...............HD is not quite here yet and also expensive, yet UK PAL standard is almost as good.


not almost as good.
Well I guess it depends on what you mean by almost.
In my opinion not almost as good

Man, would I surely appreciate an explanation of what "almost as good" might constitute. Which flavor of HD are you referring to? There is no flavor of HD that is remotely close to the 720 x 576 of PALDV.
Are you referring to the fact that there are *some* 24P HD systems and that PAL is 25fps? On framerate, that's an argument that many folks can easily get behind you on. But that's not related to resolution, it's related to framerate and cadence.
You can have NTSC/PAL/HD from any source. The question is the quality of the final output, not what the pixel count is.
True, PAL DV is 4:2:0, and HDV is same, but there is a whomping difference in the resolution. HDV is also MPEG.
And more importantly, please don't confuse HDV with HD.

You have a fatal flaw in your argument that stands out like a sore thumb. "Vegas can give us NTSC output from PAL capture..." So, you're ending up with NTSC. Is that HD? No? I didn't think so. Not only are you converting from what you claim to be close to HD over to NTSC which is far from HD, but it's a rather tortuous conversion at that. The frame rate has to change and the image size also becomes smaller. Both of these conversions lose definition and clarity.

Consider this ... you can create NTSC from an HD capture too. Would you claim that NTSC created this way is close to the HD original? No? I didn't think so. Coming from PAL would be even worse.

As much as I'd like the rest of the world to enjoy the benefits of PAL this isn't the justification, not by a LONG mark

I only at this time make NTSC and I am looking at a new camera. The aim of my question was to ask will not a PAL camera (that has more resolution than a US camera) give me better raw footage to work with?

I've heard it remarked that although PAL has what appears to be superior resolution, the total amount of information transmitted during a given time interval, is approximately the same-(owing to NTSC's greater frame rate per second). Never having actually seen a PAL vs NTSC comparision, can anyone who has tell me if there is a difference, if all other variables are equalized ?

The one exception to what everybody here is talking about is if you want to do a 24P conversion for a film transfer or "film look". Check out this site:

http://dvfilm.com/

In addition to doing video to film transfers they have two software products: one that converts from PAL to NTSC (DVFilm Atlantis) and one that converts from NTSC to 24P (DVFilm Maker). NTSC to PAL conversions are supposed to be supported in the next release of DVFilm Atlantis (version 2.0) but you can go through these steps to do the conversion now:

http://dvfilm.com/cgi-bin/board/main.cgi?board=Windows;action=display;num=1077651208

Just do the audio speed-up in Sound Forge instead of Goldwave.

I just bought DVFilm Maker yesterday. For a fake progressive mode, this is about as good as it gets. It works surprisingly well. Like real progressive mode, it looks jerky on fast movements, but the de-interlacing is the best I've seen.

Read the thread on DVInfo.net between AE, DVFilmmaker, FCP users, and everyone was of the conclusion that Vegas does a far better job than these tools do. Converting 60i to 24P, Vegas does a much better job as well. Same goes for converting PAL to NTSC or NTSC to PAL.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19304&highlight=Vegas

"Never having actually seen a PAL vs NTSC comparision, can anyone who has tell me if there is a difference"

Not wishing to get involved with the technicalities, because I am not conversant with the technical issues of video, but the difference between watching any programme broadcast in NTSC land is inferior to PAL transmissions.

I, and probably a lot of other PAL consumers don't understand how you live with such poor quality TV.

Sorry, I don't wish to offend anybody. Just stating the facts.

Given that PAL is 720x576 and NTSC is 720x480 there's a significant difference to start with. Also PAL is an integer number of FPS so that can save an aweful lot of anguish even when you're working with Vegas.

But then again SECAM is even better!

But most transmission systems are not that great unless you're talking DVB and almost all TVs don't use anything like all the resolution that either PAL or NTSC has to offer.

What I really and trully don't get in all this discussion is there's a pretty simple way to get that magic 'film look' and you don't need a single bit of software, heck you can do it without a PC. Shoot on film. It isn't THAT expensive, I'd even go so far as to say a well planned and managed film production on Super 16 would be cheaper that a half hearted effort using DV25 gear. Film has way more latitude, much more resolution, the cameras take a huge range of lenses and are very reliable. The first movie I shot was with a clockwork Bolex, the guy who loaned it to us said we could have an electric camera to start with cause he wanted us to learn how to shoot. When the sping runs out at 90 secs you learn how to keep the shots short and the talent learns how to be, well, ah, talented.

If Super 16 is outside your budget Super 8 is back in production and there's still a few decent cameras around on eBay but I think not for long.

If you think I'm nuts, consider this, most TV series are shot on film.

Bob

If anyones interested I've just done a PAL to NTSC conversion using Vegas. Stuff with motion looks a little soft but I'm not that certain just how good it can look anyway.
So by way of comparison I'm getting the same footage run through a Leich converter, this expensive box has motion compensation which should reduce the motion blur during de-interlacing.

When I have the results I'll let you know how it compares. I'll also take along a tape of the Vegas conversion and we should be able to run the two side by side on some decent studio monitors.

Bob.

This is pretty interesting de-interlacing with Vegas link:

http://ideaspora.net/progressive/

To get back to the origin of this thread, why does Sony not put the UK PAL CCD in the US camera? This coupled with the increased frame rate would give more pixel information to start with. Is the cameras write to tape feature not able to keep up?

The obvious tradeoff for the increased vertical resolution is, of course, the reduced frame rate. Most NTSC people seeing a PAL set for the first time think it's broken--the picture flickers really badly. The human brain, though, is very adaptable, and by the third or fourth day the flicker is ignored.

What I wonder is whether the reverse is true--when you PAL guys come here to the States on holiday, do you look at a TV set and think, "Wow! The image is so stable and smooth!"?

Nope we think "why are the colors off?".

But seriously, PAL is 50 and NTSC 60i, I doubt many would notice the difference.
I'm pretty certain Sony do use the same CCD blocks in the PAL and NTSC versions of the same camera. Many of the PAL cameras will even play NTSC tapes. But the CCD isn't the issue, it's the number of lines in the system that make the difference.

Bob.

After hours of rendering de-interlacing tests, I've decided that, at least on my test footage, DVFilm Maker de-interlacing looks way better than any of my Vegas de-interlacing experiments. I don't have to squint to see the difference either. It just jumps right out at you. My Vegas de-interlace renders look half as sharp, while the DVFilm maker renders seem to blur only the sections of the frame with interlace artifacts.

Yes PAL has more resolution but unless your output is going to be PAL shooting PAL and then converting to NTSC is counter productive. You'll loose more in the conversion than if you shot NTSC to start with.
IF you were going to print to film maybe PAL would be better, then again so would shooting film in the first place.

I can't comment on the cameras, but as someone who is regularly in PAL country, there is a big display difference. Reds are so much more robust in PAL, but overall color difference doesn't seem to be. I think I commented on this when I was in Sydney, how the television calibrated so much more smoothly, but the sharpness bugs my eyes. I guess it's all in what you're used to seeing.
One thing I REALLY like is that the hotels in Australia and Asia don't have this weird fear of people stealing their televisions, so you can actually access the composite inputs. Few hotels in the states allow this. Much easier to field edit in other countries.

PAL and NTSC have the same actual bandwidth. To my eyes, NTSC looks better, but then again, my eyes are really sensitive to flicker (I can see flourescent lights and TVs flicker and tell when a video moniter is set below 75 hertz or so. Also since turning 40, I'm quite far sighted. All those little dots are just a blur anyway! I'm sure there are as many people the other way around: who can see detail but not quick movement. Anyway, the absolute quality is the same:

NTSC: 720 x 480 x 30 = 10,368,000
PAL: 720 x 576 x 25 = 10,368,000

PAL is closer to film though, and so conversions between PAL and 24P are smoother.

I'm not one of those guys who is in love with the "film look" on DVD though. Compared to video, film has the advantages of spatial and color resolution, but a disadvantage of motion resolution. What I see when I see the "film look" in digital video is a combination of the disadvantages of both mediums: limited spatial, color and thanks to the "film look", motion resolution. It must be just me though because lots of extremely competent people swear by it.

My original point that no one has addressed is this. I suggested using the best of PAL, the higher resolution, combined with a NTSC frame rate.

Then you get: 720x576x30= 12,441,600 a 20% increase.

Why not? Seems could be done without any camera modifications.

I'm sure there would be some substantial modifications done. Also take into account that there are no drivers, codecs, or software existing that expect that data stream. There would have to be some major software updates too.

And, for that matter, 576/480 is not really that big an increase. It's much closer to NTSC than it is to HD and you probably wouldn't notice the difference at all.

<<But seriously, PAL is 50 and NTSC 60i, I doubt many would notice the difference>>

I've got a PAL and NTSC production suite, and for an NTSC user, the flickering on PAL is immediately noticeable and quite pronounced.