Hi--

I'm thinking that since my final product for video is always an Internet
based video---a windows media file ( usually a low res 56k version and a
highres Broadband version at 800kps or more) , perhaps I should be
leaning
toward PAL instead of NTSC. I encode for web at a final frame rate
typically at 15 frames per second, with the videos shot with my GL1 (
NTSC).

Always? You never want to watch the video on TV? You realize that these
low-quality web video formats are temporary? I would not want all my
hard work stuck in these media - even the best digital standard video
will pale when HDTV becomes standard, so I try at least to do the
best I can with the current media. With that "in hand", you can always
compress it horribly to put it on the web...
BTW, 15fps is the PS-mode frame rate with Sony cameras, and there is
no loss from the 30 fps frame-mode interpolations the Canon 3-chippers
have... Also, if you go to 15 fps from NTSC interlaced, you can easily
deinterlace interlaced video, especially if the resolution is halved...


If I was to buy a PAL camera for my 2nd Camera, and I planned on
assembling
the footage I wanted to use from the PAL camera, then exporting this
timeline to a 15 frames per second avi--and same with NTSC footage, is
there
any reason this would not be superior? Lets assume I am using either
the
Mainconcept codec, or the Canopus codec, so generation loss from this
will
be insignificant for my final product---compared to the resolution
"gain" I
would have from PAL...At this point I could mix the two exported avi's
together on the same timeline. Would this create better final web video?
And if my plan was to add anamorphic lens adaptors to each camera, then
this
effect may be accentuated even more???

No. The horizontal resolution is the same in both systems, and the
different
vertical resolutions and frame rates will mess you up during
translations, worsening the sharpness...

And the other question would be---is there a better export frame rate
for
the PAL footage? Considering that the Internet videos look better at 15
fps
than at 30 fps ( unless you want to use 2 meg per second data rates, and
end
up serving enormous file sizes, not to mention that only people with
powerful CPU's and fast hard drives will be able to enjoy this data
rate) .
Since I believe PAL is 25 frames per second, I could either export at 15
(
and the question here would be what will this non-even division do to
the
final product) or should I export to 12.5 fps and then find a better way
to
get NTSC down to 12.5 ( since you have more frames you can interpolate
with). And 12.5 still works well for 800kps data rate web video (
actually
allows clearer/sharper facial imaging by far than 30fps)--and this is an
issue with web video.

Remember that web video is PS-mode, TV-video is interlaced - simple
mixing
of viewing formats loses quality, but proper conversion of either for
the
other can be successful (especially interlaced to PS, if the resolution
is cut in half, or if the frame rate is cut in half (or both...).

I have to buy a 2nd and third camera soon, for my company, and if the
PAL
format is better for web video, this is an important issue to me. But I
really don't want to lose out on the function of my present NTSC GL1.
Choices I am considering are Sony VX2000, JVX 300u, and maybe even the
XL1s
( since I have seen some PAL version prices for this camera that were
very
low!) . But before I can make any choice, I have to know about the
conversion issues for the web final product.
"Dan Volker"

I would look into it more...
BTW, the VX2000 interlaced image is rather noticeably better than the
GL-1's - starting with that may help - or may not (the higher resolution
may make smooth compression harder - though the relative freedom from
"jaggies" may make it easier...). I prefer "highest possible quality",
so
I have only briefly played with high compression...