24P or 25P

B

Bunyip

Active member
Hi there,
I live in Australia and am about to embark on shooting a documentary. The camera I have chosen for the job is the DVX100.
Now, here's the crunch.
Considering I live in Australia, it would be the obvous choice to buy the PAL DVX100BE and shoot in 25P [Ultimately I would like to transfer to film].
However I would also like to think that some time in the future I could get my doco distributed in the US, which will require a transfer to 24 fps.

So, the question I am asking myself is do I get the NTSC version of the camera, shoot in 24 and then focus on a US release, and worry about the trasnfer later if i want Aussie distribution, or

Buy the PAL camera, shoot at 25fps, and then just do the transfer to 24fps?

I guess the answer will be based on cost/ease of doing the 24 <-> 25 transfer, which is where you guys come in, as my knowledge is a little hazy here.

Obviously I would rather buy the PAL camera as I live in a PAL country. But I'd hate to be left with a finished product which may require an expensive process to transfer to 24 frames for potential US distribution.

Or is it easy to transfer 24 to 25, which i believe involves slowing it down and then re-pitching the audio to fit.

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
 
You're kinda screwed. It's not just the framerate that seperates NTSC and PAL, but also the native SD resolution and the color space, too. If you get the NTSC cam, you'll have to contend with all of this if you wanna watch your video on a PAL TV or put it on a PAL-native DVD player.

As for computer editing, I think you should be able to edit in both NTSC and PAL in most NLE programs no problem, but outputing it to a TV monitor is another issue.

Even ignoring the frame size and color issues between NTSC and PAL, you might just have an easier time shooting/editing in 25P and interpolating to 24P for film transfer. I think this is now it's generally done in PAL territories, but I can't imagine the motion artifacts associated with such a minor change. Another option is to shoot 25P and just transfer frame-for-frame, which would mean a 4% reduction in program speed. Lots of PAL DVDs do this but the other way around, so that a Region 2 DVD with a film that normally runs at 100 minutes, plays back at 96 minutes with sound at a slighty higher pitch. Wierd but true!

This has got to be a common problem for PAL folk all over Europe and everywhere else. We Americans have the handy 3:2 and 3:2:2:3 pulldown system, which is reversed for DVD, which, like our TV, is in 30p/60i. Anyone have any experience working with both systems? I'm just going off of general knowledge here.
 
There is really only ONE answer: get the PAL version, and shoot 25p.

It will be the simplest workflow for you, as you require no additional equipment to edit, view or play your footage.

Once you get to the [possible] stage of NTSC distribution, or transfer to film, there a simple and inexpensive ways to convert to NTSC: http://dvfilm.com/atlantis/index.htm is one good software solution and there's others too.

Oh, and by the way, PAL has slightly more resolution than NTSC!

PAL is what you should get.
 
Ah, thanks vidled!
That is the exact answer I was hoping for, and it now makes the decision easy. It makes perfect sense. And in all my concern about frame rates, I totally forgot about PAL's superior resolution as well, so now it's a no brainer.

Also, thanks to you Noble Robot for your answer. The way I understand it, all Aussie films are slowed down and re-pitched when distributed in the US. So you can blame us if you're ever running a couple of minutes late!

Of course the concept of my finished project being picked up for distribution in the US is kind of a pie in the sky. However you have to dream, and you may as well be ready for it - right?

Cheers lads.
 
It is a strange fixation that film transfers must be shot in 24 fps and 25 fps would not work. Not so, doing a film transfer frame by frame just makes the film a few procent longer and the sound semitone lower, both of which go unnoticed*. And besides here in PAL land all movies are overcranked in TV, 24 frames/sec movies are routinely played back at 25 fps, no complaints. This is absolutelly a non-issue, both ways!

If it is a classical music film the sound pitch can be fixed easily, as not to annoy those with absolute ear...

I think this comes from all the discussions about 24p and pulldowns etc. etc. complications WHICH CONCERN ONLY NTSC shooters. I am happy to shoot superior quality, tecnically uncomplicated 25P with PAL. Saves a lot of hair and tears...
 
We're happy to help, Bunvip, but you also raise a very interesting topic regarding the 25 to 24 and 24 to 25 fps system that plegues PAL territories, if you'll indulge me.

Petrus, like you say, all films (shot on film) are shot at 24fps, so even PAL DVDs of Eupoean films are sped up. That really doesn't bother the film purist in you??

US doesn't have this problem, because 24 and 25 to 30fps is a relativly simple and common interpolation, video shot in PAL territories will appear okay on US TV. And US TV and film studios have lots of experience with interpolation, so it's standard.

So, films shot anywhere in the world run at 100% on US TV and DVD. So, one way to see it is that we see your films more as they really are then you do. However, PAL DVDs, dispite having a differing speed, show every frame of a film once, where NTSC DVDs interpolate and frame-blend and interlace, which can be seen as more of an alteration as a speed change... so niether is perfect.

What I find interesting is attitudes like Petrus' that the speed-up/slow-down issue is actually a non-issue. I find even a 4% change very disturbing. What about music videos? What about American TV shows like "24?" What about the movie "Timecode?" Most of these sources are probably transfers, from film, to NTSC video, to PAL video, so maybe there isn't an issue (asides from motion artifacts), but what about European music videos shot on film? What about concert films? Even at corrected pitch they don't run accuratly. The same goes for "classical music film," I can't believe that ture classic music fans would be happy with even a 2% speed change!

I guess it doesn't come up all too often, and the human brain can reset itself to a different timerate, but I find it suprising that PAL people have no problem with it whatsoever.

As a NTSC user, I'm jealous that PAL has more resolution (but less color resolution, actually), and I don't like that our silly 29.97fps makes audio alignment and 24fps pulldown a big technical issue. Because I don't work in film, I would appreciate the simplicity of shooting in film-like 25p for broadcast/DVD in 25p...

...but, I'm perfectly comforable with computers and video technology, so I'm fine with the pulldown, which looks fine (and NTSC DVXs can be tricked into actual slow motion overcranking with the differing framerates), and I don't know if I would trade a little simplicity for having to watch every DVD I own at a 4% speed increase.

The differences between PAL and NTSC are weird, because IMO, niether have a clear advantage over the other. So I guess I pose this question to Petrus and other PAL users, because while I've seen PAL video, I only know working with NTSC, so I can't presume to really be able to compare them...

You discribe PAL as "superior quality" and "technically uncomplicated," but did you know that PAL has nearly half the color resolution of NTSC? And while it doesn't apply to video you produce, do you really not care about the techincal complication of film to video speed and audio pitch?
 
Last edited:
The Noble Robot said:
...but did you know that PAL has nearly half the color resolution of NTSC?
Click to expand...

Not sure if many would agree with that statement. And we are talking progressive here, no?

PAL: don't knock it until you've tried it!
:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)



ADDED:
I can't get myself to start a new post in this thread, so I'll just add to this one (there's a LOT of "confusing information" posted here now.)
The original question was answered correctly I think, by stating that 25p (and more specifically, the PAL version of the DVX) would be the BETTER choice for Bunyip.

Also: PAL and 25P isn't the same thing. PAL is interlaced!
 
Last edited:
PAL standard has a native problem that causes a comb effect. The designers knew about it, but at the time figured that it wouldn't matter, and that people 's brains could ignore it. Modern PAL deplays, however, compensate for it, but as a result, it halves the vertical color resolution.

Wikipedia said:
Early PAL receivers relied on the imperfections of the human eye to do that canceling, however this resulted in a comb-like effect on stronger phase errors. Thus, most receivers use a delay line which stores the received colour information on each line of display; an average of the colour information of the current line and that of the previous line is then used to drive the picture tube. This reduces vertical colour resolution compared to the NTSC system
Click to expand...
I don't know how this effects video capture, and perhaps the resolution is full on computer monitors, I don't know, but it definately shows up on PAL TVs, and I've noticed it on PAL TV shows that are transferred to NTSC.

That said, vertical color resolution is is easiest for the human eye to ignore, so the practical upshot is not huge.
 
The original question was answered correctly I think, by stating that 25p (and more specifically, the PAL version of the DVX) would be the BETTER choice for Bunyip.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I totally agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't continue the conversation in another direction...

And when it comes to debating PAL vs. NTSC, it's really moot, because us Americans are stuck with NTSC and its drawbacks, and Euopeans are stuck with PAL and its drawbacks, period.

I'm just trying to get an academic conversation going.
 
Wow, I seem to have opened up quite a discussion here. And I'm learning a lot as I read your posts.
Yep, the original question was answered, and I thank you all for that, so don't worry I'm not confused.

It is interesting and frustrating to see the differences we have to deal with in a world that uses two standards for broadcast, let alone the 220/110V power differences, and don't get me started on all the different power plug adaptors I need to keep in my kit bag!

It's a funny old world...
 
Yeah, the thing is, it's NOT really that much of a big deal anyway. It's just not complicated. The concensus is to get the system that is dominant in your country (*); for the few times where a conversion is necessary there's inexpensive and very effective tools available (software or hardware).
And the good thing is we ARE moving towards better equipment compatibility. SONY, dare I say it, has been quite the leader in this field; i.e. many of even their cheapo mini-DV camcorders were/are surprisingly forgiving when it comes to the opposing format (i.e. play/record PAL tape in an NTSC cam, and vice versa). And of course they now have cams that do both, fully supported, PAL AND NTSC.

Panasonic and Canon have miserably been lagging behind in this area, unfortunately....

BUT:
Panasonic is

F
I
N
A
L
L
Y

coming out with a cam that can do PAL AND NTSC (or more precisely, formats that correspond to both PAL and NTSC countries): the AJ-HDX900.

Yummy!


(*) says I who does PAL in NTSC country! :)
 
NTSC DV has 4:1:1 coding, PAL 4:2:0, but that only means color samples are coded differently, not that there are less samples in PAL. Actually there are exactly the same number, in NTSC each line is coded identically, in PAL each other line gets different treatment. As I understand it NTSC effectively has color sample pixels that are 1x4 long, PAL has 2x2 squares.

In my eye TV in USA always looks a bit worse than in Europe, less resolution, less saturation.

What is this 25P PAL is not progressive thing? The instanteniously captured picture is just conveniently recorded as two fields used by 50i system (that is the recording standard, tape mechanism and electronics do not know what they are putting on tape). Those fields are then combined in the editor to make one complete progressive frame. Way easier than ripping a 24P picture apart and fitting it on a 29,97 fps interlaced stream...
 
PAL's color resolution is captured 4:2:0, yes, but because of the compensation that I mentioned in a previous post, the color information of each line is averaged with the line previous, and so it's effectiveness is essentially half when played back on a PAL monitor. I can't think of a way to express this in ratio numbers, because it's still expresses as 4:2:0, but the data is compressed, sorta.

Man, as the years go on, we still manage to squeeze as much as we can out of these antiquated formats...

...if only we could ditch both NTSC and PAL and get a HD 4:4:4 standard in all our living rooms and on all of our tripods, and get it tomorrow for free...

It isn't the technology itself that's expensive, it's the manufacuring and the cost of transition that's tethering us to these 1967 monsters...
 
If I understand 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 correctly, in NTSC color information is averaged over 4 pixels horizontaly, which makes lousy color resolution in that direction. In PAL both horizontal and vertical color resolution is 2 pixels (color is borrowed from the previous line). Thus in PAL the color resolution is symmetrical, in NTSC vertical color resolution is 4x better than horizontal.

Choose your poison...

Starting from a clean slate, many things should be totally redesigned, starting from computer oparating systems and net protocols, then the TV-system...
 
Ok well as I AM Australian I thought maybe I could add something.

Anyway I routinely send stuff from Japan to Australia in NTSC format and to date there has never been an issue, basically because 99% of DVD players and TVs in Australia are NTSC compatible.

(sorry nothing to do with other posts just the original advice sought).
 
Last edited:
Petrus said:
If I understand 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 correctly,
Click to expand...
You're not getting my point. PAL is unique in that it is required to use a delay line for each line of video to eliminate a "combing flicker" that is inharent to the format (because the field rate [50i] matches the power frequency [50Hz], which is why NTSC's fieldrate is 59.94 and not 60).

This "delay line" is a more recent modification, post-colorTV, but is now present in all PAL TV sets. It perfectly solves the problem, but at the cost of perceived (not actual) virtical color resolution. Each line of PAL is decoded by the reciever as an average of it's own color data, and the color information of the previous line. This prevents the "combing" problem, but it also has the net effect of "data loss." It has nothing to do with color ratios, where 4:2:0 indeed would look more pleasing to the human eye than the awkward 4:1:1.

Choose your poison
Click to expand...
You said it, brother...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top