Panasonic DVX100 (original) should I shoot in 24p or 30p?

Hey,
Working on my first feature and will be editing in Final Cut Express HD 3.5. Want our dailies to look progressive scan and filmic should I shoot and edit in 30p?
Chris

I know for the most part you want progressive
That's not necessarily true. For Blu-ray or DVD delivery, 30i would be the better option over 30p or 60p, as 30i can go onto disk "as-is", without any frame rate conversions.
I think the choice on this is purely aesthetic. Do you want the look of film (24p) or the look of video (30i)?
Personally, I shoot everything at 24 fps these days.

Similar Messages

I am filming a musical tomorrow so need a reply ASAP! Should i shoot in 24p or 60i?

Obviously i know the difference between progressive and interlaced, the thing is i am using my cam which is the Sony HXR-NX5U and my secondary camera, the Sony CX580V only has the option to record in 24p, 60i, or 60p. My HXR cam can do 60i, 30p, and 24p. I know for the most part you want progressive, but given that it is a musical, i'm not sure if the higher frame rate would be more appropriate or not? Any advice would be appreciated! I know it isn't technically adobe premiere pro related (even though thats the software i use, but you guys know stuff!! Help!)

I know for the most part you want progressive
That's not necessarily true. For Blu-ray or DVD delivery, 30i would be the better option over 30p or 60p, as 30i can go onto disk "as-is", without any frame rate conversions.
I think the choice on this is purely aesthetic. Do you want the look of film (24p) or the look of video (30i)?
Personally, I shoot everything at 24 fps these days.

Panasonic DVX100a 24p vs 30p in FCP

Hi, I am renting 3 Panasonic DVX100s to video a ballet performance in April. I rented on this weekend to use so I can learn about it.
I don't see any difference between 24p and 30p. Is there any difference in FCP?
Would there be any significant difference between the two when shooting a ballet?
Thank you for any advice.
Brock Fisher
San Diego

Keep in mind, 24p on the 100 is one thing... 24p on a sequence is something else. 24p does NOT mean 24 frames per second when shooting with the dvx. 24pA does (with added step).
I guess my thought would be to test it out at a rehearsal and see what you really want.
Do you want Franco Zeffirelli or do you want the irreverent Peter Sellers (the director, not the actor).
Make sure you really understand what that camera's choices are and how you can use them to your advantage.
CaptM

Should I shoot in HD or SD?

This question comes up from time to time in this and other forums. Clearly, the answer would be to shoot in HD if the final result will be delivered in HD. But what if the final result will be delivered in SD, such as DVD? Does it still make sense to shoot in HD, or will the results not be worth the extra hassle? Here we enter a sort of gray area.
As a general rule, conversion introduces artifacts, whether you're converting from 35mm film to DVD, or from HD to Flash for the web, or even from DV to DVD, the process of converting introduces certain artifacts. This is just a fact of life we can't yet avoid. So the ideal scene is to convert as little as possible. If you shoot in SD for DVD delivery, there is at least the one conversion step that can't be avoided. After all, DVDs will only take MPEG video. But if you shoot in HD for DVD delivery, you need two conversions, one to go from the HD resolution down to the SD resolution, and another to the required MPEG video for DVD. (Whether or not this can be done in a single step is incidental, two conversions are taking place - the resolution change, and the MPEG encoding.)
This brings us to our question. If shooting in HD adds a second conversion step to the process, thus adding more opportunity for artifacts, is it's greater source resolution really worth it? Some say yes, other don't know, I'm not convinced.
So here I suggest a game of sorts, and here are the rules:
1) Same scene shot twice, once in SD, once in HD.
2) Same camera, same lens both times.
3) Both shot in the video norm of 30i. (24p and 30p might also make good tests, but would be separate tests.)
4) Both imported into an appropriate Premiere project. No editing or other manipulation should be done at this point, the idea is to keep things as pristine as possible. A second test after doing some editing would make for another good comparison.
5) Both exported out of Premiere as MPEG2-DVD 30i files which can be used for authoring a normal 30i DVD, uploaded to whatever file sharing site one prefers. I suggest
FlyUpload because you don't have to 'sign up' to use their service, but there are others as well. Files should be named without any indication of which was which, so testers have no preconceived bias.
5a) Those still working in CS3 may also add an hd2sd (script from Dan Issacs) version for comparison, but also as 30i with the same final encoding settings to keep things as level as possible.
6) Once the files are uploaded and links posted, readers in this forum can download the files, burn their own DVDs and watch on their own TVs. I recommend a variety of such tests, DVD on a CRT, DVD on an HD set, DVD played back on a Blu-ray, etc., then come back here and post our observations. Those who take the time to do the work of shooting, processing and uploading should wait a bit for several users to post observations before listing which version was which.
So there it is folks. Anyone care to play?

Dan,
>his love of the "film look"
And you are all the way innocent :)
Back to topic.
I may have misjudged what Bill showed in his link. For my excuse I could say, oh it was web format. The thing is though that I have several times seen the end product bringing something from the source, also when the end product is video for web. The overall look made in the camera (no matter SD or HD) is more important than pixels in most cases, unless of course one wants to use a BIG screen.
Even more back to topic.
I think Jim has a good question (wanted test). That's because the few times I have worked with HDV/AVCHD, I have been surprised seeing how little of the "extra pixels" in HD that makes a difference in the end product.
And, I have done one test myself that showed me pretty clearly that I should shoot in SD instead of HD. I filmed a mobile-phone (cellular, or whatever you call it) and the end product's (flash video) pixel-size was set. Trying to shoot HD and resize to the set pixel-size did NOT turn out well at all. I didn't try Dan/Jim/Jeff's method because deadline and budget didn't allow that.
Just to shoot SD, adjusting zoom/distance on the camera so that cropping to correct size didn't involve resize of the footage gave me the best and quickest results.
Anyone who has dealt with one pixel sized text will probably take my point here. Don't resize, shoot (or screen capture for that sake) at the size the end video is going to be!
Of course I could have zoomed the HD camera so I didn't need resizing (just cropping off everything I didn't need), but then I just don't see the point of having to deal with HDV.
Now, I know that filming displays may not be the "usual" thing to do, but still, that is one example where "biggest" (meaning pixels) not give anything extra, and rather make more problems.
I have seen a lot HDV/AVCHD footage that just don't have the same feel as my PD-150 (PS! I normally use low sharpness in the camera setting. That's one thing better adjusted in post). Then it's just don't matter for me how many pixels I look at.
The end product's quality, meaning what people are looking at, that's what going to be judged. And then again, Jim has a good question, is it always needed to "shoot big".
I would like to see the same test as Jim describes (and I regret I didn't have the time to do it myself last time I had a HDV camera in my hand (which could do both SD and HDV)).
Would it be bad for anybody to see that test coming through?
Dag

SMOOTH MOTION IN FILM INDUSTRY ALTHOUGH SHOOTING IN 24P......

Hello guys!
I always had a general question about film making...
How professional Hollywood films can shoot their footages with such a smoth motion (without any jitters, strobing, blury e.t.c. artifacts) although they are shooting in 24p. 24p is not good especially when we have to deal with panning shots. Interlaced footage is much better in terms of smooth motion. Yet the films are perfect!! So the question is how they can achieve better and smoother motion although they shoot in progressive than in interlaced.
Thanks.

How professional Hollywood films can shoot their footages with such a smoth motion (without any jitters, strobing, blury e.t.c. artifacts) although they are shooting in 24p. 24p is not good especially when we have to deal with panning shots. Interlaced footage is much better in terms of smooth motion. Yet the films are perfect!! So the question is how they can achieve better and smoother motion although they shoot in progressive than in interlaced.
To answer your question directly, there are a couple of things that Hollywood does that you don't normally see when shooting on a smaller crew, smaller budget, etc...
For one, you need to achieve the much discussed shallow depth of field (DOF) over/above what a typical 24p video camera can do. This is a balance of lens focal distance and image sensor size. An old fashioned 35mm film camera has a "sensor" that is many times larger than an HD video sensor. The focal distance of the lenses is also generally a good big larger. Therefore, shallow DOF.
You also need to frame the shot and move the frame just like in Hollywood. Even when you're looking at a large panoramic vista shot, you'll notice that the image pans only very slightly, and many times the subject/foreground remains relatively stationary. This reduces stuttering substantially, to the point it's almost unnoticable (though you WILL notice it if you are actively looking for it). For tighter shots in motion (say, a full-body profile shot of the subject walking across a room), you're going to be panning or trucking at a speed that will cause strobing in the shot more than likely, and this only mitigated by keeping the subject spatially stationary in the frame throughout the move.
Another technique has to do with lighting, combined with the two previous techniques. If the relative luminosity of the foreground/subject is substantially greater than the background or other elements in the frame, the strobing is less noticeable on those secondary elements. Your eye becomes more focused on the foreground brighter objects - similar to the way DOF affects your perception - and so you just don't really notice that dark, strobing background so much.
The 24p strobing effect has very little to do with processing at all. However, converting between frame rates and formats CAN sometimes exacerbate all manner of video artifacts, including strobing in the shot. It's not the usual culprit though.
So hopefully you learned a new word today - TECHNIQUE - and you better understand that it's not as much Hollywood's technology that aids the quality of their product, as it is the TECHNIQUE involved in the production. That should be good news of course....technique can be learned, whereas much everything else about Hollywood's production aesthetic comes with an enormous price tag that most independent producers cannot afford.

Should I shoot RAW or JPG and what ratio should I pick when shooting stills?

I want to take artistic pictures. Does that mean I should shoot RAW and then deal with the settings in Photoshop? I realize I can't for the corporate photo contest because I am not allowed to Photoshop anything for the contest. And pictures at a party that I intend to share or immediately upload, I understand why I would not shoot RAW.
Are there other reasons not to do so?
Many of you know me. I have been shooting video for a while and I am just now starting to shoot stills. These are tough questions for me.
I always assumed I would shoot stills using the maximum frame size possible. However, I have other choices.
When the aspect ratio setting is [4:3]
4608x3456 pixels, 3264x2448 pixels, 2336x1752 pixels
When the aspect ratio setting is [3:2]
4608x3072 pixels, 3264x2176 pixels, 2336x1560 pixels
When the aspect ratio setting is [16:9]
4608x2592 pixels, 3264x1840 pixels, 1920x1080 pixels
When the aspect ratio setting is [1:1 ]
3456x3456 pixels, 2448x2448 pixels, 1744x1744 pixels
Now, to be honest, I can't think of a reason to shoot stills at any size other than the 4:3 based 4608x3456 except to save room on the memory card. But I figured I should probably ask just in case I am missing something. Storage is not an issue as far as I can tell at this time. I bought two 64GB cards and I will be able to use part of my 16GB Smartphone memory card for additional storage should the need arise. Most likely I will have plenty of room until I can copy over to my laptop and then on to an external drive.
For reference: http://www.herviewphotography.com/2012/06/18/raw-vs-jpg-file-formats.html

Steven,
You are correct, that you should not shoot the Holiday Party pics in RAW, as they will only be used to blackmail your boss, and co-workers, so JPEG would be adequate for that (unless you really need to do Photoshop work, to make the images more "compromising... ").
Now, shooting in Camera RAW has several advantages, and really only two disadvantages, that I can think of.
Camera RAW captures everything that the sensor can, but it is in unprocessed form (one of the disadvantages), and then Photoshop with the ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) can "process" your images. I do this, when I have real use for the Images. I have developed a Preset for my Nikon Camera RAW, for each camera, so it's fairly easy to batch process. I always Save_As PSD, since I will very likely do additional work (not useful for the company competition, but CAN be useful for those black-mail pictures, if you have much "work" to do).
I Save my NEF's (Nikon Camera RAW) Images, and then, in a separate folder, my processed PSD's. Those are sort of like duplicate transparencies, but with slightly different data in each. From the first, the NEF's, I could always run them through ACR again, should something happen to my PSD's. The reverse is not true, but at least I would have my PSD's.
For use in Video, I will almost always Open my PSD's, and Scale them, plus possibly do other Image-editing, per my needs. As I shoot at max. resolution (~ 4000 x 3000), I will be Scaling, and then likely Cropping (as most Projects now, are 16:9). If you do any 4:3 Projects, then you are already there, save for the Square Pixel vs Rectangular Pixel issue, but if you Scale the 4:3 material to 640 x 480 Square, it should look just fine in a 4:3 PAR=0.9 Project's Frame.
In camera, I always try to mentally compose the Images into 16:9 horizontal, if I see the potential for Video use. It's like keeping 11 x 17 in the back of my mind, when shooting for potential double-truck magazine use. [Back in film days, I made several Nikon screens, to fit various common uses.]
Though PrPro CS 6 (as of CS 5), with full CUDA/MPE support, can do a great job of Scaling, I still use my PS Actions to batch process entire folders, and usually on Bicubic Sharper, though for some subjects, I choose Bicubic Smoother. This means that I am not "pushing around" a bunch of unused pixels. I Crop each Image, and then Scale it, with the Action, to match the Frame Size of the Project.
Now, back to RAW. That allows you the full capture from the sensor, so you have everything to work with. I shoot in 16-bit, for as much data, as I can get. One step in the process, but usually well after the ARC processing, and Saving_As PSD, will be the conversion to 8-bit Mode, but only after ALL of my processing, as PrPro cannot use 16-bit Bit-Depth, for Video.
For just general shooting (usually "happy-snaps"), with no inteneded high-rez printing, or Video use, I will shoot JPEG, at the highest quality setting (lowest compression), and be done with it.
One disatvantage of Camera RAW is the write time to the card, but with newer cameras, and faster cards, that is less of a problem, than it once was. Still, even high-rez JPEG's, though they do require in-camera processing to JPEG, will allow one to shoot more quickly. [That can be very important with those Holiday Party pics, as who knows what will happen in the next nanosecond?]
To me, Camera RAW is sort of like standing in front of a photograph, with my entire set of cameras. I ask, "Is this really a great shot?" If so, out comes the 4 x 5. If the answer is "maybe," then I grab a Hassleblad. If the answer is "no, but it IS interesting," then the 35mm is my choice. Sort of the same thing, but instead of cameras, it's RAW vs High-rez JPEG.
Just some thoughts.
Hunt
[Edit] PS - what the linked article said.

What Color Space Should I Shoot In.

First, I'll admit that the entire color management aspect of photography/monitors/printing, is a bit too dense for me to completely comprehend. However, I do have some working knowledge of it. So, here's my pre-LR setup.
I shoot in sRGB and used Photoshop Elements or RSE or DPP to process the RAW or JPG shots. I export in sRGB and do not allow the printer to Color Manage (I use Windows, BTW) If I send to a lab, I do not use any ICC profiles, as I cannot soft proof, so I let the lab use their profiles. My monitor is calibrated using a Pantone Heuy (I know, not as sophisticated as a Spyder, but what I see on the screen matches what I shot, so I'm happy with it.
Now. I will be using LR exclusively for processing my photos. What should I set my camera to? I can use AdobeRGB or sRGB. I realize that LR uses ProPhoto, so I'm not sure where my shooting choice adds or subtracts from the equationand I'm still not sure what settings to print in. I can easily try to let LR translate or manage my file when sending to my home printer. How should I prepare a photo for sending to a lab?
What should I shoot in?
Should I do anything to the LR color space I work in?
What should I do, in regards to color space for printing?
Thaks,
Steven (the confused)

Thanks, Ian. For some unknown reason, I had some time ago set up my user name as one of my e-mail addies, and then when I became active on the LR forums, was too occupied to deal with it, until I learned it was easier than pie. And much easier than pi. 3.414x, no?
I'm leaving in an altered non-robotical-vulnerable format for a bit, so that those that knew me as the E-mail address, or McPhotoman in the beta forum can either listen to what I say, or avoid my postings.... Cheers.

24p vs 30p for a documentary

Hi all. So I'm dipping my toe into the documentary film pool and I need to purchase a better camera. I have narrowed it down to the Panisonic AG-DVX100* or Panasonic AG-DVC30. The DVC30 is a hair cheaper but it doesn't have 24p. Two questions.
-How noticeable is the difference between 24p and 30p?
and
-Can FCE actually handle 24p?
I've been searching the discussion board and I'm just a little confused on the matter. I'm sure one of you with some experience could clear it up for me. I want this first film to look good but it doesn't have to be immaculate. From what I understand, FCE can't handle 24p but it can handle 30p (29.97). Am I correct? This will help me in my decision process between the two cameras. Has anyone had experience with the AG-DVC30? I've heard nothing but rave reviews of the DVX100. Thanks in advance.
MacBook Pro 1.83 ghz 2gb Mac OS X (10.4.10)

Last weekend I rented a Panasonic AG-DVX100B. I chose the F5 preset for 24p (not advanced), cine-like, etc.
When I imported it into FCE 3.5 I got 30-interlaced.
I tried re-importing into a fresh, new project in FCE but FCE still shows the imported videos as 30-interlaced. I've double-checked the camera settings and it's definitely recording 24p.
Any idea what might have gone wrong?
TIA,
--Richard
G4/867 Tower Mac OS X (10.4.10)

Orange UK N95 original - should v20 be available?

I have an Orange branded N95 original (not 8gb) in the UK on an Orange contract, bought from Phones4U. People keep talking about v20 of the firmware. When I run Software Updater it tells me I have v11.0.026 and that this is up to date. Is something wrong? Should v20 be available to me?

Nokia statement:
You should be aware that Nokia can only release updates for network-branded devices with the approval of that network, this is not a case of Nokia creating delays for the user.
So users, request software update via your network operator, don't blame Nokia!
Smile is Health. Keep your Smile

Just upgraded to FCP 5.1 and get no signal from Panasonic DVX100

Hello all.
I am an experienced FCP user. Just did a fresh install of 5.1 and now I get no connection with my dvx100 (the original not the "a" model). I get remote control, meaning when I go to capture I can play, rewind, etc, however FCP sees no image and I cannot import or export to/from video. When I startup FCP says it cannot locate the exterior device firewire NTSC 720x480.
What is going on? Is this camera no longer supported with FCP 5.1? It worked fine with 4.1.1
Please help!!

Welcome to the forum.
You will find by searching that this question (deck/camera not recognized after upgrade of FCP/QT/OSX) is asked (and answered) multiple times a day.
Searching before posting is a great way to utilize the forum and to gain much faster answers to your questions.
Since this is your initial visit - you get one free get out of jail card ....
The problem most commonly is the Quicktime installation becomes corrupted in some minor way during some upgrades. A full quicktime reinstall most often solves the problem.
Heres how:
Go to /library/receipts and delete any files that say Quicktime followed by a number e.g. Quicktime703.pkg
Go to the Apple quicktime site and download the appropriate version of Quicktime to your hard drive.
Run the Quicktime installer.
Repair Disk Permissions for your System Disk (Disk Utility > Select the system disk > Repair Disk Permissions)
Reboot
Good luck.
x

What frame rate should I shoot?

This has been a nagging question I need to get answered. I have a JVC 700U and shoot football highlites and put the hour long show on the web. I would like to keep the file size as small as possible for obvious reasons but still maintain quality. I have been shooting in 720p 60 then editing in a 29.97 timeline. The 29.97 timeline keeps the exported H.264 smaller than the 59.94 timeline would. Should I keep the timeline 59.94? Should I make the timeline 30p instead of 29.97? Also, what about shooting in 30p since my timeline is 29.97? (or 30p) As you can tell, I am very confused and just looking for the best combo? The camera does not offer 29.97 or 59.94 data rate.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. www.northcoastgameoftheweek.com
Best.
Tom

Should I keep the timeline 59.94?
You can if you want. Using a 29.97 timeline allows you to conform the 60p media to make slomo.
Should I make the timeline 30p instead of 29.97?
No.
Also, what about shooting in 30p since my timeline is 29.97?
30p is 29.97 with segmented frames. I don't like it as a format.

You shoot 24p, 25p, 30p but iMove 09 treats it as interlace! Why?

If your HD camcorder can shoot “1080p25” (progressive 25fps) or “1080p30” (progressive 30fps), of course you want to shoot using these frame rates. The Canon HV40 and Canon HF S11 are examples of HD camcorders that can shoot progressive video at 25fps (in PAL regions) or at 30fps (in NTSC regions) in addition to “1080i50” or “1080i60.” They can also shoot 24fps.
When you shoot 1080p24, 1080p25, or 1080p30, in most cases progressive video is recorded as interlace video. Both 1080p24 and 1080p30 are recorded as 1080i60 while 1080p25 is recorded as 1080i50.
When iMovie 09 imports this video, it will treat this progressive video as interlaced HD. Unfortunately, iMovie treats interlaced HD badly. If you Stabilize a clip, employ a PIP or Crop, add a Ken Burns effect to a video clip, or use a Wipe or Pseudo-3D transition (such as Cube)—iMovie on-the-fly converts your 1080-line video to 540p (960x540) video. Therefore, all 1080i clips in your movie will lose up to 35% vertical resolution and up to 40% horizontal resolution. This loss of resolution will occur even if you add only one of these effects.
But, what if iMovie didn't do this?
What if iMovie correctly saw progressive HD as progressive HD -- not interlaced HD? This would allow all scaling FX to be used. Moreover, because you ARE shooting progressive HD, NO scaling artifacts would be introduced!
Would this be a benefit to HDV and AVCHD 1080i shooters?
Absolutely! Especially if all this could accomplished without wasting time and image quality recompressing your video.

The Pana 300 is a great camcorder, but I wish it shot 30p. If you want a Cine look you'll have to shoot 24fps rather than the easier to use 30fps.
Anyway, about removing pulldown:
1) You CAN remove 2-3 pulldown. But, it requires a recompresion from AIC to AIC after your clips' AVCHD is converted by iMovie to AIC. This would provide real 1080p24. I call this "TRUE 1080P." But, with a MacBook this might take too long. And, you lose a generation of quality!
2) A better solution is to get iMovie to treat your video as though it has no pulldown and is progressive. I call this "FALSE 1080P" because once 2-3 pulldown is added during recording, the video has BECOME interlaced. (I'll explain about this in my other thread on dealing with 1080i50 and 1080i60.)
PS: The reason I prefer to shoot 1080p30 is because then the goal is to get iMovie to treat 25p/30p video as though it were progressive. I call this "TRUE 1080P" because it really IS progressive.
We know what it is, but iMovie doesn't. And, how can iM since it is recorded as 1080i50 and 1080i60. It's too bad Canon and Panasonic record 25p/30p as interlaced. The neat thing about TRUE 1080P is that after editing as progressive you can export as 1080i or 720p. And, no matter what FX you use you'll never get scaling artifacts!

Firewire Problem - Won't See Panasonic DVX100

I have a brand new 24" aluminum iMac. It won't recognize a Panasonic DVX 100 dv camera. The same camera works on my old 15" flatpanel iMac -- same OS version (10.4.10) and same version of Quicktime (7.2). I'm using the Firewire 400 port. The new iMac will recognize other devices on this port -- including an old Sony HandyCam camera and iMac g3 in firewire target mode. I've tried everything -- power down, reset PRAM, update Quicktime, turn device on and off, etc. The DVX discussion boards have other reports of people who can't get the new iMacs to recognize the DVX100. Any help??

Success! (sort of) -- the work around described elsewhere on this forum works, namely hooking the device up through an external firewire hub. In this case, I connected a firewire-based cd read/write drive to the computer and then hooked the camera to the cd drive, so the cd drive was functioning as a hub. The computer recognized the camera and FCP 6 was able to recognize and control the camera.

Sync original script to shooting script

Those who have ever been on a film set know that the script may change a bit:
- dialogue,
- action,
- dropping a character who falls ill and is not critical for the story,
- dropping a scene due to budget / time constraints (overrun on budget)
AND is it CRITICAL to have the script updated for these changes.
IS THERE A WAY TO CONNECT THE SHOOTING SCRIPT AND THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT. Whoever has decided in the functionality of Adoby Story these 2 as seperate documents that do not sync has apparently never been to a film set before.
When will we be able to see the changes in one visible in the other?

OK, here is the other piece to it. Now I am able to find and replace the IP and the Hostname however the IP gets written twice.
I am just curious if others think this would be helpful.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use File::Find;
my $startdir = 'c:\ips-test';
my $find = 'host-ip 10\.1\.1\.101';
my $replace = 'host-ip 10.1.1.102';
my $find2 = 'host-name corpips01';
my $replace2 = 'host-name corpips02';
my $doctype = 'txt';
print qq~Finding "$find" and replacing it with "$replace" and "$find2" with "$replace2" \n~;
find(
   sub{
      return unless (/\.$doctype$/i);
      local @ARGV = $_;
      local $^I = '.bac';
      while( <> ){
         if( s/$find/$replace/ig ) {
            print;
          if( s/$find2/$replace2/ig ) {
            print;
         else {
            print;
}, $startdir);
print "Finished";

DVD for UK and World Wide. Should I shoot Pal or NTSC

Hey guys,
I have a project to produce a series of DVDs for an American client.
They want the finished films on DVD for Worldwide distribution.
I have a Sony Z1E and I can shoot HDV1080i50 for Pal or HDV1080i60 for NTSC.
I intend to edit in HDV and down convert the final films for standard def DVD.
Will there be a problem watching these films on certain TVs? Will a Pal DVD work on a NTSC TV or will a NTSC work on a Pal?
I want to know from the beginning so I can shoot in the format which will work best for the final DVD to be seen on both Pal and NTSC.
Please help if you can,
Jamie

NTSC DVD players cannot play PAL DVDs. Most (but not all) PAL DVD players can play NTSC DVDs. So if you want to make only one disc your best bet is NTSC. But be aware that you will get a few people who will say, "It doesn't work". The best solution is to make PAL and NTSC discs. And no, you cannot make a disc that is both PAL and NTSC.
A side note. DVD players will only play SD material. So shooting HD is overkill. You will have to convert it down to SD resolution. Also HDV is the poorest of the HD formats as far as quality goes.

Panasonic DVX100 (original) should I shoot in 24p or 30p?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for