Hey,

I have been thinking about getting a Panasonic AG DVX 100.

What I dont know is if I should get the PAL or NTSC version.
I'm in the United States and will be using it here but I'm a European and over ther we use Pal.

My Questions;

1. Will the fact that my camera is a PAL verison be a problem in the U.S. and will the NTSC version be a problem in Europe?

2. There is a lot of talk about how better it is transfering the images from a PAL camera rather then an NTSC one to 35 mm, is this true?

3. What about the 24-25 fps and the 30-50i frame differance between PAL and NTSC AG DVX 100 going to be a huge problem? The human eye can not see the differance between 24 and 25 anyways.

4. I have Final Cut Pro that I bought in the U.S., will I not be able to cut my films if I film with a PAL version camera?? It has a few PAL modes.

5. Pal has better image quality then NTSC so is that a plus??

Short, what do you think is a better purchase? The NTSC or PAL Panasonic AG-DVX 100 version??

P.S. What do the letter/s at the back of the '100' part of the camera name mean? What is the best version?

I'm new at this digital thing, I mostly shoot on Super 16 but it costs $$ so I need a Digital camera. I have used the XL-2 but like the Panasonic better.

Much thanks to all who reply.

I don't know that much about PAL & NTSC, so I will not go into that. I suggest you take a look at some websites, which objectively describe the differences between the two formats. People here can surely tell you a lot about it, but you'd do well to do some research yourself, otherwise you might come to the wrong conclusion.

As for 24p , 25p... there are some experienced filmmakers and videographres over here who can tell you the difference. It really depends on the settings. Some camera's achieve a nice filmish look, although never much like real 35 mm film. You may want to check out whether the 24p mode is a Cinema mode. Don't get your hopes up though, some Cinema modes are really disappointing, actually. I believe the Sony HDR camera's like the FX1 have a terrible cinema mode, whereas the XL2 has quite a nice Cinema mode.

So my suggestion would be to check out the internet yourself as well, and take a look at some 24p & 25p footage.

www.dvxuser.com - a great website for the Panasonic DVX100 series. they also feature a lot of footage, so you may want to take a look at that as well. Post a topic there as well, if you need to.

Hope this helps,

gotan

1. Will the fact that my camera is a PAL verison be a problem in the U.S. and will the NTSC version be a problem in Europe?
Yes, assuming you want to playback video to a TV directly from the camera.

2. There is a lot of talk about how better it is transfering the images from a PAL camera rather then an NTSC one to 35 mm, is this true?
Generally, yes. But with the dvx, you can shoot 24pA (in NTSC) and get the absolute best results.

3. What about the 24-25 fps and the 30-50i frame differance between PAL and NTSC AG DVX 100 going to be a huge problem? The human eye can not see the differance between 24 and 25 anyways.
Assuming what you said is true, you're dealing with standards and your audio will slip at the very least. You'll need to transcode them to whatever system you're outputting to on the computer.

4. I have Final Cut Pro that I bought in the U.S., will I not be able to cut my films if I film with a PAL version camera?? It has a few PAL modes.
It'll work, no problem.

5. Pal has better image quality then NTSC so is that a plus??
Assuming what you said is true, assuming you're playing it back on PAL equipment, of course it's true! I think you're talking about more lines of resolution. The tradeoff is the PAL version doesn't have 24p capture. Only 25p. If transferring to film, some don't like this, others don't care.

Short, what do you think is a better purchase? The NTSC or PAL Panasonic AG-DVX 100 version??
Decide whether it's most important to play the best quality back on NTSC or PAL TVs. That is the version you should buy. If you don't plan on playing on TVs and only want something that transfers to film, I'd go NTSC.

P.S. What do the letter/s at the back of the '100' part of the camera name mean? What is the best version?
These are revision numbers. DVX100b is the latest and has some substantial improvements. I would at the very least buy the "a".

I'm new at this digital thing, I mostly shoot on Super 16 but it costs $$ so I need a Digital camera. I have used the XL-2 but like the Panasonic better.
I'll leave this to Evan to rant off.

BTW, have you seen the HVX200. About $1200 USD more, but captures DV50 and DVCProHD (that's high definition). That is what I am buying (or renting) for my next project.

Thanks for the lead-in, Joren...

I seriously recommend doing an honest cost-benefit analysis. Is this for your own use (personal films), commercial (paying) gigs, or both?

If it's the former, really consider how much footage you will shoot. I think most people don't use their miniDV cameras enough to justify the greater cost and inferior image quality of video. Yes, tapes are cheap, but if you spend $3500 on a camera and shoot two hours of footage for three ten minute shorts, you probably could have accomplished the same finished output (30 minutes of final product) with about 80 minutes of film, which processed and transferred would be about $1500 for B&W, $1850 for color. This leaves you with nearly $2000 for a camera, which since you shoot S16 already it sounds like you have access to.

In your case especially it seems like it would make more sense to keep working with S16 rather than spend thousands to acquire a video camera that may not be used enough to justify the price.

I own a GL2 that I bought about two years ago, and it's been used for about 80-90 minutes of finished output (maybe 8-10 hours of footage shot). In my case the camera cost $1700 or so, and film/processing/transfer for 16mm would have been more expensive. I've shot enough to cover the difference, in other words. I also don't think it was a bad idea to work on video for a while before moving to film.

OTOH it sounds like you already have some access to gear and experience. I'd keep on shooting in S16...

(if you get the DVX, get the PAL version - the effective vertical resolution is better.)

Thank you very much guys, your a big help.
I do own a K-3 and a B R16 and love working with film, I also have a few S8's.
I write all of my stuff so I just think that it really will save me money and perhaps time if I get a DVX 100. It's hard work if you are planing to shoot on film and that is good but if just feel like shooting something or just to better my cinematography skills a DV is the way to go.
I know I will be using the Mini DV all the time if I get it and the cost will be worth it.

Reading your comments I am still torn, it's 50-50 on the PAL-NTSC subject.
Pal gives me better resolution but NTSC makes it more easy to work with in the U.S. were i'm working.

How hard is it really to work with PAL in the U.S. and what makes the NTSC version a better choise here? Is it just the TV issue?
If I have a PAL tv with me and an adapter I'm good right?
Say I get the PAL version and have finished post would I have to burn DVD's in NTSC mode or PAL and if I have to make NTSC wouldnt an NTSC camera be better? If I had a NTSC camera and burn PAL DVD's the resolution would still be weaker then if I shot the Project on a PAL version camera right?

Thank You.

Dude, it's your temporal resolution that is the issue. Of course the extra 50 viewable lines of resolution on a PAL system is great--but not if the footage is all jittery from transcoding. And neither 24p to 50i or 25p to 60i looks very good. Personally, if all things are really as equal as you say, I'd rather see 24p converted to 50i PAL--like viewing movies on TV in Europe. But I can't honestly believe that both formats are really that equally important to you. Choose where you need the absolute best quality, and go from there.

But don't believe me. You should do some tests with transcoding footage to both formats and decide which is the best for you.