PAL vs. NTSC? Advice?

anchoryanker

anchoryanker

Well-known member
Any advantages to using the NTSC DVX100? I've noticed the PAL version of this cam is alot cheaper, would it be worth it to buy the PAL version and convert it in post to an NTSC format, or is there some technical difficulties that makes the NTSC version a much better choice? I have software that can convert it to different formats, and NLE software that can work in both. I don't mind spending a little extra time in post if I can save some money. Oh, in case you haven't noticed, I'm interest in buying one of these cams, trying to decide.:)
 
The PAL is usually more expensive.

If you live in NTSC country buy NTSC, If you live in PAL buy PAL. The only thing you can beneifit from PAL is its has slightly more res for filmout.
 
Yes, agreed with MovieSwede. With the DVX100 NTSC cam, your resolution will be 720X480, but with the DVX100 PAL cam you will get slightly more resolution b.c. it will be 720X576 pixels.

If you live in a country that conforms to the NTSC standard, then it's better to get the NTSC version of the cam. Plus the NTSC version can record 3 frame rates (30p, 60 interlaced & 24p).

The PAL version only does 50 interlaced & 25p, "p" for progressive frames.

It is possible to record footage using my PAL cam, edit it using a PAL timeline & render the final output (usually DVD or VCD) into the NTSC format as I've done it before for DVDs destined for the U.S.

Both cams from PAL land & NTSC land are the same in features, operation, etc. Just the extra frame rate for NTSC cams. Which country do you live in btw?

Oh, I forgot to add that the PAL camera also records more color samples than the NTSC camera making the colors in a PAL cam slightly more vibrant, but not by much. It's to do with color sampling rates of 4:2:0 versus 4:2:2. I don't think I know enough to explain in detail.

With the NTSC cam, if you have to deal with pull-down when converting your 30fps footage to 24p. Cameras in PAL land do not have to contend with pull-down, which is kinda tricky.
 
Last edited:
I live in the USA.

I was just asking because while shopping around (From authorized vendors, of course!) I noticed that the PAL cam seemed to be about 3-400 dollars cheaper here in the states, on average.

I have software that can convert from one format to another, I was curious if it was worth getting the PAL and saving the money, then editing and converting it to NTSC later, or if that wasn't practical.

I am going to use the 24p(or 25p, if I get the PAL) for a fim look.

I am leaning towards the NTSC, just was curious about the PAL cam, and if getting it instead was a viable option.

Also, where would you all recommend getting a cam, for both best (authorized) price and service?
 
Oh, I forgot to add that the PAL camera also records more color samples than the NTSC camera making the colors in a PAL cam slightly more vibrant, but not by much. It's to do with color sampling rates of 4:2:0 versus 4:2:2.
Click to expand...

Pal does 4:2:0 and ntsc does 4:1:1, the end result is the same it has to do with the way the color samples are transferred to neighbouring pixels. I saw a chart and article on here recently that was very good... cant remember where. Search and ye shall find.
 
Yes 4:1:1 the chroma is sampled 4X1 pixels
in 4:2:0 the chroma is sampled 2X2 pixels

both has 4 pixel big chroma.

The color of PAL vs NeverTheSameColor is another thing...
 
So, I've noticed that on this site there are some used 100P's for $1800-$2000 while the 100A's and B's are 2800-$3000. That's 50% more! would it be worth it to buy the cheaper camera, especially if it is identical except for framerate and rez, and convert the film to NTSC in post? I mean, that's a grand I could better spend on lighting or sound. Is there some technical problem with doing that? I'd hate to buy a PAL camera only to find out I can't use the footage because of some technical reason.

I have a copy of avid express pro(still learning how to use it), can't I shoot and edit in PAL, then output in an NTSC format or just import in PAL, convert to NTSC, then edit , and everything will be ok? I think so, I just want to make sure there is no "catch" if you do that. I don't mind a little more work in post if it means 1k I can better spend elsewhere.

I assume it's just a minor extra step to convert, and I'm not willing to spend an extra grand for NTSC when I could just do that and spend the money on upping production value. There shouldn't be any major obstacle to doing that, is there?
 
Last edited:
I think the important question is how your NLE can perform that task. Try asking in the AVID forum may get a quicker reply to that.
 
MovieSwede said:
The color of PAL vs NeverTheSameColor is another thing...
Click to expand...
hehe, thats right! And nearly 100 pixels more is not only "a slightly more resolution"!!! That's close to a quatre more. Not a lot when you compare it with HD or HDV but you have to compare it in the same class! Just my 2 cents.
 
No one mentioned the sound winding up 4% slower when going from PAL to NTSC? If you don't mind everyone's voice being deeper and a tad slower in pace...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top