PANASONIC DVX100A ...IN PAL OR NTSC !???

Daniel Aranyo AEC · December 28, 2004

This message is for everyone, but specially for David M. Mullen.

Hello David,

My name is Daniel Aranyo, I am a cinematographer based in LA but also shoot in Europe. Now i am in Barcelona, my hometown and I am considering buying a Video Camera under $5000 that can be best quality in DVCAM or DV, with the best combination of lens, resolution,etc...

I tested the Panasonic DVX100A and liked a lot the look. Not too happy about not being able to interchange lenses, but I like the video results and lens performance. I did a comparison with the Canon XL1 and there was no doubt the Panasonic had much better results. This was actually a test for ABC in NY, and made the tests side by side under the exact same lighting conditions,etc...

an online color correction and was surprised at the good results of the Panasonic.

I would like to be able to use it for future possible music video production and even shortfilm or feature film. I saw great results of a postproduction company in Paris that up-rezd de footage and looked amazing.

So, if I do go for the Panasonic DVX100A, would you get in PAL due to a better resolution/lines ? Or since I live mostly in LA, it will be a problem in the long run ? I have Final Cut Pro and I believe I can import PAL and export in NTSC. What do you recommend ?

And if you know of a better camera for that price range please let me know...

Thank you so very much !!

Daniel

PS: By the way, I shot a movie, "Cross Bronx" that won best High Definition at the 2004 Tribeca Film Festival in NY and the lead actor was Max Greenfield, who I know was an actor in the mvie you shot: "When do we eat?". Small world.

Mike Donis · December 29, 2004

In the price range, I'd definitely go for a DVX. And because you're in NTSC land, I'd go for the NTSC model.

The thing is, when shooting in the Thin detail mode, in 24P, you're effectively getting higher resolution than a regular PAL interlaced camera. The PAL DVX is technically proportionately higher in resolution (with the same settings), but you'll be losing all the extra resolution when converting to NTSC. Because odds are you'll be ending up on DVD anyways, I'd save any format conversion hassles and just go with the NTSC version.

Not only do you get 24P recording, but you also get 30P and 60i, whereas with a PAL version, you only get 25P and 50i. In NTSC territory, the NTSC version is the easiest, and highest quality way to go. You'd only notice the DVX's PAL/NTSC difference if blowing up to film, and even that difference would be very slight. And the NTSC/DVX/Thin footage would be higher resolution than regular PAL footage anyways.

So, for convenience's sake, I'd go NTSC, and not worry about the hassle. Your footage will look great :)

Phil Rhodes · December 29, 2004

Hi,

> And the NTSC/DVX/Thin footage would be higher resolution than regular PAL footage anyways.

How d'you figure? It's still only giving you a 480-odd line picture, and in 24p mode it's a good 25% more compressed.

Phil

Jan Crittenden · December 29, 2004

Phil
How d'you figure? It's still only giving you a 480-odd line picture, and in 24p mode it's a good 25% more compressed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil, I don't understand when you say that it is a good 25% more compressed. Would you explain that please? The compression algorithm between PAL and NTSC is virtually the same, roughly 5:1.

I tend to agree with Mike on this one though, as the outcome between the PAL Unit and the NTSC unit in an NTSC world, it seems that the PAL is just more complicated to work with.

But I am curious as to what you mean as I don't understand.

Thanks,

Jan

Phil Rhodes · December 29, 2004

Hi,

> Phil, I don't understand when you say that it is a good 25% more compressed.

Because in 3:2 pulldown there's a lot of duplicated fields, ergo wasted information space. This is less of an issue in 24p advanced, of course.

Phil

Mike Donis · December 30, 2004

I'd say in 24P Advanced, in Thin mode (I'd not worry about "real" vs "apparent" resolution, if it looks good then it'd do the job IMHO), in 24PA you'd end with higher, or at least very similar apparent resolution, than regular 50i video with 576 pixels as the vertical resolution. It's been said that Thin mode gets you an approximate 30% increase in vertical rez. And being 24 frames progressive in nature makes it cleaner in film printing, on top of all that - so specifically if you're in NTSC land already, the NTSC version should be fine. Jan can probably clear up where I've been wrong or misunderstood...

Jan Crittenden · January 1, 2005

Looks right to me Mike.

Best,

Jan

Phil Rhodes · January 1, 2005

Hi,

Well, the PAL version will shoot 25p, so the interlaced/progressive issue is... a non issue.

Phil

Mike Donis · January 1, 2005

Well, the PAL version will shoot 25p, so the interlaced/progressive issue is... a non issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True enough - but what I was meaning was that while the PAL DVX would be technically even higher quality than the NTSC, is it worth all the hassles (if you're in NTSC territory) when that version will get you results as good as - if not better than - other regular PAL transfers?