution means little in the context of a camera that only outputs analog composite PAL. You are limited by its output PAL performance.

Second point, a direct digital capture has potential for far greater quality than analog PAL to a capture device.

[jagabo]

It's just s-video, 460-470 lines:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/docs/manuals/fcb-ex980-ac4g100121.pdf

[edDV]

It's just s-video, 460-470 lines:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/docs/manuals/fcb-ex980-ac4g100121.pdf

Yes, the EX-980P and the EX-980SP seem to have the same output resolution.