The BBC and high-def

B

Barry_Green

Moderator
Found a rather interesting PDF on the Web, about what the BBC considers high-def and what their strategy will be in transitioning to high def. Looks to be from a presentation they made at the HD Masters 2007 conference. Presentation was made by Andy Quested, Principal HD Technologist for the BBC.


http://hdmasters2007.com/pdf/Presentations/HDM2007_Quested-BBC.pdf

In a nutshell, they want 1080; they don't want any 720p unless it's from the VariCam or HDX900.

They don't want anything less than 1/2" sensors

They expect to have Factual Studios fully converted to P2 in a couple of years

They list the cameras and recording formats they expect to be relevant, including the Arri D20, Genesis, and Red! Manufacturers of camcorders they're looking at include Panasonic, Sony & Thomson, and for recording formats they list HDCAM-SR, AVC-Intra 100, HDCAM & DVCPRO-HD as well as 35mm film (no mention of 16mm or Super-16mm, no HDV, no AVC-HD, no XDCAM).

Under what is "not HD" they classify upconverted SD, 720p (except from VariCam or HDX900), smaller-than 1/2" chip cameras, HDV, Super16, and NLE codecs at less than 160mbps(!)

For Factual programs, they use DVCPRO-HD and will go P2 by 2010; they're going to transition from DVCPRO-HD to AVC-Intra as soon as it's feasible.

For Drama programs they use the HDW750, VariCam and HDX900, and expect to see more usage of the D20 and Genesis, and are looking at Red. They haven't made a decision about a tapeless format for their Drama division.

Andy King's slideshow was quite interesting too:
http://hdmasters2007.com/pdf/Presentations/HDM2007_King-BBC.pdf
 
Last edited:
Definitional only...and directional for the most part impacting future investments.

The "Royal Charter" is a huge investment and a huge responsibility to produce.

When it comes down to it, "content" is still king...and they can't do it all themselves.
 
So they won´t accept DVCproHD 1080 from a HVX?
Just wondering what they will use for VJ cams or b-roll...
 
This is just a slideshow; we'd have to be there to understand the full presentation in context. The slides also said they could have no more than 25% of a program be from non-HD sources, so that sounds like they'd probably accept an HVX or other 1/3" cam for a minority portion of the program.
 
I think it is sad that the BBC does not consider 720p a legitimate high definition format because it is not future proof just because it has an arbitrary lower number. If anything 720p is more futuristic than 1080i. 1080i is an interlaced format that has only the resolving capabilities of 540 lines of resolution according to the United States Department of Defense Specifications. Although 1080p is progressive its framerate is limited to 25 frames per second which makes the format unsuitable for the fast action photography like sports. I think the BBC is caving in to marketing hype from Sony that uses the 1080i format because it sells more cameras rather than choosing a format based on picture quality.
 
Let me repeat: CONTENT IS KING.

The BBC must satisfy the audience or the "charter" gets divided up to those who can.
 
The BBC wants 1080/50P, and they make clear in some of those presentations that part of their selection process is to inquire about what the manufacturer's progression plan to 1080/50P is. It sounds like if they don't have a solid plan, the BBC writes 'em off and moves on to the next manufacturer.

The EBU's stance is that 1080/50i is an interim step, a stepping stone to 1080/50P. The EBU said that they preferred 720p over 1080i; if given a choice between a larger frame size but interlaced, or a smaller frame size but progressive, they strongly endorsed progressive.
 
Sorry,

I know it's a real battle for the manufacturers to drive the technology standards decisions.

In other parts of BBC, the plumbing is not the most important thing going on. I do not believe that technology decisions will stand if those decisions were to impact the availability of competitive content. In a highly vertically integrated industry monopoly, that may not seem like an issue. But it would if BBC wanted to go outside. (or broadcast re-runs)
 
Barry_Green said:
The EBU's stance is that 1080/50i is an interim step, a stepping stone to 1080/50P. The EBU said that they preferred 720p over 1080i; if given a choice between a larger frame size but interlaced, or a smaller frame size but progressive, they strongly endorsed progressive.
Click to expand...

Yep, although mistakenly and based inaccurate predictions of where consumer hardware would be. I'd say something like 90% of the BBC's HD output is 25p originated -- which our 1080i/50 transmission format carries completely to the viewer (at around 16-17Mbit/s H264). With this sort of material and bitrates there are no advantages to 720p, just disadvantages (most noticeably lack of resolution -- it is certainly obvious, even on 1366x768 sets, which shows are acquired on the Varicam and which on 1080psf cameras).

The BBC's policy is simple -- 1080p50 is the goal (expect the 2012 olympics to be acquired in this format) and that you capture everything in 1080p50, regardless of the desired look (getting film motion from 1080p50 is literally just dropping every other frame -- both are shot with a 1/50s shutter -- but you gain the advantage of having extra frames about for slow motion), the question is how to get there and with the material the BBC is producing going via 1080i25 makes a lot more sense than 720p50.

Then there's also the fact that Murdoch's Sky launched a 1080i25 HD service first (based mainly on the fact that tests showing the public preferred the look of sport in 1080i25 over 720p50 as I understand it, which caused them to switch).

Steven
 
FatBird19 said:
Super16? Whaat!?!
Click to expand...

Super16 is not considered HD by the BBC because by the time it has been through the compression systems it looks virtually no different to the 576psf SD transmissions -- even when using H264. The BBC's policy is that if they are transmitting it in HD, it jolly well should look like HD and frankly the picture quality difference between something shooting on Super16 and shooting on, say, an Arri D20 is huge.

Steven
 
Maybe this is inappropriate for a video forum , but I have often wondered to myself "what does the BBC do to make some of their super16 productions look so terrible?"...

I actually own a super16 Aaton that was used by a DP in the UK, and my footage transferred to tape looks terrific compared to shows that I know were shot with the exact same camera and lens (Cooke 10.4-52)...

My goal in shooting with the HVX and the HPX500 has always been to create an on-air look that approximates what I've come to expect from super16.. It's interesting that that's no longer good enough for the BBC, especially when you consider that the problem is obviously somewhere downstream, not in the camera or format...
 
Mac said:
Maybe this is inappropriate for a video forum , but I have often wondered to myself "what does the BBC do to make some of their super16 productions look so terrible?"...
Click to expand...

It's all that noise in the image (oops, sorry grain...) :) It is essentially completely random from frame to frame and just confuses the encoders so much that real detail is lost trying to encode the grain (get hold of DVDs of the same show and the look miles better -- but then they have a higher average bitrate, and are multipass encoded). It's not limited to the BBC either -- US shows shot on S16 (such as The OC or Veronica Mars) look just as nasty.

The problem is that the budget and time frame for TV production demands fast stock which has largish visible grain -- if the money and time was there to use movie style lighting rigs then they could shoot on 50ASA stock and it'd be fine.

My goal in shooting with the HVX and the HPX500 has always been to create an on-air look that approximates what I've come to expect from super16.. It's interesting that that's no longer good enough for the BBC, especially when you consider that the problem is obviously somewhere downstream, not in the camera or format...
Click to expand...

It's not the look of S16 -- indeed the BBC have their own profiles for matching that look for loads of cameras freely available online -- it is specifically that the grain level in S16 (or at least the film stocks used in UK TV production) when passed through the HDTV chain (from acquistion to the viewer) causes the image to suffer (and indeed becomes indistinguishable from SD). Considering that the alternatives all produce images that survive the HDTV chain far better for similar prices you can see why it is just easier to say -- no S16. I'm told that the DoP on Silent Witness was complaining that the Arri D20 wasn't capturing the dynamic range of the scene as well as the S16 had in previous years -- until he pulled out the DVD and found it to be within half a stop of the Arri D20. Yes, the negative had more dynamic range but there was no way to capture it on tape.

In many ways things have come full circle, the BBC never considered 16mm good enough for acqusition in the early-1960s and that was for 405 line transmission. :)

Steven
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top