PAL RULES- OK

Re: PAL RULES- OK

It's just one of those discussions that can never really have a resolution and it pops up every now and then with exactly the same results. PAL people slink away to their corners mumbling their victory cries and ever dying loyalty to the format and NTSC people do much the same. :)
It's just fun to jump in and throw a bit of fuel on the fire whenever I see the discussion come up. I'm the devils advocate ;)
It really is a no brainer use PAL if your in PAL land and NTSC if your in NTSC land unless you have a really good reason to do other wise.
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

I wasn't even arguing NTSC v. PAL (as I said); it was 24p v. PAL for filmout.

Just glanced at Billups's website . . . he recommends the 24p DVX, not the PAL version. ;)

Does that mean you should buy an NTSC DVX if you want to do filmout in a PAL country? Absolutely not! But Cecil's original post was arguing that if you want to do filmout *anywhere*, you should do it in PAL.

As you say, that makes no sense with the DVX in NTSC land.

That's all I'm sayin'.
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

I am the biggest advocate of buying NTSC in NTSC territory, and PAL in PAL territory. People always ask "but shouldn't I use PAL if I'm going to film?"

The answer is:

You're not going to film. I mean, 99.9999999% of the projects that think they are going to film, aren't ever going to. Now, if you're in that .0000001% who will blow it up, then you have to check with your lab to see what they prefer. Swiss Effects, last time I checked, would recommend not even using the DVX, they prefer a PAL PD150 of all things! DVFilm prefers 25P from the PAL DVX. Every lab is different.

If you're buying a video camera specifically because you intend to blow something up to film, then -- you're being foolish. If you know you're going to be blowing up to film, then you should unquestionably shoot film in the first place -- it will look much better in the final product, hands down, no question asked -- and it will also likely cost less to do it that way.

If you're in NTSC territory, but considering buying a PAL camera because you think you *might* blow up to film, well, the NTSC DVX is plenty good enough for a "perhaps" film blowup, and it leaves your options open: you can shoot other things with it too, you can re-sell it, etc. If you buy PAL, you're kind of hosed.

If you're in PAL territory, the whole argument is a complete no-brainer: get the PAL camera.
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

I was kinda angry when I got to know my DVX (PAL) would not do 24 fps bvut then like said above I am happy about the compatability with the rest of the digital PAL TV world. All broacast material here is shot at 50i and having 25p just fits in so nicley giving you that edge on the final reslut. Going to film is a luxiory I cant afford for any of my jobs and so no worries. What I would have liked on my PAL DVX is to be able to shoot 30 FPS ( or 33 would have been sweeter) was that so hard to do at Panasonic! Would have been a major camera feature!
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

Every now and then, in this kind of discussion I have a feeling of those in the PAL land subconsicouly pleading...'we have the superior format'....while the NTSC people conscious of their own limitations...subconscioulsy....tend to put up their own arguments to defend....

I think this is normal and pscychologists call this phenomenon as the 'Cognitive Dissonance'....where an individual tends to justify its actions/possessions by logic.

However regardless of the subconscious thinking...I personally feel that if a particular situation...or in this case a particular format is more challenging...the greater and more elaborate would be the response to overcome it. And that is what has happend in case of NTSC. Despite the early difficulties, there has been a greater consicous and financial investment to improve the NTSC format...and specially to make it more comaptible with the latest and traditional technologies.

While I dont have any concrete evidence to support it but 'I think'...this is EXACTLY...what has not happened in case of PAL. Being contented from the beginning...of having a 'superior' format, perhaps R&D investment in the PAL land has not been as extensive as in the NTSC.

So I basically disagree ...with humble excuse...from a statement above that PAL rules and some country is going to take over the world or something. I think it is merely cognitive dissonance...nothing else.

Just a view...not any fuel to lit the fire UP ;D
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

i think that the belief that PAL is better for filmout, is a surviver of the pre-progressive era, when 50i/25fps was (and still is) closer to 24fps. when it comes to the DVX, the fps issue makes the NTSC version more suitable.. no question. in addition to that, most of us dvx users use their cameras primarily for the "common jobs" (even if only to sponsor their big film dreams..) and for that, choosing the local format is the only way to go.
conclusion (again and again) don't bother with a neighbor format. if efficiency wasn't an issue, you wouldn't have bought the DVX from the first place.
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

In case any of you missed it Barry stated that DVfilm prefer the 25p to go to film and one of the other labs prefer a PD150, so I think saying that the 24p model is more suitable is not quite correct.
Lets settle this once and for all no more fuel on the fire...
There is bugger all difference between 25p and 24p and when it comes to blowing up to film it doesn't make a lick of difference.

Oh and by the way just in case people where getting worried, I don't truely believe that Australia will take over the world! As came out of Aejaz's post most people don't even know where Australia is! ;D
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

I don't know that I'd say there was "bugger all difference"... from reports I have heard, the extra 96 lines of res do make a noticeable difference in quality on a film transfer.

Here's the point: first of all, an NTSC DVX with anamorphic provides more resolution than any of these PAL interlaced cameras. Those cameras max out at about 432 lines (with an anamorphic adapter) and the DVX goes to 480. Plus, interlaced cameras had to go through a field-blending process to simulate 24P, so you were probably talking about a net usable res of maybe 320. The DVX/NTSC is delivering a usable 480, so it's almost 50% higher res than a PAL interlaced camera, and the pure 24P rendering will eliminate motion artifacting, etc.

But, the PAL DVX can top that by another 96 lines of res. Should that be ignored? No. Which is why DVFILM recommends the PAL DVX for film transfers. But it comes with a price, which is that your film will run 4% longer in the theater, and you'll have to slow down/pitch-correct your audio.

In my experience the NTSC DVX is superior to the older interlaced cameras even when those interlaced cameras were in PAL mode. So it almost completely obsoletes the argument (for NTSC-people) as to why you should go for PAL. The only practical reason whatsoever to get the PAL camera (for an NTSC user) is if you really, really need those extra 96 lines of resolution for a film transfer -- and in my mind, that's just stupid, because if you KNOW you're going to transfer to film, then by all means, shoot film! It's not hard, it's not scary, and it's not all THAT expensive: you can shoot 35mm for as low as $20/minute (including transfer to video). When you consider that transferring your DV feature to film will cost at least $27,000 (for 90 minutes), you could shoot an awful lot of 35mm film for that cost, and it will look WAY WAY WAY WAY better than a PAL DVX->film transfer.

So go with NTSC if you're in NTSC territory. Go with PAL if you're in PAL territory. If you think you *might* blow up to film, don't sweat it: either camera will do a fine job. And if you're concerned about getting the best quality for your film print, then DON'T SHOOT ON A STANDARD-DEF VIDEO CAMERA: shoot film instead.
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1087806528;start=15#27 date=06/23/04 at 15:21:49]I and it's not all THAT expensive: you can shoot 35mm for as low as $20/minute (including transfer to video).  CAMERA: shoot film instead.[/quote]
20$ -maybe 200$:-)
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

Shoot short ends (10 cents a foot), process at 10 cents a foot, transfer a one-light at $135/hr... you can definitely shoot for $20/minute. I've done it.
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

And furthermore... Australia isn't going to take over the world.

New Zealand might, though. ;D
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1087806528;start=30#30 date=06/23/04 at 18:08:20]Shoot short ends (10 cents a foot), process at 10 cents a foot, transfer a one-light at $135/hr... you can definitely shoot for $20/minute.  I've done it.[/quote]
barry i ment regullarr working flow *no short ends) minimum ,4-1 ratio, 100minuts moovie, camera rental, sound synking and recording,
otherwise you can say i can doit with dv for 20 $ ( 4 minidv cassets)+the what ever to go tofilm (14000 in hungary from hd for 90 ninuts and going down for negativ on arri lazer ).
20000 on 35 for shooting is seems normal :-)
in 98 i did a moovie with israelly famos dyrector actor ASSI DAYAN (The son of Moshe DAYAN) "Mr Baum"
Assy shoot less then 20000 feet for 85 minuts in 18 days shooting (in israel the evereg is 80000-90000 for full lenght) (its a hell for soundman to wok on one take :-))
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

Obviously someone's work flow is going to be dictated by what equipment they have, etc.

Shooting at retail rates (full price for fresh film stock, etc) is going to be more expensive, yes. But people who are making 4:1 ratio, 40,000-foot movies on short ends can do it on not a whole lot of money. You *can* get 35mm shot, processed, and transferred to video for $20-$25 per minute, I've done it many times. I have my own 35mm camera, so there's no rental cost (but it's noisy, no sync-sound possible)... if you don't have a camera, and you don't need the latest and greatest, you can get unbelievably low rates on something like an old Arri BLIII.

All other costs of moviemaking are going to be the same, regardless of what format you shoot on (sound, crew, lights, actors, props, etc.) I'm only talking about the format for shooting. And you *can* shoot on 35mm, get it processed and one-light transfer to video, for less than you could shoot on a DVX and have that blown up to 35mm. You won't be shooting fresh film stock, you won't be shooting on the latest and greatest camera, you won't have scene-to-scene color-correction on your footage, but you will have 35mm. I'm not saying you *should*, I'm only saying that you *could*.
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

[quote author=tawsy link=board=Events;num=1087806528;start=15#26 date=06/23/04 at 15:10:00]As came out of Aejaz's post most people don't even know where Australia is! ;D[/quote]


At least I do know

I have been to Australia myself...to Darwin...to be more precise. Australia and NewZealand have the most colourful fauna and flora on this earth...to my mind....such an attraction for the videographer.
;)
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

[quote author=Aejaz link=board=Events;num=1087806528;start=15#24 date=06/23/04 at 03:49:54]Every now and then, in this kind of discussion I have a feeling of those in the PAL land subconsicouly pleading...'we have the superior format'....while the NTSC people conscious of their own limitations...subconscioulsy....tend to put up their own arguments to defend....

I think this is normal and pscychologists call this phenomenon as the 'Cognitive Dissonance'....where an individual tends to justify its actions/possessions by logic. [/quote]

Well, that's not cognitive dissonance.  CD is the mental stress when you try to reconcile in your mind two contradictory propositions.

But it *is* rationalization!

As for Australia, well, they've had our backs in pretty much every scrape we've ever been in, and we owe them a great debt.  One of the sorrier chapters in our history is when they asked for help in East Timor and Clinton sent only a few dozen troops to help with logistics.  If the Ozzies ask for the Seventh Fleet, we should give it to them.

Everything except adopt PAL or the Metric System, that is!

;)
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

Yeah David, I was in the Australian Army at the time we went into East Timor. Although the US didn't show a great deal of public or physical support for the campaign, a sizable portion of the pacific fleet were doing 'excercises' about a days sailing from indonesian waters. I believe the Indonesian government was in no doubt what they where there for. ;D
I hang sh*t on the yanks but it is just typical Aussie under dog behavior I'll hang sh*t on anyone who is bigger, richer or more powerfull than us, and the US fits that bill in everyway. ;)

Oh yeah, Monglane New Zealand wont take over the world if you guys keep sinking there boats! ;D
 
Re: PAL RULES- OK

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Events;num=1087806528;start=30#35 date=06/24/04 at 12:10:11]

Well, that's not cognitive dissonance.  CD is the mental stress when you try to reconcile in your mind two contradictory propositions.

;)
[/quote]


While i DONT want to touch on what Aussies did...or US didn't ... ;)....in your post itself some kind of CD (as you have rightly pointed out) seems at work....ha ha ha ;D just joking.

But dont you agree that this whole phenomenon of CD..... as explained by you...IS at work in some of the psots in this thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top