PAL version announced in Europe !

Steven-Marc Couchouron · July 13th, 2004, 12:23 PM

Simon, I assume you've also had the opportunity to shoot with the DVX100A. Would you say that there is a distinctive increase in picture quality with the XL2 when shooting in 16:9 ?

Simon Beer · July 13th, 2004, 12:25 PM

Hi Rob / Greg,

The 16:9 / 25p knobs are very positive. Will they loosen with wear? Who knows.

I haven'y had a chance to try a-d. But will give it a go tommorow (hopefully).

As for the white balance I had no troubles, we were in a controlled environment shooting tungsten. All shots were manually whitebalanced and the editor (who stayed up till 3am last night) didn't shout at me today. We were checking shots on 9" and 20" Sony monitors and all looked great.

I know what you mean about the XL1, I'll try the XL2 at work in a room light by sodium - even DVW700's used to have problems with that!

Cheers!

Simon.

Ed Smith · July 13th, 2004, 12:27 PM

Hi Simon,

Glad to have a representative from Optex. I've passed your stands a couple of times at the Video Forum and Production Show.
Can't wait for the video...

Rob, I was thinking about theratrical release with 24FPS.

Simon Beer · July 13th, 2004, 12:28 PM

Hi Steven,

I have "fiddled" with the DVX100, haven't shot in anger with it and wouldn't like to make any comparisons as I don't think I am qualified.

I will say Canon have taken the XL2 to a new level, the quality compared to other DV is something else.

Cheers!

Simon.

Simon Beer · July 13th, 2004, 12:42 PM

Hi Ed,

You may well have seen me at shows, I'm the young good looking member of the team ;o)

I do work for OpTex but I also own and operate myself, I currently have an XL1, a dirt cheap Samsung upright handheld type DV camera and edit on FCP HD laptop and desktop.

I really don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm here peddling my wares, that annoys me and is not something I want to do. Hence I'm not shouting OpTex all the time.

Its a terrible thing working somewhere that your interests lay, so much great kit that I can't afford!

As for the video this will come shortly after some paperwork has been completed with the pr company. I have some other test footage that I will stick online this week, this was shot on a NTSC XL2 and converted to PAL - stills looks great.

Cheers!

Simon.

Peter Moore · July 13th, 2004, 12:57 PM

Too bad the PAL version won't support 24p. If it did all the filmmakers would jump on it.

Glenn Gipson · July 13th, 2004, 04:22 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : Too bad the PAL version won't support 24p. If it did all the filmmakers would jump on it. -->>>

24p and 25p are practically the same visually, and transferring it to 35mm is a non-issue.

Mark Grgurev · July 14th, 2004, 12:01 PM

What exactly were you shooting, Simon?

Richard Lewis · July 14th, 2004, 12:57 PM

Simon,
I dont know if its just me being stupid, but how do I play your 50mb .txt file? :S

Mark Grgurev · July 14th, 2004, 12:59 PM

change .txt to .mov

Richard Lewis · July 14th, 2004, 01:16 PM

Thnx :D

Peter Moore · July 14th, 2004, 02:37 PM

"24p and 25p are practically the same visually, "

Visually yes, but not aurally. You have to speed up all sound by 4% which is quite noticeable to a good ear. Or you have to use pitch shifting with time duration preserved which generates other nasty noise effects.

Anyway more resolution, even for DVD, is always better. I would shoot at the 576 lines and downrez to 480 and guaranteed would get a better picture.

Andreas van Neerbos · July 15th, 2004, 03:11 AM

24p doesn't fit in the PAL DV specs. PAL uses a lower framerate than NTSC (25p/50i vs 30p/60i), so it can have a higher resolution in the same bitrate. 24p in DV uses pulldown, wich is actually bad usage of the bitrate, since it has the same (NTSC) resolution but a lower framerate. It writes some fields double to tape.

If you want 24p on a PAL camera, you would need a pulldown system that doubles every 24th frame. This would be total different from the NTSC system, wich doubles every 2nd or 3rd frame. You need special software to edit the footage, wich costs a great amount of money to develop, and since people in PAL countries (like me) are happy with 25p, almost nobody will buy it.

Anyway, I agree, more resolution is always better, and 24p PAL pulldown (if it existed) would throw away less information than 24p NTSC pulldown. I guess the market isn't big enough...

July 13th, 2004, 12:23 PM	#16
Steven-Marc Couchouron Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 110 Images: 5	Simon, I assume you've also had the opportunity to shoot with the DVX100A. Would you say that there is a distinctive increase in picture quality with the XL2 when shooting in 16:9 ? __________________ SMCproductions.com

July 13th, 2004, 12:27 PM	#18
Ed Smith Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hampshire, England Posts: 1,545	Hi Simon, Glad to have a representative from Optex. I've passed your stands a couple of times at the Video Forum and Production Show. Can't wait for the video... Rob, I was thinking about theratrical release with 24FPS. __________________ Ed Smith Hampshire, UK Good things come to those who wait My Skiing web www.Frostytour.co.uk For quick answers Search dvinfo.net \| The best in the business: dvinfo.net Sponsors

July 14th, 2004, 12:57 PM	#24
Richard Lewis Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Manchester and Kent, UK Posts: 256	Simon, I dont know if its just me being stupid, but how do I play your 50mb .txt file? :S __________________ Richard Lewis. Steadicam Owner / Operator

July 14th, 2004, 01:16 PM	#26
Richard Lewis Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Manchester and Kent, UK Posts: 256	Thnx :D __________________ Richard Lewis. Steadicam Owner / Operator

July 13th, 2004, 12:25 PM	#17
Simon Beer Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 48	Hi Rob / Greg, The 16:9 / 25p knobs are very positive. Will they loosen with wear? Who knows. I haven'y had a chance to try a-d. But will give it a go tommorow (hopefully). As for the white balance I had no troubles, we were in a controlled environment shooting tungsten. All shots were manually whitebalanced and the editor (who stayed up till 3am last night) didn't shout at me today. We were checking shots on 9" and 20" Sony monitors and all looked great. I know what you mean about the XL1, I'll try the XL2 at work in a room light by sodium - even DVW700's used to have problems with that! Cheers! Simon.

July 13th, 2004, 12:28 PM	#19
Simon Beer Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 48	Hi Steven, I have "fiddled" with the DVX100, haven't shot in anger with it and wouldn't like to make any comparisons as I don't think I am qualified. I will say Canon have taken the XL2 to a new level, the quality compared to other DV is something else. Cheers! Simon.

July 13th, 2004, 12:42 PM	#20
Simon Beer Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 48	Hi Ed, You may well have seen me at shows, I'm the young good looking member of the team ;o) I do work for OpTex but I also own and operate myself, I currently have an XL1, a dirt cheap Samsung upright handheld type DV camera and edit on FCP HD laptop and desktop. I really don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm here peddling my wares, that annoys me and is not something I want to do. Hence I'm not shouting OpTex all the time. Its a terrible thing working somewhere that your interests lay, so much great kit that I can't afford! As for the video this will come shortly after some paperwork has been completed with the pr company. I have some other test footage that I will stick online this week, this was shot on a NTSC XL2 and converted to PAL - stills looks great. Cheers! Simon.

July 13th, 2004, 12:57 PM	#21
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Too bad the PAL version won't support 24p. If it did all the filmmakers would jump on it.

July 13th, 2004, 04:22 PM	#22
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : Too bad the PAL version won't support 24p. If it did all the filmmakers would jump on it. -->>> 24p and 25p are practically the same visually, and transferring it to 35mm is a non-issue.

July 14th, 2004, 12:01 PM	#23
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	What exactly were you shooting, Simon?

July 14th, 2004, 12:59 PM	#25
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	change .txt to .mov

July 14th, 2004, 02:37 PM	#27
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	"24p and 25p are practically the same visually, " Visually yes, but not aurally. You have to speed up all sound by 4% which is quite noticeable to a good ear. Or you have to use pitch shifting with time duration preserved which generates other nasty noise effects. Anyway more resolution, even for DVD, is always better. I would shoot at the 576 lines and downrez to 480 and guaranteed would get a better picture.

July 15th, 2004, 03:11 AM	#28
Andreas van Neerbos Tourist Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Netherlands Posts: 2	24p doesn't fit in the PAL DV specs. PAL uses a lower framerate than NTSC (25p/50i vs 30p/60i), so it can have a higher resolution in the same bitrate. 24p in DV uses pulldown, wich is actually bad usage of the bitrate, since it has the same (NTSC) resolution but a lower framerate. It writes some fields double to tape. If you want 24p on a PAL camera, you would need a pulldown system that doubles every 24th frame. This would be total different from the NTSC system, wich doubles every 2nd or 3rd frame. You need special software to edit the footage, wich costs a great amount of money to develop, and since people in PAL countries (like me) are happy with 25p, almost nobody will buy it. Anyway, I agree, more resolution is always better, and 24p PAL pulldown (if it existed) would throw away less information than 24p NTSC pulldown. I guess the market isn't big enough...