Pal to NTSC is it a big quailty drop to convert at DVinfo.net

Dwight Flynn · December 23rd, 2004, 02:00 PM

I hate to admit it but I have never had to shoot in PAL, however, since some of the new cams that I am interested in (ie. Sony's HVR-Z1/HVR-M10U FX1, etc.) will only give me progressive in 25p not 24, I am kinda interested in knowing what type of headache it will be to convert from Pal to NTSC (and what % of resolution I can expect to lose). I hate this indirect method but se la vie.

Thanks

Graeme Nattress · December 23rd, 2004, 10:19 PM

The resolution of the "PAL" and "NTSC" versions of the camera are the same, but the "PAL" version might be less compressed. However, the camera's progressive modes look bad and are low rez compared to what a decent smart-de-interlacer can do in post.

Graeme

Dwight Flynn · December 24th, 2004, 09:21 AM

Got it. So I'll wait until NAB (or get an xl2 and still wait until NAB)

Rob Lohman · December 29th, 2004, 05:06 AM

I would seriously test this conversion out before going down this
road (ie, buying a camera!). The resolution is the least of your
troubles since PAL is higher (720 x 576 instead of 720 x 480). The
problem comes with framerates. If you want to stay true to NTSC
you will have to convert to 30p which will probably introduce jitters
into your motion etc. If you want to go down to 24p it is easiest
to interprete the footage as 24p and then slow the audio down
by 4% to match the new length. This is what Europe does all the
time to confirm 25p footage to 24p.

December 23rd, 2004, 02:00 PM	#1
Dwight Flynn Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 393	Pal to NTSC is it a big quailty drop to convert I hate to admit it but I have never had to shoot in PAL, however, since some of the new cams that I am interested in (ie. Sony's HVR-Z1/HVR-M10U FX1, etc.) will only give me progressive in 25p not 24, I am kinda interested in knowing what type of headache it will be to convert from Pal to NTSC (and what % of resolution I can expect to lose). I hate this indirect method but se la vie. Thanks

December 23rd, 2004, 10:19 PM	#2
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	The resolution of the "PAL" and "NTSC" versions of the camera are the same, but the "PAL" version might be less compressed. However, the camera's progressive modes look bad and are low rez compared to what a decent smart-de-interlacer can do in post. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

December 29th, 2004, 05:06 AM	#4
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I would seriously test this conversion out before going down this road (ie, buying a camera!). The resolution is the least of your troubles since PAL is higher (720 x 576 instead of 720 x 480). The problem comes with framerates. If you want to stay true to NTSC you will have to convert to 30p which will probably introduce jitters into your motion etc. If you want to go down to 24p it is easiest to interprete the footage as 24p and then slow the audio down by 4% to match the new length. This is what Europe does all the time to confirm 25p footage to 24p. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

December 24th, 2004, 09:21 AM	#3
Dwight Flynn Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 393	Got it. So I'll wait until NAB (or get an xl2 and still wait until NAB)