Broadcast Quality - Who decides?

[Barry_Green]

OK...but why is that if it does appear to meet the two main criteria of sensor size and bit rate...

Because technically the image is pretty bad. Not as bad as a Canon, but it's still an aliasing mess. Look up Alan Roberts' evaluation of the Canon 5D, he didn't even put it past the first test before ruling it out.

(and yes, we all know that the BBC did accept the 5D for that whatever-it-was show, and yes we also know that it was a horrific fight in post to get it through and that it came close to being pulled many times, etc).

 

[Nascency Chris]

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.

Thats amazing, you negate your own argument! First you say there are no standards,then completely flip and say that AVCCAM would get someone rejected by the very standards you say do not matter... I don't know whether to agree or disagree with you.

In my experience I have seen both sides, I have shot to "broadcast standards" and still had QC question certain things about material and how it was shot, and also had stuff get through because the content was good enough that they didn't care what it was shot on.

The way I see it standards are in place to give us guidelines to produce content by, are they hard and fast rules? No, not all the time. Does that mean we can wily-nily any old thing together and not expect to fight an uphill battle because its out of spec? No, not all the time. Again, in my experience, it is easier to stay within standards to streamline the post workflow as much as possible and take the question off the table "Will my content pass QC"?

Its hard to explain unless you have seen it, but just because something looks good online does not mean it will look as good once broadcast... its eye opening really.

 

[Futchibon]

What about HOUSE S06E23? That was shot on the 5D and is the highest rating drama in the world...looked great to me.

What did they do to HOUSE in post?

 

[Rolf Silber]

In Europe it's fairly simple.

From my experience for feature length TV-Movies: A certain amount of things outside the these EBU standards are possible and acceptable by broadcasters at least in Germany if - and only if

a) you have checked with both the producers and the production department in a station that they are okay with you delivering additional material from a camera like the AG-AF or can clearly say why you want to shoot a complete show with it ("We don't have the money to shoot it otherwise" is not a good answer).

next to all the time this goes along with

b) you throw this material into a "grown up" work-flow and deliver your end-product in one of the appropriate formats.

next to all the time this goes along with

c) you do not use a "non-adult" camera as main camera for a project but clearly use it only for additional material (we had such stuff for dream sequences, extreme p.o.v's, crash-cam, semi-doc / hidden-camera shots)

next to all the time this goes along with

d) you have an artistic reason to do so because you want a certain look for certain shots you can not achieve otherwise or you need certain shots you can not get otherwise both for technical or budgetary reasons.

These factors are fluid and interrelated but if you have not checked you will be in the quick-sand easily. There have whole feature length TV-Movies and TV-serials been shot in Germany on "non-adult" cameras that did not exactly deliver what the EBU norm ask for - but this had clearly experimental forms (and it's over I hope).

So it remains to be seen if the AG-AF can slip into such slots too. We may try with our next movie to let the camera take over one small and clearly defined perspective of the tale - about 3 to 4 % of what we may shoot - and all of that things we may not be able getting with our A cam. But we will check first.

 

[Skeptikal]

Because technically the image is pretty bad. Not as bad as a Canon, but it's still an aliasing mess. Look up Alan Roberts' evaluation of the Canon 5D, he didn't even put it past the first test before ruling it out.

(and yes, we all know that the BBC did accept the 5D for that whatever-it-was show, and yes we also know that it was a horrific fight in post to get it through and that it came close to being pulled many times, etc).

Yes, I remember reading the zone plate evaluation back when I was using a 5D2. My own disappointment with the 5D2's video performance led me to get rid of it even before the GH13 hack came out. I must say, however, I'm impressed with what the GH13 can do for the sort of work I do (underwater...but well lit with natural and/or artifical light, never pushing the ISO beyond 400).

I don't pay much attention to the "one offs" where a particular production used a VidDSLR since they are mostly irrelevant to wildlife documentary work...particularly underwater...where other variables come into the equation. I've had underwater HDV on prime-time Australian HD TV and it looked pretty good. The results I'm getting out of the GH13 are much better.

I'll have a Pana AF102EN and Nanoflash as soon as it's available here (like I've said before Australia comes just before Outer Mongolia for delivery priority) so I'll see for myself how well the acquisitions intercut...and how it's regarded for HD broadcast. The game is changing so quickly I suspect there will be more flexibility on the part of producers/broadcasters than perhaps there once was. :smile:

 

[wbrock001]

In all this arguing of what is standard, allowed or whatever...if you give them a master in some sort of 422 umpty ump bitrate codec...how the hell would they ever know what the original source codec was? They probably have standards to try to prevent handycam and flip footage coming in. If you put a requirement of a certain quality standard out there, you're more likely to get it...right?!

Wasn't it Barry who said they used the internal codec for their Verse shoot because they couldn't see any difference between the Nanoflash and native video?

 

[Laurence]

I went on a ski trip with Tom Cosgrove, the former vp of programming for Discovery Channel. You can pretty much count their so called spec sheet for cameras worthless. HDV 1/3 cmos footage now exceeds the most aired footage on Discovery (in hours).

They hate P2 btw, hate it. I think Iditarod left them with some bad feelings. If you hear different it's because its a public PR statement.

 

[Rolf Silber]

In all this arguing of what is standard, allowed or whatever...

Probably they raise the bars to avoid getting bombarded with crappy stuff or cheated, yes, and it's not so fixed and there is some lee-way for certain situations and a very good cinematographer may get away with things ..... all that aside: If they say this is the standard they want then you better make sure that what your produce meets this standard. They pay, they say. As we say in "old europe".

Anybody making a decision on "he couldn't see a difference" should be careful - if "they" see the difference he will be in trouble. If they give somebody an okay then it is different. So in a way it makes no sense that we try to discuss what the broadcast standard is - unless we were broadcasters. We only can try to fathom what may be possible under certain circumstances and exchange experiences.

Sure there is a difference when somebody shoots a production in the hope to later sell it to a station. The risk is on the side of the filmmakers. The broadcasters either take the already existing product or not. But if broadcasters are financing partners and somebody promised to meet their standards but then would work under the notion "how the hell would they ever know" - ouch! Could become devastatingly adventurous very soon... and I think Barry does the responsible thing in pointing this out.

But: I can speak for my country only.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

They hate P2 btw, hate it. I think Iditarod left them with some bad feelings. If you hear different it's because its a public PR statement.

That might be your person's view of P2 at Discovery but they do not hate P2, they use it all the time. The Iditarod thing should have caused them to hate the producer that did it, because they did such a bad job of handling the media. They didn't want to do Metadata, saying that they would know where they were based on the date. So they had about 600 hours of footage with no documented metadata to say where they were only who shot it. They ended up going way off the charts in hours of post. It was a real mess.

Best,

Jan

 

[robertrogoz]

Thats amazing, you negate your own argument! First you say there are no standards,then completely flip and say that AVCCAM would get someone rejected by the very standards you say do not matter... I don't know whether to agree or disagree with you.

In my experience I have seen both sides, I have shot to "broadcast standards" and still had QC question certain things about material and how it was shot, and also had stuff get through because the content was good enough that they didn't care what it was shot on.

.

I am not negating my argument. Depends if you are already contracted to shoot the footage or are you trying to sell it. The other issue, which brings me to the point why AVCCAM would get most likely rejected outright is if the footage has to go through some additional edit by the broadcaster. In vast, vast majority of cases it has to be done in Avid or FCP (in that order) and both don't handle AVCCAM native. There is also a stigma of AVCHD being a consumer codec. Not saying I agree, just saying how it is at the moment.
Let's hope companies like Original Productions bring AF to their roster of equipment and force broadcasters to start accepting newer/ better format. In the meantime my advice to people who are trying to sell material on open market is to shoot in the format and on the equipment that is accredited.

 

[Mark Smith]

Broadcasters have standards, but they are not carved in block of granite. I shot all all principal photography for "Finding Amelia" with a HPX 370 plus some 170 and Go PRO thrown in for extra measure. Post was done in house at Discovery studios. I wanted the 370 because i knew it would be a great doc camera perfectly suited to where I was going and what I needed to do when I got there. Camera package was discussed before hand and Discovery was fine with it. Sure the sensor size was not their most preferred, but I shot AVC I 100 -1080 and that helped sell the package.

Networks can be flexible, they might not be flexible all the time, and probably less flexible with a series than with a one -off.

 

[Barry_Green]

Wasn't it Barry who said they used the internal codec for their Verse shoot because they couldn't see any difference between the Nanoflash and native video?

We used the internal codec for several reasons:
1) it was far more convenient
2) half of the reason we did Verse on the AF100 was to find out how it performed; using the Nano extensively would have invalidated that
3) the Nano stuff can look better with its 4:2:2, but it wasn't a difference that we felt was necessary

When shooting greenscreen stuff or for a broadcaster who demands a certain format, the Nano is definitely a plus. One of our goals on Verse was to find out "is the native camera with native codec 'good enough'?" The results were a resounding "hell yeah".

 

[Nascency Chris]

I am not negating my argument. Depends if you are already contracted to shoot the footage or are you trying to sell it. The other issue, which brings me to the point why AVCCAM would get most likely rejected outright is if the footage has to go through some additional edit by the broadcaster. In vast, vast majority of cases it has to be done in Avid or FCP (in that order) and both don't handle AVCCAM native. There is also a stigma of AVCHD being a consumer codec. Not saying I agree, just saying how it is at the moment.
Let's hope companies like Original Productions bring AF to their roster of equipment and force broadcasters to start accepting newer/ better format. In the meantime my advice to people who are trying to sell material on open market is to shoot in the format and on the equipment that is accredited.

Ah, yes, this is very true and a valid point, the devil is in the details as they say!