PAL version? at DVinfo.net

Eirik Tyrihjel · October 13th, 2003, 04:30 PM

I made a brief phone call to a Norwegian vendor today saying that the JY-HD10U was due to be release in Pal format in November, he had little information about it yet, I signed up for more info whenever he receives it.

Does anoyne have any info on a PAL version yet?

Is the Mpeg 2 artifacts in the ntsc version worse than anything I see with normal DVD (mpeg2)

I am concidering using a pal version for this camera to shoot a feature film project, my other alternatives would be 16mm, or pro HD.

The JVC is by far the cheapest option, but also the "lightest" in setup etc...

Any info is appreciated, I have seen a few stills from the ntsc version posted in these boards, I would love to see more, any links appreciated.

(I currently use the Panasonic dvx100, and/or arriflex 16bl) aside from whatever I rent when I need it.

Eric Bilodeau · October 13th, 2003, 06:49 PM

The actual pal version is not HD, I suppose you will get the same one.

I think a lot of people (indie film makers) would not bother about the NTSC version if the PAL could shoot 720/25p.

Steve Mullen · October 13th, 2003, 10:28 PM

There are many links to pix and video on this site.

As well as many dicussions of pix quality.

Even details on the PAL unit.

Remember, if you are always going to present on HD equipment, you can use the NTSC version.

Lynne Whelden · October 14th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Seems to me that the PAL version might be better in terms of eliminating the "eye tracking" problem. Since its top quality setting is 625p50, you're only talking a 10% loss of resolution and you're gaining the entire shutter speed spectrum for use. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.

Barry Green · October 14th, 2003, 08:03 PM

It loses a bit more than just a 10% loss of resolution... The NTSC version is 1280 x 720, for 921,600 pixels. The PAL version will be 720 x 576 (so-called 625 lines) for a total of 414,720. The PAL version will have less than half the resolution of the NTSC version.

Eirik Tyrihjel · October 15th, 2003, 07:12 PM

To me that makes the PAL version completely obsolete, I would opt for any other camera but this one....
I already have the Panasonic DVX-100, which I am very happy with, I was looking for a cheap option to 16mm...

Glenn Gipson · October 17th, 2003, 01:11 PM

>>To me that makes the PAL version completely obsolete, I would opt for any other camera but this one....<<

The PAL version will probably have the best 16:9 of any sub $3,000 dollar camera. Think about it, you are getting a TRUE progressive 16:9 image at 25 fps, that's not something that the PAL DVX 100 can even do.

Penfold Plum · October 17th, 2003, 06:36 PM

...in mpeg format. I'd take the DVX 100 any day.

Steve Mullen · October 18th, 2003, 03:52 AM

I'd have to agree the DVX100 even without native 16:9 is simply a far better camera for either PAL or NTSC work.

Barry Green · October 18th, 2003, 01:53 PM

<<<--
The PAL version will probably have the best 16:9 of any sub $3,000 dollar camera. Think about it, you are getting a TRUE progressive 16:9 image at 25 fps, that's not something that the PAL DVX 100 can even do. -->>>

Of course it can, if you add the anamorphic adapter...

Lynne Whelden · October 18th, 2003, 03:17 PM

I would think that the PAL version would be the perfect point and shoot camera. No more tracking problems, no need for ND filters.

October 13th, 2003, 04:30 PM	#1
Eirik Tyrihjel Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 84	PAL version? I made a brief phone call to a Norwegian vendor today saying that the JY-HD10U was due to be release in Pal format in November, he had little information about it yet, I signed up for more info whenever he receives it. Does anoyne have any info on a PAL version yet? Is the Mpeg 2 artifacts in the ntsc version worse than anything I see with normal DVD (mpeg2) I am concidering using a pal version for this camera to shoot a feature film project, my other alternatives would be 16mm, or pro HD. The JVC is by far the cheapest option, but also the "lightest" in setup etc... Any info is appreciated, I have seen a few stills from the ntsc version posted in these boards, I would love to see more, any links appreciated. (I currently use the Panasonic dvx100, and/or arriflex 16bl) aside from whatever I rent when I need it. __________________ http://www.groovyentertainment.com RED ONE #476

October 13th, 2003, 06:49 PM	#2
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	The actual pal version is not HD, I suppose you will get the same one. I think a lot of people (indie film makers) would not bother about the NTSC version if the PAL could shoot 720/25p. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

October 13th, 2003, 10:28 PM	#3
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	There are many links to pix and video on this site. As well as many dicussions of pix quality. Even details on the PAL unit. Remember, if you are always going to present on HD equipment, you can use the NTSC version. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

October 15th, 2003, 07:12 PM	#6
Eirik Tyrihjel Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 84	To me that makes the PAL version completely obsolete, I would opt for any other camera but this one.... I already have the Panasonic DVX-100, which I am very happy with, I was looking for a cheap option to 16mm... __________________ http://www.groovyentertainment.com RED ONE #476

October 18th, 2003, 03:52 AM	#9
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	I'd have to agree the DVX100 even without native 16:9 is simply a far better camera for either PAL or NTSC work. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

October 14th, 2003, 07:47 PM	#4
Lynne Whelden Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: williamsport, pa Posts: 604	Seems to me that the PAL version might be better in terms of eliminating the "eye tracking" problem. Since its top quality setting is 625p50, you're only talking a 10% loss of resolution and you're gaining the entire shutter speed spectrum for use. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.

October 14th, 2003, 08:03 PM	#5
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	It loses a bit more than just a 10% loss of resolution... The NTSC version is 1280 x 720, for 921,600 pixels. The PAL version will be 720 x 576 (so-called 625 lines) for a total of 414,720. The PAL version will have less than half the resolution of the NTSC version.

October 17th, 2003, 01:11 PM	#7
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	>>To me that makes the PAL version completely obsolete, I would opt for any other camera but this one....<< The PAL version will probably have the best 16:9 of any sub $3,000 dollar camera. Think about it, you are getting a TRUE progressive 16:9 image at 25 fps, that's not something that the PAL DVX 100 can even do.

October 17th, 2003, 06:36 PM	#8
Penfold Plum New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: London England Posts: 15	...in mpeg format. I'd take the DVX 100 any day.

October 18th, 2003, 01:53 PM	#10
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- The PAL version will probably have the best 16:9 of any sub $3,000 dollar camera. Think about it, you are getting a TRUE progressive 16:9 image at 25 fps, that's not something that the PAL DVX 100 can even do. -->>> Of course it can, if you add the anamorphic adapter...

October 18th, 2003, 03:17 PM	#11
Lynne Whelden Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: williamsport, pa Posts: 604	I would think that the PAL version would be the perfect point and shoot camera. No more tracking problems, no need for ND filters.