is there any sense to getting a pal camera? will I end up with funky color in ntsc?

or, since pal is better color (as I understand it) would ntsc color. . .come out ok?

thanks

If you're worried about NTSC color, it sounds like you want to produce primarily for NTSC. If that's the case don't get a PAL camera. Conversion methods have some a long way, but still in the end standards conversions muck things up unless they have a purpose.

If your purpose is to have some element of a "film look", then yes, PAL transferred to NTSC will give you some of that.

If your goal is DVD distribution, equally in PAL and NTSC places, then NTSC is a better choice because it is strangely more universally supported by DVD players.

If your goal is broadcast, equally in PAL and NTSC places, then PAL is a better choice because PAL will look better converted to NTSC than the other way around.

But if you had a reasonable chance of making any of these goals you wouldn't be asking this question. I don't even know why I'm pretending to answer this question... what was the question?

I love the answer it reminds me of reading Robert Musil.

My goal really is for it to look good projected on a screen, but I don't care about the "film look" particularly. Doesn't that help!

It is probably just a headache waiting to happen. In fact the person who planted this idea in my head had a film he shot in PAL screened and now that I think of it it looked absolutely terrible (but it was also completely underlit but then also the low light stuff is probably among stuff what comes to a bad end in conversion)!

actually it occurs to me another filmmaker I know shot a film that looked so amazing in all light conditions and I know his resources were nil I'm just gonna ask him what he used. I know it was a panasonic and I thought I was watching 35 mm at the director's guild big theater. and it was not HD. and it wasn't PAL!

There you have it. You need a non-PAL Panasonic. I'm glas we figured it out.

I will let you know when I get the model number from him which one it was as well as which film it was, cause it's on DVD.

Is buying a PAL camera just for the film look even necessary anymore? It was all the rage when DV cameras first exploded and filmmakers liked the look (and convenience) over 60i footage. But now that we have cameras that can shoot 24p, does it matter? Will the same, well-lit scene look any different if shot on a DVX100 vs. a DVX100E (PAL)?

JK

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

I thought NTSC stood for Never The Same Color......

Derek

NTSC is only bad in analogue. In digital, both PAL and NTSC use REC601, and hence should have the same colours.

Graeme

Ok, finally, the film that blew me away as I watched it at the directors guild cause it looked like 35 mm and it looked absolutely flawless in many and various lighting conditions was "Vacationland" by Todd Verow, who used to shoot a lot of funky looking movies with a canon optura. For "Vacationland" he used the amazing:

Panasonic AG-DVX100B

Forget about HD, just get this one!