Format for Television Commercial

TimothyJinx

TimothyJinx

Well-known member
I need some help. I have been doing church and corporate videos and short films for a few years. But I have been given the opportunity to shoot a couple of 30 second commercials for local broadcast.

I am shooting with a Canon XH A1 and edit with Vegas 7/8.

My questions are:

1. Should I shoot in 16:9, 4:3, etc. What do you suggest?

2. In what format will I be expected to deliver the final product? DVD? Beta SP?

Thanks in advance!
 
You should check with the broadcasting station, as Jim mentioned.

1. I would suggest 16:9. But it all comes down to what the broadcasting station uses.
2. No broadcasting station I've ever heard of takes DVDs, so I think you can forget about that. However, most of them take either/both Betacam SP/SX and DigiBeta.
 
Ok, I found out they require Betacam SP.

There are several places locally I can convert to Betacam SP. But what would be the best source format to create for the conversion?
 
alekstef said:
You should check with the broadcasting station, as Jim mentioned.

1. I would suggest 16:9. But it all comes down to what the broadcasting station uses.
2. No broadcasting station I've ever heard of takes DVDs, so I think you can forget about that. However, most of them take either/both Betacam SP/SX and DigiBeta.
Click to expand...

I am in the process of sending footage off to the Today Show, they requested the footage on Beta or DVD... mpeg-2 DVD. So, it all depends. Some local stations just want a DVD others Beta, BetaSP etc. If I have to do Beta(SP), like I did the last time I sent footage to the Today Show I just have it transfered at a local post pro house.
 
I never understand why they can't just use formats that real people actually use. They should be able to take DVD because it's a universal format that's easy to use. Their stupid tape crap needs to go, it's not 1975 anymore. But I guess broadcast is the slowest to update their technology.
 
JonathanLB said:
Their stupid tape crap needs to go, it's not 1975 anymore. But I guess broadcast is the slowest to update their technology.
Click to expand...

ah not really...

tape is the most reliable and best quality. it's not about new technology, it's about having the highest quality source for broadcast compression.

to the OP, bring an uncompressed self contained movie for the transfer.
 
bigbossbmb said:
ah not really...

tape is the most reliable and best quality. it's not about new technology, it's about having the highest quality source for broadcast compression.

to the OP, bring an uncompressed self contained movie for the transfer.
Click to expand...

Like an uncompressed MPEG or AVI burned to a CD or DVD?
 
Tape is not the most reliable. Filming with tape makes me extremely nervous. It's much more fragile than filming to solid state media like a P2 card, which essentially has no errors if you do it right. It's almost as bullet-proof as you get. As for delivery, it makes a lot more sense to deliver any final media in uncompressed digital files, whether those are on a hard drive or a DVD or whatever else.

Which fails more, a film print or a digital copy from a hard drive in a digital movie theater? let me tell you, it's definitely the physical media, the film print. I've been in theaters numerous times where the film broke, the projector came apart because of some reason like it being freakin' old, or even the film print actually catching fire, that happened opening night with The Phantom Menace in Australia and I believe some other areas. Not to mention it looks awful.

Actually when I always rag on film, which I think is outdated technology (and it is), I'm mainly complaining about the fact that in 2008 I have to see film prints screened. I don't care if someone wants to shoot their movie using film, that's fine, nobody would argue about 35mm being one of the best ways to shoot something (besides, in my opinion, on the RED or another similar digital camera, which still looks better to me), but I don't want to see the damn thing on film. It's brutally awful. I have to tolerate cigarette burns, all kinds of imperfections in the film, sound glitches that would never happen if the sound was pure uncompressed digital, etc. That's one reason that people don't go to theaters as much. It's certainly why I don't. Blu-ray is much better quality than a film print. I don't care if film can be scanned at 4K and Blu-ray is only 1080p, when it's digital the 1080p still looks way better than film, that was clear when I saw Revenge of the Sith in a digital theater and it looked way better, way crisper, and way sharper than film ever has. There are NO audio errors, ever, when I watch a movie on Blu-ray. It simply doesn't happen. Yet it happens about every other film I see in theaters. Also watching Prison Break Season Three on Blu-ray, sorry for this off topic rant, really made me think film hasn't come too far after all. A huge number of the scenes that were shot in relatively dark places looked like crap, they were so grainy it was like snow white in a snow storm. I thought they made special film now, Kodak that is, that looks great in low light? I've seen the RED footage in low light, it looks incredible, it's not even 1/8 as grainy as this footage looked. If they filmed that with a great digital camera it wouldn't have looked so terrible. Instead I wondered why did I pay $20 extra for the Blu-ray version if half of the scenes were going to look terrible because it was shot using a lousy outdated technology that actually looked a lot more like my grandma's camcorder than a professional shoot that's supposed to know how NOT to have grainy shots everywhere. And I love Prison Break too. I wonder if they're using the same DP for a lot of these episodes, because I remember thinking during the first two seasons that I wouldn't even hire the DP for $200/day. Way too many shots were just not any good. The worst is when you have two actors talking, both facing the camera, so one has his back to the other, through a fence or whatever, and they're throwing one character out of focus while the other is talking. I don't know whether to blame that on a horrible director with bad style decisions or a DP, but if I was the DP I'd protest. You have two great actors, I always want to see the face of the person who is listening because if they're actually a good actor their reactions are just as important as the character speaking the dialogue. But nope, "shallow depth of field" wins again, just more old school BS that ruins the quality because some idiot thinks it's more professional to use lenses where you can never see anything but the one thing in focus, because audiences are apparently so stupid we can't figure out where to focus our eyes, or we have to be told where to focus them and we can't see anything else. I guess I could understand on a low budget show where the acting is awful, the production design doesn't exist, etc., but most of the time shallow depth of field has the best application when your budget sucks and nobody should be allowed to see the background. Otherwise, show me everything, I'll decide where I want to look.

Tape is even more pathetic than film in most respects. I mean, come on. It's not asking too much that in 2008 we have technology that was made recently being used for a cutting-edge industry. I can't wait for the day I can go to a theater and see a film that looks as good as it does on my TV on Blu-ray. I guess that'll be another ten years until the $11 I spend at a movie theater buys me as much as I can get at home. *rolls eyes*

Grrr. Ok my rant is over.
 
JonathanLB said:
Tape is not the most reliable. Filming with tape makes me extremely nervous. It's much more fragile than filming to solid state media like a P2 card, which essentially has no errors if you do it right. It's almost as bullet-proof as you get.
Click to expand...

maybe with miniDV, but I'm talking about deliverables on Digibeta, HDCAM, D5, etc... these tape formats are as good as it gets and much more damage resistant than delivering on a drive or DVD. (better for archive too) For SD delivering, Digibeta is great. BetaSP is very good too.

JonathanLB said:
As for delivery, it makes a lot more sense to deliver any final media in uncompressed digital files, whether those are on a hard drive or a DVD or whatever else.
Click to expand...

you've never seen HDCAM(SR) have you? Digibeta? no?

JonathanLB said:
Which fails more, a film print or a digital copy from a hard drive in a digital movie theater? let me tell you, it's definitely the physical media, the film print. I've been in theaters numerous times where the film broke, the projector came apart because of some reason like it being freakin' old, or even the film print actually catching fire, that happened opening night with The Phantom Menace in Australia and I believe some other areas. Not to mention it looks awful.

Actually when I always rag on film, which I think is outdated technology (and it is), I'm mainly complaining about the fact that in 2008 I have to see film prints screened. I don't care if someone wants to shoot their movie using film, that's fine, nobody would argue about 35mm being one of the best ways to shoot something (besides, in my opinion, on the RED or another similar digital camera, which still looks better to me), but I don't want to see the damn thing on film. It's brutally awful. I have to tolerate cigarette burns, all kinds of imperfections in the film, sound glitches that would never happen if the sound was pure uncompressed digital, etc. That's one reason that people don't go to theaters as much. It's certainly why I don't. Blu-ray is much better quality than a film print. I don't care if film can be scanned at 4K and Blu-ray is only 1080p, when it's digital the 1080p still looks way better than film, that was clear when I saw Revenge of the Sith in a digital theater and it looked way better, way crisper, and way sharper than film ever has. There are NO audio errors, ever, when I watch a movie on Blu-ray. It simply doesn't happen. Yet it happens about every other film I see in theaters. Also watching Prison Break Season Three on Blu-ray, sorry for this off topic rant, really made me think film hasn't come too far after all. A huge number of the scenes that were shot in relatively dark places looked like crap, they were so grainy it was like snow white in a snow storm. I thought they made special film now, Kodak that is, that looks great in low light? I've seen the RED footage in low light, it looks incredible, it's not even 1/8 as grainy as this footage looked. If they filmed that with a great digital camera it wouldn't have looked so terrible. Instead I wondered why did I pay $20 extra for the Blu-ray version if half of the scenes were going to look terrible because it was shot using a lousy outdated technology that actually looked a lot more like my grandma's camcorder than a professional shoot that's supposed to know how NOT to have grainy shots everywhere. And I love Prison Break too. I wonder if they're using the same DP for a lot of these episodes, because I remember thinking during the first two seasons that I wouldn't even hire the DP for $200/day. Way too many shots were just not any good. The worst is when you have two actors talking, both facing the camera, so one has his back to the other, through a fence or whatever, and they're throwing one character out of focus while the other is talking. I don't know whether to blame that on a horrible director with bad style decisions or a DP, but if I was the DP I'd protest. You have two great actors, I always want to see the face of the person who is listening because if they're actually a good actor their reactions are just as important as the character speaking the dialogue. But nope, "shallow depth of field" wins again, just more old school BS that ruins the quality because some idiot thinks it's more professional to use lenses where you can never see anything but the one thing in focus, because audiences are apparently so stupid we can't figure out where to focus our eyes, or we have to be told where to focus them and we can't see anything else. I guess I could understand on a low budget show where the acting is awful, the production design doesn't exist, etc., but most of the time shallow depth of field has the best application when your budget sucks and nobody should be allowed to see the background. Otherwise, show me everything, I'll decide where I want to look.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with delivering on tape...

JonathanLB said:
Tape is even more pathetic than film in most respects. I mean, come on. It's not asking too much that in 2008 we have technology that was made recently being used for a cutting-edge industry. I can't wait for the day I can go to a theater and see a film that looks as good as it does on my TV on Blu-ray.
Click to expand...

Where do you think those Blu-ray's come from? They come from HDCAM and D5 masters. On the last show I worked on for Discovery, we mastered everything to HDCAM. I've held masters for major motion pictures (I'm talking 80's Spielberg/Lucas major) which were D5.


None of you're points have anything to do with deliverables to a broadcaster.
 
LOL. I completely agree with bigbossbmb...
Not many people ever get to see what real life uncompressed HDCAM-SR looks like on a reference monitor. It's pretty amazing compared to consumer deliverables such as blue ray. HDCAM-SR/D5 is a mastering format, blueray is simply a viewing format. Go to an online session one day and you'll see your comparing apples and oranges.

And about film...
People crap on it these days because of red and the latest digi cameras, but realistically it is still one of the few true archival mediums we have. If stored properly one can always rescan film twenty years later with whatever HDflavor and colorspace we'll have then. DI is still in it's infancy. Hard drives have so many moving parts hard drives, and the speeds in which they operate leads to eventual failure. Gotta keep copying that data every 3 years. Tape is a decent medium cause it's cheap and has fewer moving parts than hard drives and it lasts. Data tape backup is fairly reliable and cheap which is why so many companies use it to back up their projects. No doubt P2 ans SD is great as an acquisition format, but it is not meant to be an archival format.

To answer the original question tv stations request tapes such as BetaSP... #1 It's mostly because it's an easy way for them to make sure a signal meets some broadcast standard. It's kind of like a minimum standard for quality. Some networks will reject a tape if the image is not NTSC color safe or your audio is not up to spec. It's easy to see in the meters. This is not so easy to see if they were to accept a data dvd with the many video resolutions at your disposal in an NLE. #2 Stations have a large base of installed decks. This is expensive to upgrade. If they are broadcasting SD, it's a perfectly acceptable format. It's an equalizer of quality. If they know you can master onto a BetaSP you probably have access to someone understands a waveform monitor.
 
Film is actually a horrible way to archive anything, that's one big reason that so many studios have been excited by the prospects of HD, even for archiving movies originally shot on film. Just look at Star Wars: A New Hope. That movie, in 20 years, had fallen apart so badly they had to spend millions on restorations and they said that without those critical restorations, the movie would have been lost forever. That's how bad film is at staying in decent shape. It's really a pitiful medium for that. It's like you have to store it in a wine cellar or something, and even then, good luck, any light exposure, any temperature changes, or just time itself will ruin it.

Hard drives have moving pieces but it's pretty easy really to store projects in a secure fashion. All you need is redundancy. I have a hard drive that's 8 years old, Western Digital, still ticking along just fine. Hard drives are also so cheap that who cares if they fail every 5 years even? That's your fault for not understanding data management if you only had a project on one hard drive. I keep everything backed up on several drives, and if you're really paranoid you should store them in different physical locations. I'm planning on going that route in the near future when I get more clients that pay the money for me to bother doing that. I'll probably get a small vault and I'll store hard drives in the vault in my personal storage unit in my condo, which is three floors below my condo, in a cement garage, it won't be burned down or damaged or anything. If I was even more paranoid I have a storage unit in Burbank and I could backup there, but I think honestly it's more secure in my own building with security cameras watching, concrete walls, floors, etc.

If you're still yet more concerned about it, you put your projects (and I do this too, until I run out of space, which shouldn't happen for a while yet and by that point I may have the money to just buy another) on a large RAID system. I have a 2 TB RAID setup and whatever is there, I have backed up elsewhere too, but on the plus side if a drive in that array fails, it won't damage my data.

The only reason I would ever run out of storage space on that drive is because I retain all elements of every project, which is unnecessary for the most part. The reason I do that is because I can. I haven't done enough work, or been around long enough, to bother deleting old, unneeded files. In other words, I don't have the 1.3 or 1.6 gig final .MOV file for my music videos only, I have the entire collection of raw footage, all additional cuts that were rough, 1st, 2nds, whatever, in a few cases there are render folders full of renders too that could be deleted, and who knows what else is in some of those folders.

But just backing up the actual finished projects, I could do that indefinitely and not worry about storage space. There's no way I would be able to fill a 2 TB RAID and at the end of that not have made enough money to just get another 2 TB RAID, considering you'd have to be doing a TON of work to fill a drive like that if you were deleting *everything* but the final file. I would say that's bad form, though, deleting the Final Cut timeline, the raw footage, etc. Then again you may not care if all that's only backed up once for old projects, because honestly you probably won't be re-editing old stuff.
 
alekstef said:
...

2. No broadcasting station I've ever heard of takes DVDs, so I think you can forget about that. However, most of them take either/both Betacam SP/SX and DigiBeta.
Click to expand...

Our local station accepts files on DATA DVDs no problem. Most of their stuff is edited on pc workstations anyway regardless of the source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top