pd170. pal or ntsc? at DVinfo.net

Joe Ryan · April 26th, 2004, 02:37 AM

ok, i think i've decided the 170's the camera for me (feature film, mostly interiors, mostly low light. also seems like a lot of independent features, that you've actually heard of, like 'tadpole', and the 'anniverary party', among others, are shot with 150's) however i do have a few questions, and you guys in here really seem to know your stuff,so, pal or ntsc? which one should i buy (i can't seem to find one to rent in my area, so it looks like i'll have to purchase) i know the basic plus/minus of this question (vert. res,25p) but i mean more practical, if i record direct to disk, can i then move that (pal footage) directly into an nle (which i will be purchasing as well) without problems. eventually when i want to put my movie on dvd's to be viewed in north america will i then have to do a pal to ntsc conversion, and will this then make the whole pal thing not worth the trouble. also have any of you used an anamorphic with this camera, if so, good/bad, does the camera have a 16:9 that is just as good (doesn't throw away res.), would the anamorphic affect the cameras low light ability? as you can tell, i'm thinking pal170 w/optex anamorphic might be the setup for me. but what do i know.

any replies/wisdom/advice would be greatly appreciated.

thank you in advance.

Frank Granovski · April 26th, 2004, 04:22 AM

Joe, go for a NTSC cam. Canada's broadcast system is NTSC and not PAL.

Dennis Hingsberg · April 27th, 2004, 05:56 PM

I chose PAL over NTSC when putting together my mini35 system back in November and I'm shooting here in North America. I'm on my 2nd short film, my first one was accepted and screened at a film festival back in February and should be sold later this summer.

PAL has higher resolution but you might only really benifit from this if you blow up to film because of the slightly better resolution and frame rate closer to 35mm film frame rate speed.

Typcially I edit all my footage on a PAL timeline and convert it to NTSC at the very end of my process. The result is beautiful and more cinematic in my mind than even a deinterlacer will do to 60i/30fps NTSC footage. This has something to do with the way software converts 50i/25fps to 60i/25fps - much like 24fps undergoes a 3:2 pull down to get it to 60i/30fps.

I'm not sure if I could go back to NTSC now. The "look" of the conversion is probably what I value most about shooting with PAL and converting to NTSC.

April 26th, 2004, 02:37 AM	#1
Joe Ryan Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA Posts: 36	pd170. pal or ntsc? ok, i think i've decided the 170's the camera for me (feature film, mostly interiors, mostly low light. also seems like a lot of independent features, that you've actually heard of, like 'tadpole', and the 'anniverary party', among others, are shot with 150's) however i do have a few questions, and you guys in here really seem to know your stuff,so, pal or ntsc? which one should i buy (i can't seem to find one to rent in my area, so it looks like i'll have to purchase) i know the basic plus/minus of this question (vert. res,25p) but i mean more practical, if i record direct to disk, can i then move that (pal footage) directly into an nle (which i will be purchasing as well) without problems. eventually when i want to put my movie on dvd's to be viewed in north america will i then have to do a pal to ntsc conversion, and will this then make the whole pal thing not worth the trouble. also have any of you used an anamorphic with this camera, if so, good/bad, does the camera have a 16:9 that is just as good (doesn't throw away res.), would the anamorphic affect the cameras low light ability? as you can tell, i'm thinking pal170 w/optex anamorphic might be the setup for me. but what do i know. any replies/wisdom/advice would be greatly appreciated. thank you in advance.

April 27th, 2004, 05:56 PM	#3
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	I chose PAL over NTSC when putting together my mini35 system back in November and I'm shooting here in North America. I'm on my 2nd short film, my first one was accepted and screened at a film festival back in February and should be sold later this summer. PAL has higher resolution but you might only really benifit from this if you blow up to film because of the slightly better resolution and frame rate closer to 35mm film frame rate speed. Typcially I edit all my footage on a PAL timeline and convert it to NTSC at the very end of my process. The result is beautiful and more cinematic in my mind than even a deinterlacer will do to 60i/30fps NTSC footage. This has something to do with the way software converts 50i/25fps to 60i/25fps - much like 24fps undergoes a 3:2 pull down to get it to 60i/30fps. I'm not sure if I could go back to NTSC now. The "look" of the conversion is probably what I value most about shooting with PAL and converting to NTSC. __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

April 26th, 2004, 04:22 AM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Joe, go for a NTSC cam. Canada's broadcast system is NTSC and not PAL.