Broadcast quality??

[imagefact]

Hi everyone. I'm an HVX200 owner thinking of making the switch to the EX1. At this point my biggest concern is whether or not the TV stations will accept the footage shot on the EX1.

Now for those of you not familiar with the question, it may seem absurd. But the reality is that in my research several months back, when I was buying the HVX, I learned that High-Def television stations would NOT accept programs generated in HDV format. On a per case basis they would accept "up to 15%" of a program to be generated from HDV. I have seen hard writing of this from Discovery channel and BBC and heard of it elsewhere.

Now this seems unfair, and crazy, and a ton of other things. And we can assume that in truth they will accept more than that. Just like Mini-DV had a hard time with stations at first - but OPINION is NOT my question.

My question is this:

Does anyone have any hard data on HD broadcasters either accepting or rejecting the XDCAM format for source generation.

To clarify more. For example, importing HDV and then converting to another format does NOT WORK. You can easily tell on scopes and other methods that the source was from a 4:1:0 format (vertical bands in the color information). I would think the same is for XDCAM format.

The HVX200, being intraframe and 4:2:2 has been approved by the stations. Which is kinda funny considering all the grainy noise in the shots. The EX1 is undoubtedly cleaner, but this may not mean acceptability from the powers that be. And if I switch to a new camera I want to make sure my stuff is not bounced back.

Thanks in advance for any knowledgeable input!

[THoff]

I wouldn't rely on any speculation in these forums -- talk to the station(s) that gave you a hard time before and get their answer in writing before buying.

[lawriejaffa]

Yeah just agreeing with Thoth here, you gotta talk to the stations man there all totally different! It also depends on if your selling content or pitching for content - there are loads of factors.

That HDV % sounds a bit like the UK's guidelines but that im sure refers to consumer hdv rather than the professional hdv codecs, - others will just look at any cam under 2/3 chip as consumer (regardless of SD or HD!) and will decide that way. Its all so relative that you will get a million different answers here! So again - ya gotta talk to the station!

[basspig]

This reminds me of the story I heard a while back about some ad agency that was hiring a video producer to make a commercial. The lady who was fielding the applicants was told to ask if the producer was usingn Ikegami cameras, and accept nothing else. So when a producer came along with something shot on something superior to the Ikegami, because the gal fielding the prospects was told "Ikegami only", the guy didn't get the job. Even though he could have surpassed the quality.

Some stations business relations people are just ignorant and follow instructions from higher up, to the letter.

That said, the only network I know with the 15% HDV limitation is Discovery HD. Regardless of whom you're dealing with, you should ask for the engineering specs that you are required to meet for the project.

If you take a look at Adam Wilt's latest comparison of the EX1, F23 and Red One, you'll see that XDCam is easily good enough for the most demanding network broadcast application, in terms of picture quality.

Read this interesting article at Adam's site:
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/three_three_letter_cameras_ex1_f23_red/

[imagefact]

Thanks for the initial responses.... I already read that article. It was interesting and the EX1 held up beautifully. But as I said, that's not my point. The HVX200 is softer than all of those cameras and it is "approved". But I feel the pain with tta Ikegami story. ; )

As for calling up the stations, the idea here is that I'm shooting some spec pieces. A TV pilot , feature films, etc. I have no idea where they will land months from now - but I certainly don't want a problem at the final QC stages of the deal if it may happen. My past projects shot on film never had that concern.

I'm sure out of all the people shooting here there is a small percentage of pro's that do stuff for on-air work and have insight into the question.

Thanks!

[basspig]

Well then you're ultimate sure-fire solution is to continue shooting on film. :)

[adkimery]

The XDCAM HD codec at 35mbit has been given the "thumbs up" by picky places like Discovery HD for 100% project acquisition and the XDCAM EX codec at 35mbit is better quality (full raster vs 1440x1080) so one would assume (dangerous word, I know) that the XDCAM EX codec would be accepted by the same people that accept XDCAM HD at 35mbit.

But, like you said, some places won't accept LGOP 4:2:0 material even if it looks better than intraframe 4:2:2 material.


-A

[SteveBagley]

That HDV % sounds a bit like the UK's guidelines but that im sure refers to consumer hdv rather than the professional hdv codecs, - others will just look at any cam under 2/3 chip as consumer (regardless of SD or HD!) and will decide that way. Its all so relative that you will get a million different answers here! So again - ya gotta talk to the station!

My understanding of the situation is as follows. The BBC treat anything acquired in HDV as part of the SD upconversion regardless of the camera it came from. The HVX200 is considered the same because it has a 1/3" chip imager, not because of the codec. The EX1 is (as I understand it) also currently not considered suitable for HD acquisition by the BBC due to concerns about how well the compressed footage will hold up, although I've a feeling the reaction to the EX1 may change soon.

It's worth considering why these guidelines are in place. It is not necessarily that the cameras don't produce good images, but rather that by the time the images have gone through the system and reached the viewer that the images become noticeably more degraded than those generated with other cameras, since the BBC want HD to look well-HD, the guidelines are in place to protect the quality. And, just as Super16 is outlawed for HD production, so are these camcorders.

As an example, compare the HVX200 and the HPX500. Both have 960x540 offset CCDs, both record to DVCproHD but the HVX200 is outlawed and the HPX500 isn't (although not recommended either, due to its low resolution). This is because the HPX500 has a birefringent optical low-pass filter before the CCDs which removes frequencies greater than the the sensors can resolve from the image. The HVX200 doesn't and so it's images feature alias signals in the image (from the high-frequency detail that gets through to the sensor) which can clearly be seen on test images such as a zoneplate. These alias signals cause codecs all sorts of problems, both intraframe and interframe codecs (especially the latter since they move in the opposite direction to the image) and their effect will get magnified by each codec they pass through (a typical HD production at the BBC could go through the following codecs: DVCproHD -> HDCamSR -> HDCam (transmission master) -> MPEG2 (playout server format, I-frame only I believe) -> 18Mbps H264 (transmission format)) and so by the time the pictures reach the home, the images are starting to get artefacty.

The only way to ensure these problems don't happen is to by choosing the correct camera for the job at the start.


the XDCAM EX codec at 35mbit is better quality (full raster vs 1440x1080) so one would assume (dangerous word, I know) that the XDCAM EX codec would be accepted by the same people that accept XDCAM HD at 35mbit.

The fact that the EX is full raster means the images are likely to be more artefacty than the XDCamHD 35mbps codec since you are trying to fit more data into the same sized pot... Couple that with differences in the camera head design and you could easily find that one is acceptable and the other isn't.

Steven

[lawriejaffa]

Informative post - the HPX500 is perfectly acceptable to broadcasters, for other reasons id find it recommendable (for a cam nigh acceptable for all at such a decent cost.) Though admittedly its fairly obvious to me that primary flagship programming would be shot on biiii-iig cams like the f23s or hpx2000+ etc

The UK is pretty strict with its guidelines for content (we are generically following the EU's broadcast recommendations too for 720p) but regardless, they do regularly make exceptions for decent programming.

Its the difference (for the first poster) of trying to win a commission (where they will be stricter) of if you've made something amazing already in which case they may well be more open minded.

The specs put up i think are not often black and white party stoppers as it were but you always have to make certain naturally!

[MattDavis]

The EX1 is (as I understand it) also currently not considered suitable for HD acquisition by the BBC due to concerns about how well the compressed footage will hold up, although I've a feeling the reaction to the EX1 may change soon.

Here's hoping!

Having said that, if the content is good enough, anything goes. Standard example is the Family Who Walks on Four Feet (or thereabouts), filmed on Z1s, sold worldwide for broadcast TV.

I think there's a general opinion to classify anything that isn't a big shoulder mount camera with a hefty price tag as 'two legs - bad' to prevent hoards of Indy producers with their DVX100s or Z1s from jumping the first fence. After all, the EX1 is very, very close to the F350 with good glass. Why tar it with the Z1 brush?

If you've got a killer story, amazing pictures, access to the inner core, no TV boss will reject it because it was shot well on a Nokia phone. It just seems to be that these are just very strict guidelines intended for commissions rather than finished films.

But then again, filming massive yet tack-sharp vistas of crops in the breeze, or mighty oceans heaving and flowing, or slow tracks through rainforest canopy are exactly the kind of subjects that turn HDV images into soup whilst being exactly the kind of shots that sell HD, so if I were buying stuff to sell my HD channel, I'd advise producers to stay well clear of HDV.

But if it looks/sounds/plays good, then... who cares?

[SteveBagley]

I think there's a general opinion to classify anything that isn't a big shoulder mount camera with a hefty price tag as 'two legs - bad' to prevent hoards of Indy producers with their DVX100s or Z1s from jumping the first fence. After all, the EX1 is very, very close to the F350 with good glass. Why tar it with the Z1 brush?

In the EX1's case it's not the camera head, it's the codec and that applies to the F350 as well. There's a new version of the BBC delivery guidelines up and that seems to rule out all XDCam codecs for HD production (Except the PDW-700).

Of course, it is worth pointing out that these are guidelines and can be discussed with the commissioner to be relaxed (as happened with Planet Earth for example). A classic example would be where filming in locations where using a proper HD camera is impractical, e.g. filming on location in a war zone where a camera such as the EX1 makes far more sense than anything else, or where the proper camera wouldn't get images -- an SD example would be 'The Sky at Night' (a UK astronomy show on BBC1/BBC4), normally shot on Digibeta and DSR500 class cameras. A good section of its meteorite special last summer was shot on a Sony A1 -- not a camera that anyone would class as broadcast quality, yet in this circumstance it was ideal because the IR mode (coupled with some extra IR lights) enabled them to shoot in the dark without affecting the vision of the people in Patrick Moore's garden.

Right tool for the right job.


But if it looks/sounds/plays good, then... who cares?

Looks good where though? It's not good it looking fine in the edit if by the time it reaches the viewer is a mess of artefacts. I remember reading 20 years ago how the BBC radio stations have a 'grot box' in the studios so they could hear what the programme would sound like to viewers on a AM radio. We need an equivalent for HD really...

Steven

[basspig]

I don't know if it's just the CODEC. I think the glass is probably going to be more prevalent. Take the F23 for instance--no visible CA. The EX1 has it in spades. When you cut between the two, one has the red & blue halos, the other does not. I'd say that's a bigger difference than the CODEC quality.

[MattDavis]

I remember reading 20 years ago how the BBC radio stations have a 'grot box' in the studios so they could hear what the programme would sound like to viewers on a AM radio.

Ditto a cheap old 14" TV in many edit suites. Watch your expensive pin-sharp Paintbox graphics disappear into the mush... Oh the horror...

I only hope that the BBC do have a valid demonstrable reason why 35 Mbit Long GoP as an acquisition format (not edit format!) isn't HD Broadcast quality in their eyes. It smacks more of a 'door policy' to me.

Not that I'm shooting anything for Auntie in the foreseeable future.

OT: Let's hope Alan Roberts gives the EX1 a good write-up.

[tjpowers]

Wow first post!!

I work for an HD sports network in the US and we use 35mb XDCAM HD all the time. We don't have any written sheet specifying what is acceptable or not, but instead reject things on a case by case basis. In other words, when we throw the tape in a deck (HDCAM), if it doesn't look good on a scope, it gets rejected. I must say that this very rarely happens.

Discovery and BBC are known for the excelent quality HiDef and they are trying to keep it that way, so I totally understand where they are coming from. But to those of us stuck in reality (financially) anything that makes nice HD pictures is good enough for us.

The only time I personally have ever rejected anything from an outside vendor was a brand campaign that the company was trying to shoot on an XL1. That was a bit over the line. In this case, the XL1 was replaced by an F355 and all was well... so there you go.

[Stevet]

Welcome tjpowers. Thanks for the info.

It's good to hear this information direct from an inside source.

[imagefact]

Hey gang. Yeah, I thought that once posted we'd find some people interested in this topic! Thanks for the answers so far...

So I knuckled down and tried to do some hard research yesterday. I downloaded PDF spec sheets from BBC HD, PBS, and Discovery HD USA and Canada. The only one with updated, current specs is the BBC who says speifically what steve said - Here I copy-Paste for you:

2.1. The following formats are considered to be standard definition:
o All standard definition video formats
o HDV from all manufactures
o Cameras with image sensors under ½”
o Frame based recording formats below 100Mbs
o Intra-frame based recording formats below 50Mbs
o Super16 film whether transferred to tape in high definition or not
o 35mm film transferred to standard definition tape formats
o Non linear editing codecs with bit rates below 160Mbs
o Live contributions via links at less than 60Mbs (MPEG2)

So there you have it. The HVX200 is out, the EX1 with 35mbs is out. The other places had specs dating back as far as 2005!!!! So we really can't tell what their take on these new formats are. PBS: 2005, DiscoveryHDUSA: 2005, DiscoveryHDCanada: 2006 considering HVX200 as HDV.

In case anyone doesn't already know. ALL stations I looked at seem to be saying that they will allow a program to be 15% HDV or 15% upconverted SD or 30% Combined.

TJPOWERS: Could you let us know what network you work for? Or at least answer this, is it an HD network or SD?

I do truly understand that we can all cross our fingers and HOPE that after months of time and money put into a project that it would get aired. But wouldn't it be nicer to know that the camera format would be the deal breaker? After spending over $10k on a rig ($6.5k plus cards, laptop, etc) you'd think it would at least "Acceptable".

Other insights, stories, are welcome. So far it is very clear that BBC HD is a hurdle (But not impossible) to get a project shot with a lower grade camera sold to. I'm wondering about the policies of other stations.

[tjpowers]

imagefact: i would rather not disclose company specifics but our current signal path is a mix of HiDef and standard def. Depending on the show. Live events (Games) are HD out of the truck, passed through our building and on to master control. From master control our HD transmission is both sent to the satelite in HD and also downconverted and sent to the satelite center cut.

We are in the process (and it is a long one) of becoming a fully HiDef buliding. It really is a loaded question. Certain devices and shows are capable of native HiDef and certain ones are upconverted. For example, we have 7 HiDef cameras... but SD switching and routing. We have HD editing capabilities including ingest and playout (HDCAM). Therefore shows that are produced entirely in post are HD, and leave the building in that way. Anything that is switched live is upconverted.

The building will be completely HD within the year (supposedly). There are many things that play into that timeline, mostly to do with the direction of the programming. Thankfully we have an incredible engineering team that has fought an uphill battle to make even this amount of HD happen. And by the way, they are the ones who say if it looks good air it. And they have never led us down the wrong path.

The bigger picture with Discovery and the BBC is not the fact of you using HDV. They want good shows. And on some level I think they may take the dollar value of what was spent in production and translate that to weather or not something is good enough to put their name on it.

This board is full of some phenominally talented and inteligent people that make HD all day every day for next to nothing. It is a great injustice that someone who spent 20 times as much to do something should have a better chance to be on tv. But at the end of the day, they want people who they "think" understand the big picture from their perspective. In their minds they have built the best so they want the best.

I just rambled for a good solid 20 mins... sorry for that :)

[basspig]

If you think the BBC is strict, take a look at these requirements to record interviews for Crews-Control:

Each camera person that Crews Control represents must have at least 10 years of professional corporate shooting experience.

If you are interested in being considered for representation, please submit the following materials for review:


1) A detailed resume including employment history with dates...please do not submit only a credits list.

2) Demo Tape or disc - We're looking for your best corporate shooting here. Wonderfully lit interviews, or that piece you shot that makes assembly line work look like ballet, or the program where you shot interviews of 9 people in the same 10x10 office, and managed to light them so they all looked different. We are not looking for a fast-paced music montage as we are focusing on shooting not editing but rather 3-4 minute samples.

3) A complete equipment list with model numbers. Note: Our clients request that our crews own cameras comparable to the Sony 600 or higher and routinely request that a variety of lights (at least 6, including fresnels & chimeras), 2 wireless mics and a mixer be included in your standard package.

4) At least three References (corporate) with Phone Numbers and E-Mail Addresses.

5) Copies of both your general liability and worker's compensation policies.

6) Your Standard Rate Card/Sheet. Crews Control will be deducting 15% from this rate as our commission for each job that we book for you.