NTSC vs PAL

[Ben McPhee]

Hey guys. :o) I'm an Australian Cinematrographer and Videographer, with an interest in filming Surf, Skate, and Snowboarding films.

 

My current camera is a PAL Panasonic DS-38A, but I'm looking to trade up to either a Sony VX 2100, or a Canon GL2. (Unless anyone has any other suggestions?) The Panasonic does the job, but the results are almost TOO clear. I would like a set up that blurs the line between Digital and Film, and the VX 2100 in particular seems to be something of an industry standard. (I've heard good things about the Canon too, but one review said that the colours are more vivid than the Sony's, and I know that's probably a plus, but I don't think I want that.)

 

My main concern is whether to go for a PAL or an NTSC model. There are a few factors in my decision.

 

1. In Australia we use PAL, but the majority of my market will probably be in NTSC. Is it easy to convert between the two for output to Video/DVD? And is there any loss in quality? Should I film in NTSC and convert to PAL? Or the other way around?

 

2. Is there any difference in the visual look of NTSC as opposed to PAL? I know about frame rates and size etc, but NTSC video kind of seems to be "Grungier", if you know what I mean. I kind of like that for my application. Is that accurate?

 

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Skate Vids, but I was wondering why some look amateurish, and others (Like "The DC Video", which is an exceptional video), look like hollywood productions.

 

I know there are a lot of factors, but basically, how much of that comes down to the video format used, and how much is in Post production?

 

Much of the footage in "The DC Video" is 16mm, but a good part of the Digi footage is of a very high quality. I have seen smaller films using the same equipment used in the bigger budget productions where the footage is quite clearly digital - way too crisp, if you know what I mean.

 

Would the better filmers be using some sort of filters? Vastly superior lenses? Or running their footage through a special process in post production to enhance it?

 

If you've ever watched the Deleted Scenes on a DVD, you'd probably have noticed that the quality usually sucks. How do they turn regular footage into that polished, finished product we see in Cinemas and on DVD? I'm editing with Premiere 6.5 if that makes a difference.

 

Anyway, I appologise for the length, but hopefully someone can help. :o) Thanks in advance.

 

Cheers,

Ben

[John Pytlak RIP]

If you are producing films for both the NTSC and PAL markets, as well as future HD, want the flexibility of film (e.g. high frame rates), the robustness of film cameras, etc., why not use Super-16?

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/16mm

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...uly99/nfl.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...throughsP.shtml

 

Part of the demonstration includes a test produced by NFL FILMS that compares Super 16 film and digital images displayed on HD monitors. The demonstration includes side-by-side comparisons that run the gamut of production situations captured with film and high-definition, NTSC and PAL format video cameras. The test scenarios include interior and exterior dramas, nature and action sequences.

 

"This exhibit provides convincing evidence that content produced in Super 16 format will satisfy the highest expectations for future HD display," says Maryann Mendel, product manager for the Kodak Entertainment Imaging division. "Advances in films, cameras and postproduction technologies are fueling a renaissance in the use of Super 16 mm film. Budget-conscious filmmakers are opting for the creative flexibility and affordability of the format"

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...hwarzComm.shtml

 

Extreme sports enthusiasts seeking new thrills are finding riding downhill on a mountain board to be a challenging experience. The combination of snowboard and skateboard manufactured by Colorado-based Mountain Board Sports allows riders to roll down a mountain at incredible rates of speed.

 

For director of photography Bill Schwarz, however, the challenge came in filming a commercial that captures the essence of the experience. The cinematographer shot a 30-second spot that combines comedy and action, including dark interiors and bright exteriors on a minimalist budget with ambitious production values.

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...0/soulmen.shtml

 

There can be few athletic challenges tougher than skiing down a 60º rock face in one of the remotest mountain ranges in the world. The danger of major avalanches or injury is always constant: but that's radical free-rider skiing for you; the apex of off-piste skiing and one of the most uncompromising glide sports in the world. Particularly so if you happen to be the DP and crew trying to capture it on celluloid.

 

The trick is not to become part of the action you're filming.

 

Yet, that's all part of the job for Rob Bruce, co-director and DP of Soul Pilot: -- a spectacular 13-minute, 16mm film produced by Vertical Zoo and shot on Eastman EXR 50D (7245) and 250D (7246) stock in the remote Chugach Range of Alaska.

[Ryan Puckett]

Hi Ben,

I first got interested in cinematography, while shooting "extreme" (I hate that word) bmx videos and commercials. I've seen a lot of skate and bike videos so I know what you are talking about. Haven't seen the new DC vid, so I'm not exactly sure what look they used in that one. Shooting film makes a huge difference in quality and appearance, but it's rediculously expensive considering a guy might take it 20 times before he pulls the trick. That ends up being a lot of wasted film. The only way to shoot a lot of film for these type of productions is if you have a serious budget from a large company like DC, Etnies, etc..... So video tends to be the predominante medium.

My first sugestion is to definitely stick to PAL. NTSC is terrible. It still looks like video, it has less resolution, and 29.98 frame rate looks disgusting unless your shooting the nightly news. Most people I know here in the US would prefer to shoot PAL if it wasn't such an ordeal here. If you want a "grungy" look you are better off starting with a good PAL image and tweeking it in Premier. I'm pretty sure it can easily be converted to NTSC for sales in North America. I think you can get decent programs to do it yourself, and most transfer houses can do it as well. I have seen some really bad transfers done though, so you might want to learn as much as possible about that.

I've been shooting that stuff with a VX2000 for a couple of years now, and I'd have to say It works really well for this type of application. A friend of mine just got the 2100, and it seems a little bit better too. I don't know of anyone using the new Panasonics for this type of stuff yet, but I would be really curious as to what kind of results you could get. I'll keep my mouth shut about what I think of the canons.....

Learn how to use the custom menu functions on whatever camera you get, and turn the sharpness, and saturation all the way down. I've use black pro mist filters sometimes, and I think in the right settings they do help give these type of images a distinct look, but for the most part they end up being too much of a hastle when you are trying to shoot stuff as hectic as this.

From the tests I've done, and other things I've seen, I've learned don't shoot progressive scan. It turns out too jittery with the fast motion (strobing). It works better to shoot interlaced video, and then run the final product through a de-interlacing program later. This is kind of the opposite of conventional wisdom when discussing dramatic/narrative movies, but that's just been my experience under these different type of shooting conditions.

A lot of things can be done in post, so learn how to use all of the color and contrast tools available on your system. The "Levels" filter in premier is just about all you need to tweek things so they don't look like a home video. The BlackLabel "Label Kills" video had a ton of heavy post work done to the footage.

Besides all of this, I can't stress how much difference can be made with plain old cinematography basics. Learn how lighting effects things, learn how to use the depth of field of the camera, and learn composition. If you watch the more professional videos, and compare just the camera work (ignore what tricks are happening), compared to smaller productions, you will usually see the difference it can make.

If you do want to venture into film a little bit, super8 is awesome for this stuff. It's still not cheap compared to video, but it won't leave you with a sinking feeling in your stomach when you waste a whole roll of film on your friend not pulling something. It looks great when you want a gritty film look. Cameras are extremely cheap too.....

Let me know if you have any more questions..

 

Ryan

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Australian

 

Why is it that Australians always want to shoot extreme sports?!

 

Cinematrographer and Videographer, with an interest in filming Surf, Skate, and Snowboarding films.

 

> My main concern is whether to go for a PAL or an NTSC model. There are a few

> factors in my decision.

 

PAL, always when it's your local format. PAL converts more cleanly to NTSC than NTSC does to PAL. Some people in NTSC locations have chosen to use PAL for various reasons, but there's no conceivable reason to use NTSC in a PAL region.

 

> Should I film in NTSC and convert to PAL? Or the other way around?

 

Definitely the other way around. NTSC to PAL looks crappy - notice how soft all those American TV shows look?

 

> Is there any difference in the visual look of NTSC as opposed to PAL? I know

> about frame rates and size etc

 

Then you know that it is softer and smoother in motion, particularly compared to film.

 

> but NTSC video kind of seems to be "Grungier"

 

This may be down to two things. First, you're watching US TV shows that were shot on film (examples?) Or, you may be seeing the fairly horrible artifacts of NTSC to PAL transcoding, which sucks even when done really well.

 

> I don't know if any of you are familiar with Skate Vids, but I was wondering why > some look amateurish, and others (Like "The DC Video", which is an exceptional

> video), look like hollywood productions.

 

You may be seeing stuff that was shot on film. Particularly for extreme sports where you cannot control lighting and where overcranking is very desirable, there are big reasons to shoot film. On the other hand, you're liable to be shooting miles and miles of footage in remote locations, which are big reasons to shoot video.

 

> Much of the footage in "The DC Video" is 16mm, but a good part of the Digi

> footage is of a very high quality.

 

In what way? What do you like about it? Be analytical.

 

> Would the better filmers be using some sort of filters?

 

Possibly contrast-lowering filters for snow scenes on video.

 

> Vastly superior lenses?

 

Vastly superior to what? To your consumer digital video camera, almost certainly, but that tends not to be a gigantic issue on video. Get a wide angle convertor, though, for handheld stuff.

 

> Or running their footage through a special process in post production to enhance

> it?

 

Well, they're probably grading (postproduction colour adjustment.) You can approximate this in [insert NLE package of choice.]

 

> If you've ever watched the Deleted Scenes on a DVD, you'd probably have

> noticed that the quality usually sucks. How do they turn regular footage into that

> polished, finished product we see in Cinemas and on DVD?

 

They don't. The deleted scenes are generally the low-quality "dailies" transfers if it's film; these are made for editing and then the parts of the original material are re-transferred on much more expensive equipment. If it's video you may be looking at compressed video material from an offline edit suite.

 

> I'm editing with Premiere 6.5 if that makes a difference.

 

It doesn't, really. Which is good.

 

It's probably worth noting that the potential for really stellar results is much larger with film, but then you will probably spend at least as much every time you take a film camera out of the box as it will cost you to buy a reasonable miniDV handycam like a DVX-100 outright.

 

Phil

[Ben McPhee]

I can't thank you guys enough for your help! That was way more than I expected.

 

John, I'd love to get into 16mm. It's my ultimate goal, and I'm also in the market for a 16mm camera as well (An Arri 16sb - hopefully witha a Super-16 conversion), but the cost is the overwhelming factor right now. I just can't afford to shoot on film at this stage. That will have to come a bit later.

 

Ryan, thanks so much for your help. It was great to hear from someone who knew what I was talking about, and could offer some special tips specific to my kind of filming. I really appreciated it. (I know there are a lot of Canon Filmers on here, but if anyone wants to tell me about how good or crap they are, feel free to Email me. )

 

Speaking of cameras, Does anyone have any thoughts on Mini-DV vs DVCam? I'm pretty unfamiliar with the format. Is it expensive? Ryan, would you say that it's suitable for this type of work? What are the Pro's and Cons? Sony have a cam called the DSR Pro-150. How does it compare to the VX2000/VX2100?

 

And Phil, To answer your question about Australians, I really have no idea. :) OK, I know that's not really an answer, but it's the truth. For me, it's a bunch of stuff. I love the people who are doing the things I want to shoot. They're good to spend time with, and they're skills blow me away. That's about the best explanation I can come up with. And like everyone else here, I just love film and video. :) Thanks a lot for your advice too. It was invaluable.

 

I feel like I just went to film school for free. :) Cheers!

 

Ben

[Ryan Puckett]

Hey Ben,

The only real difference between miniDV, and DVcam would be the actual tape running speed. There is no increase in resolution, or quality or whatever. The DVcam runs about twice as fast as miniDV The only advantage of this is that you are recording the info from the camera across a broader range of tape, so there is less chance of getting dropouts ( lost frames ). In all the years I've had my VX2000, I've yet to lose a single frame, and I haven't cleaned the heads, and I'm pretty bad about using generic brand tapes in it. So I wouldn't say the extra money for DVcam is necessary in any way.

Save the money for the 16mm, and make John proud....

 

Ryan