pooprobot, we used a variety of modes... I didn't think the dvx was bad at all, infact it was one of the best NTSC cams i have ever seen, in that price range, but it couldn't touch the PAL stuff.

Nothing looked dull to me, it all looked nice. With the PAL running at almost the same frame rate i could not see a difference in the movement of people or pan/tilt, and the more uniform colour of the pal sorta evened out any gamma tweeks i could perform with the dvx. It is also easy to tweek gamma, and curves in the camera or in post, which kind of negates the need of the dvx, not ntsc land i think it would be great, but here it will be of very little difference, nearly all the cams here have the 'film-like' frame rate, whether on cam, or done in post and it comes down to a question of which brand you like then.

kermie

Kermie,
Whoops, I failed to notice earlier that you were comparing the DVX to a PAL
XL1S. As a broadcasting standard in general, PAL definitely looks better than NTSC, I agree

Actually, I'd like to see those stills from the PAL XL1s in FRAME mode. I would think that any sharpness benefits of PAL would be negated in FRAME mode due to the 25% decrease in Vertical resolution in the Canon faux progressive mode.

Here is John Beale's resolution test chart. Looks at the DVX in 24p THIN!! http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/cats/cats.html

Too sad the DVX is limited by the NTSC 4:1:1 for colors.

Jeff,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. And, thanks to everyone else for their comments. There certainly is enough information to ponder.

Thanks again, Nick

The problem I have is converting the signal back to NTSC in post for out put. I like the fact that with the DVX cam does it all and all I have to have is the talent and editing set up. Keep in mind if you're going straight to DVD a lot of DVDs read pal too but this will have to be converted when going to video.

-Vinson