PAL, and NTSC

[Magic-Man]

Right. I live in good ol England and i am desperate for a new camera. Our format here is PAL, but i was wondering, if i were to get a NTSC cam, what would that stop me from doing? Would it only stop me from plugging the cam into my tv?

[rhys]

Yeah i think so.. and you would have to change the settings of ur projects and stuff (in premiere and a few other programs).

[Lawriejaffa]

Yeah and there would be a whole host of other problems as well, so DO NOT buy an NTSC camera.

There are all kinds of compromises you would have to make in post, other various issues of compatability, and quite plainly you will even have significantly less screen resolution with an NTSC imo, especially if playing in PAL.

So no, you would have to be a nut job to buy an NTSC camera in the UK, its a totally different broadcasting standard so there is no point. Do not mistake any 'bargains' you might percieve for NTSC cameras, often they are cheaper (not only cos they sell from america anyway lol) but also because the NTSC system is less demanding than PAL.

A good example is the fact that PAL XL-2s have always been more expensive than their NTSC equivelants.

[Magic-Man]

ok thanks a lot, really helped me out. Cheers guy and gal

[Ornsack]

PAL > NTSC

[Magic-Man]

oh btw, what time of compromises. Its just so damn tempting! Purely because of the price. If there are any major problems, then i will definatley not even consider, but if its something like a lower resolution, i am sure i can live with that. I am desperate for a camera because i broke two in a matter of weeks.

[Matt]

If it breaks sending it back is going to be a big, expensive problem.

You would lose quality every time you convert to PAL and converting frame rates is never great.

My advice is get a PAL camera. Either pay the extra or get a lower spec camera for the same money. You will save yourself so much hassle in the future.

[Ornsack]

NTSC isn't just a low resolution, it's bad quality anyway (compare the fuzzyness of American sitcom images with the crispness of ours etc). It's even nicknamed 'Never Twice the Same Colour' for reasons that are probably obvious We rendered our John Bunnell sketch in to NTSC and back again for that American look and everyone moaned about the picture quality.

And then after that, compatibility problems with your TV might be a problem. Compatibility with your VHS player will almost certainly be a problem. And you'll have to convert to PAL anyway if you make a DVD which is just another problem.

I saw a MiniDV camera going for less than £100 at a car boot sale yesterday for poo's sake!

And I almost forgot, you'll have to get all your MiniDV tapes imported from the US too

If you're paying a bit more for PAL, you're pretty much paying to avoid all the problems you'll have with NTSC.

[Lawriejaffa]

lol well if you get an NTSC camera in the UK, you would be a complete Nut... the only people doing that are those producing material sent straight to the US.

I've heard of some guys buying PAL cameras from the USA (those who intend to output finally on film) but NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER would anyone in their right mind buy an NTSC camera for PAL land.

If you do it yoru an idiot and i will have no sympathy for the enormous buyers remorse you will experience for doing so...

[Magic-Man]

okayokay! I won't get an ntsc cam. Thanks for the advice. Time to start saving some moolah.

[Lawriejaffa]

Good lad

Check the dvxuser.com forum, its market place section is recommended for picking up 2nd hand dvx's.

Where is it ur based again?

[Epsilon]

NTSC isn't just a low resolution, it's bad quality anyway (compare the fuzzyness of American sitcom images with the crispness of ours etc). It's even nicknamed 'Never Twice the Same Colour' for reasons that are probably obvious We rendered our John Bunnell sketch in to NTSC and back again for that American look and everyone moaned about the picture quality.

Well, if you render Any footage to another format and back, there is quality loss no matter what. You basically destroyed all your frames in the process. No wonder it looked bad!

What we lose in pixels, we make up for in frame rate.

Even so, I think anybody that buys the wrong encoding for their region is nuts.

[Magic-Man]

Where is it ur based again?

I am based in Hertforshire England.

[UFProductions]

NTSC isn't just a low resolution, it's bad quality anyway (compare the fuzzyness of American sitcom images with the crispness of ours etc).

Funny that. British sitcoms aired here (Canada is NTSC too) are fuzzy compared to Canadian and US signals. It's probably the conversion for broadcast that deuce's it up.

[Ornsack]

Well, if you render Any footage to another format and back, there is quality loss no matter what. You basically destroyed all your frames in the process. No wonder it looked bad!

What we lose in pixels, we make up for in frame rate.

Even so, I think anybody that buys the wrong encoding for their region is nuts.

Ye know what I mean though! Early episodes of Friends are shot on film, but then they're edited on video (loosing us around 100 lines of resolution) at 24 fps, so it's jerky too (sometimes it speeds up, and sometimes it slows down). But recently I noticed that when they re-ran Cheers they got their copies from film converted to PAL and sped up to 25fps, and it looked like a modern sitcom!

And you say you make up for it in frame rate, but half the time people want to film at 24fps anyway!


All these problems will be cured when we move to HD properly, so the resolution remains the same worldwide and the framerate becomes a question of personal choice.

[Epsilon]

Haha. I don't know what the big boom about 24 fps is. It seems to be the most important thing on everybody's mind when they are shooting a movie. But the fact is, shot properly, 24 and 30 aren't that different in the end. The things I shoot with 30 looks more professional than others anyway. Those people ought to stop worrying about the hype and actually focus on the important things in their productions! 24p will STILL look like video unless your lighting and corrections are done correctly.

It will be interesting going into a HD world. It is amazing how we have yet to even create a standard widescreen ratio! However16x9 is the most common right now.

[Lawriejaffa]

24p is a lot more than hype, it simulates the motion of film, and allows for an frame field integrity that in effect is more detailed and stable than any normal interlaced video.

It is the bee's knees and is well deserved.

With s*** lighting and crappy values elsewhere then 24p will still give a filmic motion compared to video (with a big difference.) The only difference is that it will be filmic motion footage with cr** lighting etc etc lol

[Epsilon]

I don't know about that... I've shot with both 24 and 30 and the final results are not discriminately unsimilar. Even if it did move like film, you would never realize it while scowling from hideous lighting!

[Lawriejaffa]

Well then i think you've gone blind in ur old age Epsilon hehe, cos theres an OBVIOUSLY discernable difference between 24p or 25p and normal banded video frame rates. Horrible lighting will make anything look cr** tho, whether it looks like film or not is irrelevant (cos even film can be shot in poor lighting)

My saying is that a film look is not simply good lighting and good this and that, its a technical aspect instead relating to things like the latitude, the colour palette (or colour gamma gurve) and the motion of movement etc etc.

[nigel101]

id stick with pal cos you will need convertrs and your edit suite will have to be able to take nstc. With the frame rates ive heard always shoot 25 this is because of editing.