Broadcast Quality - Who decides?

D

dop16mm

Well-known member
We've heard all the virtues of the codec, and it looks good enough for me, but there has never been an AVCHD cam with sensors larger than 1/3", and so no cams to date have been approved for unlimited A-cam use.

We can all point to shows that have used hdv or whatever, but as I understand it those would have to be approved on a case by case basis.

The EX series are largely accepted based on the 1/2" sensor, and even used as b-cams on dramas.

Canon's argument for the 50 mbit mpeg2 codec on the new line of cams rather that avchd, that it is already using on consumer cameras, is broadcast acceptance. In this case the cameras are being accepted based on codec rather than sensor size.

One would think that all things being equal, the 4/3 sensor should outweigh the codec, which we would agree is at least as good as xdcam. Can we produce full length content on this system and be sure it wont be rejected based on format (content arguments aside). Panasonic has a strong relationship with broadcasters, are they lobbying on our behalf for this camera. I don't expect to see major primetime dramas switching over, but I could see this as Ideal for low budget cable movies, and series. Yes I know the argument that you could use, nanoflash or whatever, but I like low bitrate originals, for archiving and data-management. Use a native editor for the off-line and then conform selects in an intermediate format.

I'm tired of chasing the next big thing and need a system that will serve my needs for as long as it continues to funtion. I typically do no-low budget stuff, but want to take it to the next level. I think this would be no problem good enough for Canada which is not even HD on most specialty channel, but what about U.S. and international?
 
I think your questions are valid but have yet to be answered. The camera needs to be out and used in productions before these decisions can be made. I believe there is a strong possibility that a camera like the AF-100 will gain strong acceptance due to the fact that it will produce a nice image and budgets and allow for to be adjusted downwards in these trying econimic times.
 
This is just speculation on my part, but the option to deliver in other codecs using an outboard recorder would probably satisfy most network standards. The chip is certainly capable of meeting standards based on the specs.
 
The people who decide are the actual broadcasters themselves, and each is free to set their own specifications.

The codec issue that Canon is addressing is that the BBC has said that no long-GoP codec of less than 50 megabits is acceptable as HD, and chips must be at least 1/2". So even though the EX's chips meet their specs, the codec doesn't. But at the time that specification was written, there wasn't any such thing as an in-camera h.264 codec, so ... we'll have to see if that stands. EX users have been able to bypass that by using the NanoFlash at a minimum of 50mbps.

Discovery has a standing policy that HDV or 1/3" cameras cannot be used for more than 15% of a program's content. Obviously the AF100 won't be limited by the chip-size argument. The HVX passes their codec argument, but doesn't pass on the chip size, so it was limited to the same 15% limitation (although, on a case by case basis, it has been accepted for 100% of program origination). I don't know if Discovery HD has issued any policies regarding the AVCCAM or NXCAM codecs.

The easiest answer is: the AF100 should meet every broadcaster's specs if you use a Nano. And we'll have to wait and see if they revise their policies in light of the AVCCAM PH codec.
 
Barry, as you know, AVCCAM and NXCAM use the same AVCHD codec, well, not strictly true; Sony's is slightly better as it uses blocks of pixels in 16x16, 8x8, 4x4 as well as 16x8, 8x16, 8x4, 4x8. Panasonic only use square blocks from one frame to the next i.e. 4x4, 8x8, 16x16. But essentially they are the same AVCHD codec. I don't know if Panasonic have implemented 16x8, 8x16 in their AF100 camcorder or not?

Here is further explanation for everyone:

In contrast with MPEG-2 (HDV), in which inter-frame compression based on the correlation between adjacent frames uses fixed blocks of 16x16 pixels, AVCHD divides the blocks into multi-sizes as small as 4x4 pixels along with 4x8, 8x8 and 8x16 also, and every variation in-between using these block structures. With this method, it is able to use large blocks to process images that show only slight changes on the screen, and smaller blocks to process images that have considerable change. This raises the accuracy of motion compensation, which in turn, boosts the quality of fast-motion images while increasing compression efficiency.

The Discovery Channel (HD) see AVCHD (AVCCAM and NXCAM) as being in the same ballpark as HDV hence no good for their channel. However, the AF100 with a NanoFlash should be just fine for Discovery HD Silver status (only part of program by percentage) and BBC HD in England, UK.

For the record, Discovery HD have incredibly high standards, probably more so than the BBC in the UK. Discovery HD have high standards for a number of reasons, one is that they want to retain the Wow! Factor. When people are channel-hopping at home, Discovery HD channel want them to suddenly stop flicking though the channels when they hit theirs, and the chances are they will, why? Because many other Sky channels are happy to broadcast programmes shot on inferior DV and HDV formats, so when the channel-hopper suddenly catches a glimpse of some amazing HD footage, they are more likely to stay there and watch it.
 
I really think with the advent of things like Nanoflash, this really is a non-issue. I don't understand why so many people are freaking out about the codec. Personally, I'm glad I have options. I can record a smaller sized file with the AVCHD if I'm doing a longform interview, where there is no chance of "breaking" the codec, and for motion intensive clips I can record onto a Nanoflash type device through the HD-SDI out. I expect to see the AF100 used extensively for TV.

It really is incredible. I cannot wait to have the money for this camera, to be honest. Sadly, I can't pre-order. Wife, kiddo and mortgage and what not... :( But maybe in a year or two...
 
Whilst working at TVNZ a couple of years ago I had an argument with some techs who were creating the HD delivery spec. They'd basically followed the BBC and Discovery in ruling out Long-GOP at under 50Mb/s (and thereby eliminating XDCAM EX as an 'HD' acquisition format). I believed then, and do now, that XDCAM EX walks a very fine line, and in reality probably falls on the HD side of the argument. It's complicated of course, because we all know that EX handled well can deliver very good quality (much more so than HDV) but it's a little delicate, it's also easy to make it suck.

When formats like DVCPRO HD (Varicam) are acceptable for 1080 Full HD (despite being 720 native), or HDCAM (1440x1080 3:1:1) it's hard to see why a full-raster 4:2:0 codec wouldn't also be acceptable.

Of course in reality it's much more complicated, as the "BBC accepts 5D as full HD" excitement proved - exceptions are made when the production can justify it. That's why 5D, handled carefully, can be acceptable and why one of Discovery's top shows can be entirely shot on HDV (Deadliest Catch) - but to set a baseline for general production it's important to have a solid basis which forces a certain level of technical quality.

I think there is a slightly more practical aspect to it as well - while the minimum HD spec rules out things like low-rate Long-GOP and small sensors you're also effectively ruling out the small 'handycam' style cameras, instead the only cameras that are acceptable are the larger ENG-style. This forces a certain level of operator skill - no one gives a full ENG kit to a kid straight out of film school or a production assistant, but a small camera seems a lot easier to use, and people can be tempted to set everything to auto and give it to someone who seems to have a basic idea how to use it. I believe, in part, that HD specifications are designed to raise the bar to entry a little - ensure that not just anyone could make an 'HD' television programme.

Of course it becomes more and more complex as technology gets better, it's not enough to simply define a minimum bitrate or sensor size - now you might have to detail specific compression technology, sensor technology, resampling method...
 
It's amusing how the major broadcasters have such stringent technical requirements, yet that quality control seems to go out of the window when it comes to the content of thier programmes, have you seen the junk discovery and bbc are churning out these days!
 
Joshbalti said:
It's amusing how the major broadcasters have such stringent technical requirements, yet that quality control seems to go out of the window when it comes to the content of thier programmes, have you seen the junk discovery and bbc are churning out these days!
Click to expand...

:grin:
 
So...a GH13 (with a sensor larger than 1/2 inch and) shooting avchd/H264 @ 50 mbps meets the BBC, Discovery technical requirements for HD delivery?
 
Some of the codec issues revolve around how well they stand up to recompression for broadcast. The thread on noise issues with the AF100 serves to illustrate the potential problems. It has little to do with sensor size per se. Canon's new codec is more robust and broadcast friendly.
 
Nigel-Cooper said:
Barry, as you know, AVCCAM and NXCAM use the same AVCHD codec, well, not strictly true; Sony's is slightly better as it uses blocks of pixels in 16x16, 8x8, 4x4 as well as 16x8, 8x16, 8x4, 4x8. Panasonic only use square blocks from one frame to the next i.e. 4x4, 8x8, 16x16. But essentially they are the same AVCHD codec. I don't know if Panasonic have implemented 16x8, 8x16 in their AF100 camcorder or not?
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you heard this but our AVCCAM implementation looks better in most cases than the NXCAM, which has difficulty at times looking better than the XDCAM EX. Our AVCCAM implementation uses the variable content adapative technique for the quantizing of the original footage but we do not hold back any quality. See Barry's XDCAM EX vs AVCCAM test in the articles section.

Thanks,

Jan
 
In Europe it's fairly simple. EBU (European Broadcasting Union) has the resources and knowhow to do research in the name of its members. In the 2008 R 124R recommendation , based on thourough scientific examination, EBU recommends for production and archiving :
--422 sampling
--50 mbit for long GOP
--100mbit for intra codecs
--8 bit is ok, but 10bit for some types of pictures
Members (eg BBC) can follow and/or modify the requirements with additional conditions.
Non-members (a lot of non-public networks) can do whatever they want.
PS EBU also recommends progressive picture (720/50p for broadcast) but here nobody follows. 124R is an interesting read.
 
The AF100 Manual ( p.8 vol 1) states:

"This camera-recorder is compatible with the AVCHD standard , and uses low-cost and easily-available SD/SDHC/SDXC Memory Cards as recording media.
The unit enables high-quality picture recording CLOSE TO BROADCASTING STANDARD, as well as highly creative video production."

Kind of wondering how "close".... and to what specific "broadcasting standard"?
Click to expand...

I posted that as a tongue in cheek question sometime ago.

Panasonic were accurately describing the facts when they published that.
 
Barry_Green said:
The people who decide are the actual broadcasters themselves, and each is free to set their own specifications.

The codec issue that Canon is addressing is that the BBC has said that no long-GoP codec of less than 50 megabits is acceptable as HD, and chips must be at least 1/2". So even though the EX's chips meet their specs, the codec doesn't. But at the time that specification was written, there wasn't any such thing as an in-camera h.264 codec, so ... we'll have to see if that stands. EX users have been able to bypass that by using the NanoFlash at a minimum of 50mbps.

Discovery has a standing policy that HDV or 1/3" cameras cannot be used for more than 15% of a program's content. Obviously the AF100 won't be limited by the chip-size argument. The HVX passes their codec argument, but doesn't pass on the chip size, so it was limited to the same 15% limitation (although, on a case by case basis, it has been accepted for 100% of program origination). I don't know if Discovery HD has issued any policies regarding the AVCCAM or NXCAM codecs.

The easiest answer is: the AF100 should meet every broadcaster's specs if you use a Nano. And we'll have to wait and see if they revise their policies in light of the AVCCAM PH codec.
Click to expand...
This not accurate picture at all. Discovery has gold, silver and bronze programming, hence their most popular program "the Deadliest Catch" was shot in HDV for several seasons. It all depends on content, working relations with the Channel/broadcaster and content. If they like it, they will buy it regardless of the equipment that was shot on.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
I am not sure where you heard this but our AVCCAM implementation looks better in most cases than the NXCAM, which has difficulty at times looking better than the XDCAM EX. Our AVCCAM implementation uses the variable content adapative technique for the quantizing of the original footage but we do not hold back any quality. See Barry's XDCAM EX vs AVCCAM test in the articles section.

Thanks,

Jan
Click to expand...
This statement is completely irrelevant to the question of broadcast standards. XDCAM EX is allowed in broadcast- silver and bronze on Discovery and AVCCAM is not, regardless what looks better or not. Till the broadcasters change their minds there is no point on discussing what will air and what not based upon how the footage looks. The point is what can get broadcasted or not, not what looks better. If you aim your footage at the TV market better have killer content and shoot it on equipment that is accredited. Btw- most of the programs are not aired not because of technical specs, but because the broadcaster has no need for it.
 
Barry_Green said:
Not a chance.
Click to expand...


OK...but why is that if it does appear to meet the two main criteria of sensor size and bit rate...If it's rejected because of 4:2:0 then what about 720p @ 100mbps 4:2:2. Looking at the delivery requirements for BBC, National Geo and Discover (three tiers):

http://eyefish.tv/production-guide/high-definition-production/broadcasters-requirements

it seems that there's a fair bit of variability and room for flexibility. If HDV is sometimes accepted (Discovery "Bronze") and "720 line equipment may be acceptable but must be discussed prior to use"BBC...and mpeg2 @ 50mbps is OK...then surely what comes out of a competently used GH13 should also be in the running?
 
Skeptikal said:
OK...but why is that if it does appear to meet the two main criteria of sensor size and bit rate...If it's rejected because of 4:2:0 then what about 720p @ 100mbps 4:2:2. Looking at the delivery requirements for BBC, National Geo and Discover (three tiers):

http://eyefish.tv/production-guide/high-definition-production/broadcasters-requirements

it seems that there's a fair bit of variability and room for flexibility. If HDV is sometimes accepted (Discovery "Bronze") and "720 line equipment may be acceptable but must be discussed prior to use"BBC...and mpeg2 @ 50mbps is OK...then surely what comes out of a competently used GH13 should also be in the running?
Click to expand...
Look there is no such thing as "broadcast standard". Original Productions could shoot on iPhone and have their shows on Discovery, but if you have to ask these questions- you can not. Simple- weather your show airs will depend on the content, quality of finished product and your history with the broadcaster. If they want it they will buy it. But if you are "unproven goods" you better have your content shot in right format and have your program edited to the broadcast specs.
Also look at the bottom of guidelines for discovery as edit codecs go: it's DVCPRO HD XDCAM EX, AVID DNxHD 220/185/175 AVID DNxHD 145/120/115 or HDV native plus uncompressed. Any AVCCAM doesn't fit this category, that's where you'll get rejected.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
The people who decide are the actual broadcasters themselves, and each is free to set their own specifications.

The codec issue that Canon is addressing is that the BBC has said that no long-GoP codec of less than 50 megabits is acceptable as HD, and chips must be at least 1/2". So even though the EX's chips meet their specs, the codec doesn't. But at the time that specification was written, there wasn't any such thing as an in-camera h.264 codec, so ... we'll have to see if that stands. EX users have been able to bypass that by using the NanoFlash at a minimum of 50mbps.

Discovery has a standing policy that HDV or 1/3" cameras cannot be used for more than 15% of a program's content. Obviously the AF100 won't be limited by the chip-size argument. The HVX passes their codec argument, but doesn't pass on the chip size, so it was limited to the same 15% limitation (although, on a case by case basis, it has been accepted for 100% of program origination). I don't know if Discovery HD has issued any policies regarding the AVCCAM or NXCAM codecs.

The easiest answer is: the AF100 should meet every broadcaster's specs if you use a Nano. And we'll have to wait and see if they revise their policies in light of the AVCCAM PH codec.
Click to expand...

Wonderfully said! Your words are so well written. I would say you should be an author, but you already are. :)

And while robertrogoz brings up some valid points, I think Barry was still right in his first statement in that the standard is relative to each broadcaster. Create a video that gets over 100 mill views online, and just about any major network would want to show it, or at least highlight it...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top