50 Vs 60 Hz
60 Hz material captures motion a bit more accurately and "fluidly" than 50 Hz material. The drawback is that it takes approximately 1/5 more bandwidth to transmit, if all other parameters of the image (resolution, aspect ratio) are equal. "Approximately", because interframe compression techniques, such as MPEG, are a bit more efficient with higher frame rates, because the consecutive frames also become a bit more similar.
There are, however, technical and political obstacles for adopting a single worldwide video format. The most important technical problem is that quite often the lighting of the scene is achieved with lamps which flicker at a rate related to the local mains frequency. For instance the mercury lighting used in stadiums (twice the mains frequency). Capturing video under such conditions must be done at a matching rate, or the colours will flicker badly on the screen. Even an AC incandescent light may be a problem for a camera if it is underpowered or near the end of its useful life.
The necessity to select a single universal video format (for the sake of the global material interchange) should anyway become irrelevant in the digital age. The director of video production would then be free to select the most appropriate format for the job, and a video camera would become a global instrument (currently the market is very fragmented).
Read more about this topic: Moving Image Formats