Well, you can always shoot it in native AVCCAM, then deliver it in a higher quality codec...how would they ever know if it looks as good as most people say... If you use a Ki Pro Mini, it records to ProRes 422 at Proxy, LT, HQ, etc...nicer source, but with AVCCAM you have to transcode to ProRes anyway, so the final deliverable will still be ProRes. Well that is for the FCP users anyway! The only way they would be able to tell it was shot in AVCCAM was if you delivered them one edit from Ki Pro Mini and one from the AVCCAM, and compared it side by side...right?!
May have to lower my standards...
- Thread starter Shooter
- Start date
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
Problem is, I don't really see the point. I don't see why anyone has to lower their standards with a camera that does everything it claims to do.
Shooter
Veteran
Shooter
Veteran
I dont doubt fora moment that it does (in the right hands) , and of course I wont be lowering my standards to accomodate it. (Because I cant)
I was simply amused that they went to the trouble of the disclaimer. "close to broadcast standards" (What does that even mean without defining them?)
Shooter
Veteran
Show us your content.
Coolbreeze
Member
Much a FUD about nothing. DWMT thread. Not sure the point of this thread. But it seems that the point was made -- choose the tool that satisfies the production demand. Cant wait for my delivery.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
"Broadcast standards" mean nothing after the cable companies get ahold of content. The seemingly random macro blocking on some scene changes looks worse than HDV codec.
Marc Villafan
Well-known member
Yes but it does go back to having the best from the start. A bad input would come out with an even worse output. But a great input would come out with a better output. (than a bad input's output)
If that makes any sense. Haha.
Shooter
Veteran
oh ...again ! "DWMT" google, google, google... oh yeah ..I get it now. Did I just waste my time trying to understand what you meant by DWMT?
I do choose my tools... because I can. Anytime I wish. Not many cameras I havent used in a long career as a D.P
You made your choice thats absolutely fine for your playground. Enjoy it.
I also will use and enjoy my AF102 when appropriate for the production ( which will be often and it will be broadcast just as I do with HVX, DVX and everything else)
@ken37 No problem at all.
I absolutely agree with you about content but some of us have to deal with a bit more as well as content. Only asked if you want to show us what you do that backed up where you come from regarding content vs standards and quality.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's because it *is* worse than the HDV codec!
But that's largely irrelevant -- the broadcaster gets to decide what is broadcast on their channel. They have policies in place and tech review personnel who QC the products. Not all do, of course. So the term "broadcast quality" or "broadcast standard" really does start and end with "which broadcaster are you talking about?" CNN will air cell phone video when it's the right content. Discovery HD and the BBC have some of the highest standards around. Lots of cable stations were shooting on DVXs a couple of years ago, and shoot a lot of stuff on HDV. BBC & Discovery won't even allow those products to be used for more than 15% of their program content. Unless, of course, special circumstances prevail.
Sooner or later those broadcasters who do the reviewing of products, will review the AF100, and it will get a rating of "Gold" or "Silver" or "Bronze" from Discovery HD, and it'll get a ruling from the BBC, and PBS might weigh in, etc. Until then, if you want to shoot for broadcasters, why not choose your camera based on the list that your particular target broadcaster has already approved? That's the only way to know for sure that you're going to be okay.
Barry_Green
Moderator
To us. And in news perhaps. But when it comes to what a broadcaster decides that they will or won't air... well, we (the shooters) don't get to decide that. They do. And if DiscoveryHD decides that "battle at kruger" is compelling footage, but doesn't meet their technical standards, then they won't air it. Period. They have published standards for a reason.
Sure you can. But, if you're shooting FOR BROADCAST, you better be compliant, or your shooting may be in vain if they choose to deem the content not fit for broadcast on their channel.
Multi-Media
Well-known member
For the past few years, I have been delivering commercials to TV stations on disk as uncompressed AVI files. They were asking for spots on Beta only. I have a UVW 1800 that I no longer use. I simply ask the "sales" dept to let me speak with an engineer. I then ask them why they would want a spot that was shot digitally and edited digitally to be output analog to tape only to have them re-digitize it into their system. At that point, I ask them what they're editing on... and they call the sales person and I have the agency send them a disk. They want to sell the air time for the spot... I have never had a spot rejected... and that was with footage from the old DVX100... I can't wait for the AF!
DylanReeve
Active member
Commercials and programmes are very different. As long as a commercial isn't seriously wrong (audio levels, aspect ratio, field order) it will be accepted a played - the broadcasters are PAID to broadcast them. Programmes are the opposite - broadcasters are PAYING to broadcast them. They are the client.
The specs from Discovery, BBC and all the rest only apply to programmes they commission, shows they purchase from distributors are a different matter. They are contracting a production company to make a show for them, and paying the production company for that. If the production company were to go our and ignore the specifications and requirements they were given then they would effectively be in breach of contract.
Minimum technical standards exist because it's not possible to write a contract that defines "quality" in any meaningful way. By requiring certain minimum technical standards they can establish a kind of barrier to entry - ensure that only people who are really serious about it are getting involved. Broadcasters are willing to discuss the requirements on a case-by-case basis (Deadliest Catch is a good example - all HDV) and the F3 and AF100 will be seen in major HD programmes, but in general they don't qualify automatically as HD for many broadcasters.
The specs from Discovery, BBC and all the rest only apply to programmes they commission, shows they purchase from distributors are a different matter. They are contracting a production company to make a show for them, and paying the production company for that. If the production company were to go our and ignore the specifications and requirements they were given then they would effectively be in breach of contract.
Minimum technical standards exist because it's not possible to write a contract that defines "quality" in any meaningful way. By requiring certain minimum technical standards they can establish a kind of barrier to entry - ensure that only people who are really serious about it are getting involved. Broadcasters are willing to discuss the requirements on a case-by-case basis (Deadliest Catch is a good example - all HDV) and the F3 and AF100 will be seen in major HD programmes, but in general they don't qualify automatically as HD for many broadcasters.
Yes, but according to the BBC's specifications, the GH13 does! 1080p @ 50Mbps broadcast standard ready:
BBC said:
DylanReeve
Active member
The GH13 firmware might technically be able to deliver footage that would qualify. It does still have to pass a visual quality check too. Would it? I dunno, probably.
Thomas Kist
Active member
The reason Panasonic put that line in the manual in the first place, is probably that they also try to sell camera's that cost TEN times as much as the AF-100 claiming that they provide a higher standard.
You can't really blame them for trying.
You can't really blame them for trying.
