Anyone seen the PAL 100A?

[Joe Carney]

IF you plan on going for international distribution (along with stateside) and you don't plan on doing any sort of eng type work in the States, or shooting weddings, or anything that absolutely requires NTSC . the PAL version might be worth considering. I'm considering it.
Mostly for either direct to DVD or uprez to Windows Media HD format. But thats me. I don't recomend my advice to anyone but myself.

It would be nice to get some work doing Human Interest programs for Euro/PAL based entertainment orgs with interest in things happening in the States. That would be an excellent reason to go PAL.

[John Hooper]

Still no sign of the PAL camera in the UK.

Anyone know if it is available in the US? The UK£ - US$ is good at the moment.

[Sten Newfield]

Does anyone have any experience buying from this Singaporean e-shop? Just stumbled upon their site when searching information about the PAL DVX100A.

http://www.elicr.com/prodoverview.as...lay=Spec&zoom=

They claim to have the PAL version in stock already, although I remember reading from somewhere that the PAL version won't be available until April. Go figure.

[Jon Fordham]

I have shot with both the DVX100P NTSC and the DVX100E PAL. As already stated, the PAL version does not support 24P or 30P, only 25P. There is no reason for 24P or 30P support in the PAL model. Since the PAL standard runs at 25 fps, and 25 fps can be transfered to film at a 1:1 frame ratio, 25P takes care of both. You can do progressive video for PAL distribution or progressive acquistion for film out. And since the PAL standard does have higher vertical resolution (which is what counts) than NTSC, you will get a higher res image. Couple the higher vertical resolution of the PAL standard with the full vertical detail of progressive scan, and you get a full 570P recording. That's only 150 lines of vertical resolution away from the 720P High Definition standard!

But think about this:

Since interlaced scan systems coupled with line pair summation only gave us about 400 lines of vertical resolution in NTSC compared to the interlaced scan line pair summation of PAL giving us about 450 lines of vertical resolution, the NTSC DVX100 (in thin line detail) is already giving us a slight edge on what the old interlaced PAL cameras had on us.


I have noticed a few small differences in the NTSC vs PAL models. The PAL model has an additional colour setting and the menu is a bit different. But not a lot of differences. And no additional controls or features. I can tell you that to my eyes, the PAL version is noticeably superior in terms of resolution.

My advice would be to think long and hard before you buy a PAL camera if you live in NTSC land. Yes, the PAL standad is superior. Yes the PAL standard will be better for a film out. And you don't have to screw around with the 24P pulldown crap in post. But you will be locked into a standard that very few in NTSC land can work with. Not to mention that you won't be able to plug it into your NTSC TV and watch your masterpieces...

[Brian Mitchell Warshawsky]

Jon Fordham wrote:
>>>I have shot with both the DVX100P NTSC and the DVX100E PAL.>>>

John,

Your comments in the JVC HD forum really made me take a closer look at the DVX100. Thanks again for the invaluable real-world perspective.

Isn't there a way to render PAL DVX100 footage from say, Vegas, onto a DVD for viewing on an NTSC set?

Or would DV Film Atlantis solve this problem?


Is there an advantage to staying in interlace mode and render 24P in post?

Brian

[Jon Fordham]

Brian,

Glad I could help.

First, let me start by saying that I am in no way a post production expert. I am a Director of Photography and often work as a Digital Imaging Technician on HD jobs where I am working with a paintbox or directly manipulating the camera's DSP. So my experience with any and all post production techniques is from either an observant point of view or having been involved in the manipulation of imagery that I shot.

That having been said...

Sure, you can tell your post system to export, render, or otherwise output whatever standard you desire. But the ability of a given system to perform such a task with any sort of quality results is arguable. Certainly many systems and software applications give you the option to output your work in any/many number of varying formats and standards. But usually those applications can't deliver the quality results that you get from a system that was designed for that sole purpose. I would much rather have a Digital Standards Conversion of my PAL work via an Alchemist SDI system instead of a FCP4 export. Or better yet, a Teranex Standards Conversion. But that's just me. If the quality of the results you get from your own conversion method suite your needs, then you're set. But I doubt that a $1,000 NLE application could compete with the results of a $50,000 Standards conversion system.


I would not recommend shooting 60i, and extracting 24 frames from the 60i recording if 24 frame progressive capture is an option. In comparison to a 24P capture, the 24 frame extraction from 60 interlaced fields would produce less than desirable results. Primarily due to the drop in resolution you would get by having to interpolate single fields into full frames.

I have worked on two Varicam projects where the DP chose to shoot everything in 60P. This was an approach I suggested to give them the option in post to change the speed as they saw fit without having to create a fake looking post effect. Since the Varicam shoots and records in 60P (full frames) instead of 60i (half frames), this method is viable as a quality way of deciding what you want after the fact. With 60 whole frames, you can still extract 24 frames per second as well as creating slow motion effects "natively" so to speak. Unfortunately this only works with progressive capture.

Jon