NTSC vs PAL. A multi-continent director's dilemna. Please HELP!!!!

[jsauce]

So here's the deal. In a weeks time I need to have the HVX, one way or the other.
here's my problem. I shoot for both european and american clients. the majority of my work is for american tv, but i do have a client that requires pal hd.

my instinct is to buy the pal version and essentially "down convert" for my american projects. the way i understand it everything is the same resolution wise 1080 or 720,etc..and really the only difference is 24 or 25 fps. going down from 25 to 24 seems to cause very little if any glitch. i did a few tests with a rented pal hvx, converting to american standards and it looks great. i really cant tell the difference.

but still, i'm nervous as hell. and any help from you guys would be HUGE.
my main question is this?
has anybody tried to convert from NTSC to PAL??? I would really prefer to buy ntsc (its cheaper and ultimately i will be moving back to LA) but not having seen what it looks like going to PAL, I'm nervous to buy it.

I know for example, my DVX looks like crap when i try and go from ntsc to pal. obviously the HD specs may change things.

ok...thats my blurb. help me please!

[mikkowilson]

I presume the HPX500 is beyond your budget?

How about owning the one you use most, and then renting the other unit as necesarry? Buy NTSC, Rent PAL - for example.

- Mikko

[jsauce]

yea the 500 is great but too much money and frankly i dont have enough faith in sony products to go with the ex or whatever its called. i just love panasonic and i love this camera. gots to be the hvx200

what i cant figure out is that from a number of these threads it sounds like people are against converting from pal to ntsc, but in my tests it looks fine.

I shot my tests at 1080x50i dimensions=1440x1080

what is the similar export standard for NTSC HVX stuff.
in other word, what are you guys exporting at with 1080 stuff? are the dimensions the same, 1440x1080???

Can someone tell me what a standard export from the

[ProfessorU]

Generally speaking, conversions to fewer fps look better than conversions to more fps. This makes sense, since that means you don't have to create data where there is none. The conversion of PAL to film is pretty simple, since you only drop one frame each second, or slow down motion slightly. The conversion of PAL to NTSC is complex, using pulldown to create frames in between where there are none.

Mikkowilson brings up the obvious point, that a camera that can shoot both is probably the best solution.

The horizontal dimensions of NTSC HVX200 1080 footage are less than PAL, 1280 pixels. I haven't seen any stills where the two are actually compared. I would be surprised if the difference was noticeable.

PAL footage converted to NTSC (or rather, 50i converted to 60i at any standard) will have a "look". I've heard some people call that look "British". NTSC footage converted to PAL will also have a look, but it's less noticeable.

Does your PAL client really need 1080? You can fake things a little if you're in lower resolutions. See Barry's comment on setting the HVX to 24.9 fps.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=65732

[jsauce]

to be honest barry's thread on the 25fps hack has confused me even more. it sounds great but a bit unreliable and thats what i want to avoid.

i would go with that sony but from what ive seen it just doesnt that have that panasonic magic, that look we all crave when doing projects where the look is essential.

im still ultra conflicted and confused. on one hand, i should probably just get the ntsc version (as the majority of my work is US) and then rent for the euro projects, BUT what is tripping me out is that the export tests I have been doing from Pal HVX (1440x1080 50i) to 60i (1280x1080) look great. Honestly, i cant notice a single glitch or difference in the footage.

what do you recommend? I have a friend that literally shoots everything in pal, converts to ntsc and nobody notices he says.
on the other hand should i really look in the sony???

help!

[ProfessorU]

Are you comparing on a regular TV or a computer monitor? The computer monitor is probably more forgiving since it might not be at 60Hz to begin with. If you compare your footage on a few different TVs and it works for you, go for it.

[jsauce]

i was actually working witha computer monitor.

that said, i had to pull the trigger today and i did. i went with the ntsc version. from what i can tell, it will ultimately be easier for me to shoot 24p and/or 60p and convert to pal than vice versa. given the high resolution nature of HD, im hoping that nobody will complain and the slight imperections will be virtually unnoticable.

thanks for all your help on here to everyone.
it was a stressful day, but I am so happy. i have an hvx on its way!!!!!!

[Shibuya Oboya]

I don't have any opinion or knowledge about the specific questions asked.

I just wanted to point out, and maybe I misread and there is no confusion, but the
hpx500 that was suggested is a Panasonic, not Sony. if that changes anything for you.
there is a dedicated section to it below the hvx200 section on main page.

good luck

[jsauce]

the hvx500 is great but way out of my price range.
i really wish i had the patience as pansaonic has announced they are realeasing the 150 that will basically be the hvx200 that can shoot both pal and ntsc in one.