Which digital format -- today?

[imported_blank]

Just to back up my Asia claim

Sony MPEG IMX System becomes the industry standard
among Asia's leading broadcasters
http://pro.sony.com.hk/pr20030407a.html
Asia now reaching 1,700 units, or 20% of the world total, more than 8,000 MPEG IMX VTRs worldwide.

HTV- 200 sets of Sony's MPEG IMX product range,including the MSW-900P digital camcorders..In addition to its existing Betacam SX equipment
http://sonympeg-imx.com/articles/printer_11.s html

Off topic for us -- but SONY is not moving on just because a handful of us mag shows haven't bit into SX or IMX. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Thomas]

Ivan:

If your point is that SX is bigger than people here give it credit for, then so be it. You are probably correct.

However, if it is your contention that a small number of US magazine programs are the lone holdouts in changing to SX, then you don't have a grasp of the US production industry at all.

I work for every network -- as do many of the people who write here. I also shoot for countless production companies who make programming for cable channels such as The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, etc. I do OPRAH!, The Daily Show, PBS, and on and on.

Never. Not once. Not ever has anyone asked for Beta SX. Yes CBS uses SX. But they don't require their freelancers to shoot with it because they know all of them own Beta SP. In fact, the only formats I have ever had to rent cameras to shot in are DigiBeta and High Def.

Now, I am NOT trying to say that Beta SP is better or worse or more viable than any other format. Frankly, at this point, I don't care. Not a whit. I am merely trying to say that the programmers may have switched INTERNALLY to Beta SX as a capture format, but externally, they are neither asking nor requiring it from the freelancers who work for them.

Beta SX will never catch on, in my opinion, as a tape format here in the US. Whatever the reasons, some production entities are, according to your facts, switching to it. However, I am of the opinion that, of the tape formats, IMX makes the most sense because it handles every 1/2" Beta format. But, like dinosaur, I also believe that the end point for all this flux in formats is a tapeless system. When hard discs become viable, then change will happen.

By the way, Sony, when they sold those 14 D35s at their b-stock site, also had 14 SX dockable decks for sale. While the cameras sold, literally, within minutes, the decks sat for a few days. Now they have more D30s for sale with SX decks. They're cheap, (about $8K, from a list of 35K) you should check them out. If they're that popular, the re-sale will net you a lot of money.

www.bpcvalue.com look under "camcorders"

 

[imported_blank]

Originally posted by Thomas:
I work for every network ... Never. Not once. Not ever has anyone asked for Beta SX ... they know all of them [freelancers] own Beta SP. In fact, the only formats I have ever had to rent cameras to shot in are DigiBeta and High Def. Externally, they are neither asking nor requiring [SX] from the freelancers who work for them. "

Tom,
There is "NO WAY" I would ever dispute your above fact. If anyone knows -- it is guys like you and Dino that know. In fact you are proving my point for me. The point about "sticking to a beta legacy format". The point "hanging on to your good working SP rig". Tom. all these houses and networks that went SX or IMX will take your D600 SP tape no problemo, that is one of my points too. The other point is that many if not most of these places have allready replaced many or at least some aging SP decks with SX or higher decks. Most SP edits are replaced with SX or probably Digi decks. Am I wrong? Is Canada that much ahead of you?

On the other hand Digi-Beta acquisition is way better then SP/SX so in that case they expect Digi-Beta acquisition and HD is a different world all together.

My only beef is with statements like "remember sx" or sx was bypassed by the tv community" (please don't take offence dhart & dino) This is NOT totaly acurate. The next time you're at one of the networks - go and look at the decks, I bet each and every net will have a few SX or IMX and Digi-decks that PB SX. I bet many reputable houses will have them to. I bet no one but a handful of news-shops edit analog SP anymore. I bet everyone else edits SP material using SX or IMX or most likely Digi. That my friends is my whole point.

I personally value and respect everything Dinosaur & Tom write here and you are in a position to know if and when you guys will switch to what - hd as dino claims. However just because O&O FREELANCERS aren't using SX or IMX doesn't mean that they are dead formats. We are very small peanuts when it comes to Sony format decisions. Do me a favour and look in the control & edit rooms at the nets - tell me what beta formats you see there....

My point is that SX has ALREADY caught on outside the freelance world and IMX is catching on rather quickly - that is all I'm saying.

Originally posted by Thomas:
I am of the opinion that, of the tape formats, IMX makes the most sense because it handles every 1/2" Beta format. But, like dinosaur, I also believe that the end point for all this flux in formats is a tapeless system. When hard discs become viable, then change will happen. "

you may very well be right.

 

[scottmc]

Interesting thread.

The reality of BetaSX is that it is an example of Sony misunderstanding the marketplace. They got the idea somehow that acquisition needed to be MPEG-2, because DTV is based on it. It turned out that it didn't really matter, and few people cared. Worse, they figured they needed to make it very low datarate for satellite uplinks, at the expense of quality. BetaSX starts off okay, with 8-bit, 4:2:2 sampling. But then it goes down hill from there. 10:1 compression and an 18 Mbit/sec data rate. Yikes! It shows, too. In SMPTE picture quality tests, it faired much worse than Digital Betacam, and end up no better than the 4:1:1 formats. Add to that that the type of MPEG-2 encoding it uses was designed for delivery, not production (interframe compression).

Panasonic was the first one to get the clue that the DV25 codec provided results similar to BetaSP (better in some ways, worse in others), but at a lower cost. That's how they ended up kicking Sony out of more than half of the stations in North America. (Interesting side note: the format listings for the markets on this site are quite out of date, and in several cases, incorrectly list BetaSX or SP when DVCPRO is being used).

Sony decided that while DVCAM was good, but it didn't have high enough margins. That's where BetaSX came in. No better in quality, but much higher in cost. It's primary selling point is that you can still play your BetaSP tapes in it. Big deal. Get a Sony J-series deck and move on. BetaSX never really has caught on in a big way, despite Sony's attempts to give enough gear away at CNN and a few other places to try to build market share.

IMX is another attempt to get it right, but it's yet another Sony 4:2:2 format (along with SX and Digital Betacam). Of course, it still uses big clunky Beta cassettes, and the cameras are still $40k each. It is (in theory) similar in performance to D-9 and DVCPRO50, but it uses MPEG-2 again. Somebody at Sony has the hots for MPEG-2, even though it doesn't really buy you anything over any other digital formats. This time they decided to go with I-frame only MPEG, which defeats the main purpose of going with MPEG in the first place.

With HD formats coming down in price, 4:2:2 standard def formats may get squeezed out by lower-cost 4:1:1 formats. DVCAM and DVCPRO are good enough for most common applications.

Don't get me wrong, Sony makes some solid gear, but their marketing department is clueless. They could have saved money by making DVCAM more rugged like DVCPRO, and coming out with a DV50 format (DVCAM50?). They have the resources to beat Panasonic, but they just got greedy for the high margins of Beta-based gear.

After checking out the new gear at NAB last April, it looks like Sony is missing the boat AGAIN. They built a blue-laser DVD recorder that is incompatible with the coming Blu-Ray HD-DVD spec, that allows recording with either the 4:1:1 DVCAM codec, or the 4:2:2 IMX codec. Not a bad idea, if it came out a few years ago. Panasonic's memory card camera appears to be a superior choice, for power consumption and resistance to harsh environmental conditions. While it isn't here yet (next year, I think they said), it offers a lot more value than the optical disc. No need for new VTR - just plug the card into a card slot or card reader on your PC or Mac. Click on the icon of the card, and select your clips, and drag them into your NLE.

Sony dominated the industry for 20 years by having the right product at the right time. I guess nobody gets to stay on top forever. The last few years have seen a series of Sony square pegs for a round hole market. Maybe they'll figure it out soon.

 

[imported_blank]

Digital Betacam" is NOT a "MPEG-2" format for one reason only. If they made it today you can bet it would be a MPEG-2 format due to the efficiency and no further trancoding needed. But back in the early 90s they didn't have the technology to edit MPEG-2. (remember, that was a decade ago)

Getting back to betacamSX, Every single test I have ever seen (on paper and/or with the naked eye) betacamSX blew each and every DV25 format out the door. This b-roll site has hundreds of members (general forum) that have used both DV25 and BetaSX and 90 to 95 percent of them (registered members with confirmed market of location) already told us at the general forum that SX does indeed have a better picture (crispier) better control over audio and is more robust then any DV25 format. Read the archives.

Furthermore,
The DV25 formats unfortunately don't abide by the legal ITU-R 601 specs. ITU-R 601 is the original 720x486 pixel size. FYI all betacam formats abide by this measurement - so does D9 and DVCpro-50. DV25 have chosen to go with the consumer 720by480 spec witch causes chaos in REAL post production studios and houses.

BTW, if there is no difference between 4:1:1 and 4:2:2 then why in the hell has Panasonic chosen to concentrate on the DVCpro50 4:2:2 format and has almost dumped the 4:1:1 format???? In fact all of Panasonic's other formats are 4:2:2, same with JVC and Sony. (wait 'till you start up-converting to consumers HD sets

As to your comparison between SX 10 to 1 and DV 5 to 1 --- dude you got to realize that DV25 throws 50 percent of the chroma away before compression. Dude, half of all the colour is flushed down the toilet. Most folks would agree that compressing 50 percent of something is better than throwing away 50 percent of something. Geez if you compress something at least you still have it -- if you throw it away, it's gone, no need to compress something that's not there. You are a true wonder when it comes to math...

As to comparing IMX, DVCpro50 and D9 - there isn't all that much difference but again IMX wins hands down because IMX is the only SD format (besides SX) that does not need to be transcoded back to MPEG-2, meaning you always have one less generation to deal with then with the other formats - out to standardized MPEG-2 air, satellite or cable. Oh yeah there is also the fact that you have twice the tape width compared to DVCpro thus your stretched tape, glitches and drop outs will only look half as bad when traveling on twice the real eastate. I know I know DIGITAL tape does not stretch glitch or drop out, silly me. Damn big clunky 1/2 tapes, shame on Panasonics REAL formats HD-D5 and SD-D5.

Of course Digi-Beta blows away SX, geez it's a 96Mbps 2 to 1 format. But to say SX is no better than DV25 is rather silly. BTW, if you really keep up to SMPTE tests - then you know that Digi- Beta blows the other mentioned formats DVCpro50 IMX and D9 (after multi generations even an average joe with the naked eye will spot the dif) due to the fact that it's A) 10 bit and B)only 2 to 1 compression as opposed to 8 bit 5to1 and C) twice the bandwidth.

Speaking of HD formats, the original HDcam format sampled at 3:1:1.(8:26:2.6 decimated to 3:1:1) Sony figured that with such a high bit rate 3:1:1 sampling was good enough. Sony finally woke up and realized that 3:1:1 or 4:2:2 for that matther may not be good enough for episodic HD television thus their new HDcam format (SR-HDcam) samples in true 4:4:4 RGB.

BTW, to date, the SR-HDcam is the only portable HD system that abides by the ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) Common Image Format standard specification HDTV 1920by1080 resolution specs. Regular HDcam will only achieve 1440 x 1080 and DVcpro-100 will only achieve 1280 x 1080.

As to Panasonic taking away half the broadcast market - please be kind enough to post some verifiable information regarding this claim. You are the poster that has stated that people don't care if it's shot on a XL1 or a Digital Betacam (as long as the content has T & A,) right?

With all due respect, just because your station made the mistake of choosing DVCpro-25 - that doesn't make it equal to your Los Angeles competitors that have wisely chosen BetacamSX. You will find this out when your shop starts up-converting DV25 material to the HD spectrum. You will then find out how much better the MPEG-2 4:2:2 SX material going through that efficient low-bit " Inter-Frame" stream from your competitors will look.

Viewers don't care about the difference between XL1 shot or a Digi-Beta shot programming- you already stated that at the general forum....Hey now-days even frontline world and national geographic (CH599 not the primetime shows) agree with you.

The world is coming to an end...
---------------------------------------------

[ September 02, 2003, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Ivan ]

 

[wtv]

Just to add a little bit on the SX side of things from the international point of view, I have just received a request to take my SX laptop on a shoot for a US client, I do not think they care that much what the format is just that I have some editing gear, and so that means the good old SX laptop gets a bit more work.

In many, many instances I have found large numbers of people shooting on and even more so cutting on SX overseas, as someone said ealier many feed points on major stories will have SX playout.

I am not one to say that SX is the best (or worst) but at the moment for what I do it is a very usful piece of kit, I still shoot on my trusty SP though.

I am thinking of selling it though (but really don't want too) as I think I still can get a fair price for it and then I would love to get the G4 or even the 5 with Avid or FCP for one simple reason, its looks sooooo cool.

Happy shooting

[ September 03, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: wtv ]

 

[scottmc]

Hey Ivan,

Looks like we've got a "my dog is better than your dog" thing going on.
The real point is, unfortunately, that for the production side, both are still dogs.

Digital Betacam" is NOT a "MPEG-2" format for one reason only. If they made it
today you can bet it would be a MPEG-2 format due to the efficiency and no further
trancoding needed. But back in the early 90s they didn't have the technology to
edit MPEG-2. (remember, that was a decade ago)

MPEG-2 with mixed frame types was intended as a content delivery codec, not a production codec. Editing MPEG-2 with a normal profile (like SX) is a hack. Since the you aren't only dealing with complete frames, your editing system needs to read the entire GOP in order to reconstruct the missing complete frame, so that you can cut there. Fortunately, SX has a very small GOP size, so that helps. Still, that is essentially uncompressing, and then recompressing at each edit. That's inefficent, and involves some quality loss. That's why Sony made IMX I-frame only (aka "studio codec") - no need to deal with those interframe compression problems. Of course, to get decent compression out of MPEG-2, you need to use B and P frames. IMX doesn't, making you wonder why they bothered with MPEG-2 at all. The "no transcoding" myth seems to be a big part of the Sony MPEG hype. Too bad it isn't true. The I-frame only MPEG codec used by IMX is not directly compatible with DTV broadcasts, which uses a much lower data rate, and mixed frame types for better compression. You STILL have to transcode. Same thing in production if you are going to DVD. So, why bother with MPEG-2 at all? Because it sounds cool?

Getting back to betacamSX, Every single test I have ever seen (on paper and/or with
the naked eye) betacamSX blew each and every DV25 format out the door.

And these were scientific tests that used the same camera head, lens, subject, and lighting conditions, but recorded to the different formats, or were they comparing old AJ-D700 1/2" CCD DVCPRO camcorders against newer BetaSX camcorder with 2/3" CCDs and a different lens? Lots of people make a big deal about casual, unscientific tests and their results, without realizing what they are really measuring with their tests. The SMPTE/EBU tests were scientific, and measured the format codec differences, not camera head differences or other variables.

Furthermore, The DV25 formats unfortunately don't abide by the legal ITU-R 601
specs. ITU-R 601 is the original 720x486 pixel size. FYI all betacam formats abide
by this measurement - so does D9 and DVCpro-50.

Actually, the DV50 formats don't either, internally. Some of the VTRs (such as the AJ-SD955 DVCPRO/DVCPRO50 unit) can add the extra active lines if required.

DV25 have chosen to go with the
consumer 720by480 spec witch causes chaos in REAL post production studios and
houses.

DV25/DV50 formats have been used in some major post houses with NO problems. A number of shows are produced using DVCAM and DVCPRO, in addition to news. If this were such a big problem, you couldn't broadcast movies in letterbox format. Besides, the DTV specification does not REQUIRE the extra lines in the active picture area, it is suggestion for a wider safety margin. 480 active lines is legal for DTV. Analog broadcast does typically spec 483 active lines for primetime broadcast material. Bottom line is that it isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be. Because of the digital transition, it is becoming less of an issue every day.

BTW, if there is no difference between 4:1:1 and 4:2:2 then why in the hell has
Panasonic chosen to concentrate on the DVCpro50 4:2:2 format and has almost dumped
the 4:1:1 format????

1. I never said there was no difference between 4:1:1 and 4:2:2. I said that BetaSX is so heavily compressed that the differences are (for the most part) lost. I also said that typical audience members can't tell the difference between 4:1:1 and 4:2:2. You and I, as well as most readers of this board can, but to the untrained eye, the differences are often insignificant.

2. Panasonic has not "almost dumped" DVCPRO. You are confusing the misinformation in a VideoSystems magazine article, that actually referred to Ikegami's decision to move upmarket and concentrate on DVCPRO50 and HD. Panasonic is still revising the DVCPRO line.

In fact all of Panasonic's other formats are 4:2:2, same with
JVC and Sony.

What does that have to do with anything? Why would they need more than one 4:1:1 format? At the high-end of the SD world, I can see that you would want to have a less expensive, more practical 4:2:2 format for acquisition, and a top quality uncompressed format (D5, etc.) for mastering. In the 4:1:1 world, it isn't necessary.

As to your comparison between SX 10 to 1 and DV 5 to 1 --- dude you got to realize
that DV25 throws 50 percent of the chroma away before compression. Dude, half of
all the colour is flushed down the toilet. Most folks would agree that compressing
50 percent of something is better than throwing away 50 percent of something. Geez
if you compress something at least you still have it

Not necessarily. The compression used in modern digital video formats isn't lossless like WinZip on your PC. It's lossy, meaning that your data gets thrown away. The DSP in both DVCPRO and BetaSX camcorders output 4:2:2. That's the starting point. The VTR section's encoder does data compression/reduction. If you compress 4:2:2 at 10:1, or subsample to 4:1:1 and compress at 5:1, it's pretty close. Most of the data is gone either way. This is painfully obvious in the SMPTE/EBU tests. In fact, they bashed both DVCPRO and BetaSX as being "not suitable for general broadcast use."

As to comparing IMX, DVCpro50 and D9 - there isn't all that much difference but
again IMX wins hands down because IMX is the only SD format (besides SX) that does
not need to be transcoded back to MPEG-2, meaning you always have one less
generation to deal with then with the other formats - out to standardized MPEG-2
air, satellite or cable.

You might want to read up a little more on MPEG-2. It isn't a single standard, it's a group of standards. MPEG-2 for broadcast DTV, DVD, etc. are all different. IMX uses a unique I-frame only structure, which is incompatible with the others. BetaSX uses a I-B frame GOP structure, which is not compatible with the GOP structure of broadcast DTV, DVB, or DVD. You have to transcode to the correct MPEG-2 format anyway. Can you guess what that means? Quality reduction.

Oh yeah there is also the fact that you have twice the
tape width compared to DVCpro thus your stretched tape, glitches and drop outs will
only look half as bad when traveling on twice the real eastate.

Funny, I've never had a problem with that. In fact, neither has anyone else I know.
How much experience do you have with DVCPRO? The only people I've heard talk about this problem are BetaSP/SX owners. Has this actually been a problem for you, or is this more unfounded Sony bigotry? This is the same attitude BetaSP got when it came out. "What? 1/2-inch tape? Isn't that just Betamax home video cranked up at bit? That's garbage. 1-inch Type C is the only way to go, 3/4 inch a pinch." The reality is that 1/2-inch tape has proven itself quite well over the past 20 years. 1/4" tape, thanks to a number of technological improvements, has been doing the same.

Of course Digi-Beta blows away SX, geez it's a 96Mbps 2 to 1 format. But to say SX
is no better than DV25 is rather silly.
/quote]

Yes, those darn SMPTE/EBU engineers are silly. Sure, in theory there is an advantage to compressing 4:2:2 rather than 4:1:1, but at 10:1, you've flushed most of the quality out. That's why they put BetaSX in the same category as DVCPRO.

BTW, if you really keep up to SMPTE tests -
then you know that Digi- Beta blows the other mentioned formats DVCpro50 IMX and D9
(after multi generations even an average joe with the naked eye will spot the dif)
due to the fact that it's A) 10 bit and B)only 2 to 1 compression as opposed to 8
bit 5to1.

DVCPRO50 and D-9 are 3.3:1 compressed, not 5:1. As far as multiple generations go, don't use component analog connections for dubs, and the problem is drastically reduced with both DVCPRO and BetaSX. In fact, if you use DVCPRO or DVCPRO50 via Firewire, it's a file copy. No loss at all.

Speaking of HD formats, the original HDcam format sampled at 3:1:1.(8:26:2.6
decimated to 3:1:1) Sony figured that with such a high bit rate 3:1:1 sampling was
good enough.

Broadcasters today seem to think it works well enough. It, and DVCPRO-HD are both currently employed in primetime HD production.

3:1:1 isn't that bad. Besides, if you look at bandwidth (luma and chroma) for BetaSP and compare it to DV25 formats, you'd find DV25 has a slight advantage. BetaSP would be a 3:1:1 format if it were digital. People still seem to think it is good enough for broadcast use.

Sony finally woke up and realized that 3:1:1 or 4:2:2 for that matther
may not be good enough for episodic HD television thus their new HDcam format
(SR-HDcam) samples in true 4:4:4 RGB.

You don't seem to have your Sony marketing hype straight. HDCAM-SR is not a replacement for HDCAM. It's not necessarily intended for episodic TV production. Sony is positioning it is a film replacement format for feature production. It doesn't use the YCrCb broadcast colorspace. Instead, it uses the computer RGB color space where there is no chroma subsampling, or even color difference signals. It uses what Sony calls "mild" MPEG-4 compression. Not on par with the Thompson Viper, but it appears to be a little more practical.

HDCAM-SR is also not easy to deal with. Most editing systems aren't set up to handle the monster bandwidth requirements, so good luck finding a place to take through post. It's very cool, but very "bleeding edge." Not really practical or anywhere near affordable for anything other than the kind of work George Lucas is doing. I'm sure that will change over time, but it will be a while.

As to Panasonic taking away half the broadcast market - please be kind enough to
post some verifiable information regarding this claim.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Of the stations that have made the switch to digital acquisition, MOST of them are DVCPRO. From the survey published last month by TrendWatch:

"47% of all stations/networks use BetaCam SP as their primary internal production video format while 39% use DVCPRO."

So, that leaves 14% for a mix of M-II, S-VHS, BetaSX, and DVCAM.

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/2003/08_aug/news/cw_ff_8_5_03.htm

You are the poster that has
stated that people don't care if it's shot on a XL1 or a Digital Betacam (as long as
the content has T & A,) right?

I am the poster that pointed out how E! shot what is basically a T&A/travel show on Digital Betacam. The "Girls Gone Wild" producer makes a ton of money with the same content (but with nudity) shot with consumer DV cameras. You and I care about 4:2:2 vs. 4:1:1 and compression artifacts, but the general public doesn't know, and doesn't care. It's unfortunate, really. By the time the signal gets to their misadjusted TVs through heavy MPEG-2 DVB compression or a lousy analog cable system, it looks like hell no matter what it was shot on.

With all due respect, just because your station made the mistake of choosing
DVCpro-25 - that doesn't make it equal to your Los Angeles competitors that have wisely chosen BetacamSX.

Here in L.A., all the major network affiliates with the exception of ABC are on DVCPRO, including KTTV, KNBC, and KCBS. KCAL (Ind.) I just found out is also on DVCPRO. In San Franciso, KTVU is the only BetaSX hold-out I know of. KRON had SX, but their new management didn't like it, so they tossed it out in favor of DVCPRO.

(hey, if anyone here is from the SF market and has more up-to-date info, please speak up!)

Viewers don't care about the difference between XL1 shot or a Digi-Beta shot
programming- you already stated that at the general forum....Hey now-days even
frontline world and national geographic (CH599 not the primetime shows) agree with
you.

Nat.Geo channel adopted DVCPRO50, although quite a bit of material from independent shooters tends to be DVCAM these days.

The world is coming to an end...

Yeah, no kidding. Maybe HD will save us, maybe not. Soon they'll start telling us that we can just use that little single-CCD $4,000 JVC MiniDV/HD camcorder. No need for an expensive DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM rig.

Yikes.

[ September 04, 2003, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: scottmc ]

 

[Terry E. Toller]

check out the JVC DV5000. That's five thousand, not hundred.

It uses full size DV tapes, up to 127 minutes and blend into any DVC Pro system. They also have a hard drive attachment which eliminates downloading video to the computer. Pretty cool...

It is interesting how attitudes can change over just two years... I remember starting a thread talking about DV formats and, wow! The heat I took...

[ September 04, 2003, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: Terry E. Toller ]

 

[imported_blank]

I think that Mr. Rosie just invited another one of his VJs to the forum.
anyhoo - oddly enough nobody else on this site will discuss this shlt with me any longer. bummer!

Been a while but listen man, I heard it all
1) Metal - Particles do not drop-out from digital tape
2) Digital tape does not stretch or crease.
3) Digital to Digital media has no generation loss. (no loss at all)
4) Viewers won't see a difference in a product shot with a digi-beta or xl1.
My favourite!
5) SONY gave away SX to CNN, CBS, CBC, Most large market CTV O&Os, New Zealand networks, all major play-outs around the world, 2/3rds of all Asian broadcasters and our above friend in Africa WTV.
On second thought this is my all time favourite myth of 2003
6) MPEG-2 is intended only for delivery. You better tell this myth to Matrox, Avid, Pinnacle and the hundred other manufactures who make MPEG-2 studio profile switchers, MPEG-2 studio profile routers and MPEG-2 servers & edit systems.

I heard other myths as well. Hope you don't believe those too. (many others do)
7) Viewers don't care if a production uses a three week trained monkey cameraman or a properly trained cameraman
8) Digital cameras don't need well lit subjects.

I must admit though, this is the first time I ever heard this myth.
9) "DV50 formats don't abide by the legal ITU-R 601
specs"

I'll have to add that above one to my list of digital doom. One more and I have a top ten "silly digital myth list for my pet peeve advocacy site.

But seriously,
I'll try to categorize my reply but frankly some of your writing is very confusing to me. For instance you say that 4:2:2 versus 4:1:1 matters to YOU but not to your viewers. Sure your viewers won't care about stupid numbers but I assure you that most do care about the level of "product quality". Just like some consumers won't care about the specs of their cars, computers, microwaves or shavers but most care about the performance.

Statements like "The viewers don't care" seem to be made up only by people that produce a crap product -- to try and justify their lies to the sucker buyers. Shows that shoot on Digi-Beta do so because they have a LARGE VIEWERSHIP and they know that a majority of their viewers care about quality. That is why a prime time PBS NG special will be shot using large very experienced crews with very expensive cameras. Hack shows just kill air-time, they know they will only attract a handful of viewers and they can't justify using expensive crews or expensive gear thus on the NG channel you will see a lot of hack crap produced by amateurs using armature gear. (anyone familiar?) see post script
---------------------------------------------

Let's get the HDTV stuff out of the way. (keep in mind, I'm a virgin when it comes to workin' HD)

Quote:
You don't seem to have your Sony marketing hype straight. HDCAM-SR is not a replacement for HDCAM.

You don't seem to read properly. (even after quoting me in your post) Either that or you don't understand that most episodic comedy and drama is shot on "FILM". I wasn't talking about news mags or reality shows, although even for those type of shows HDcam or DVCpro-100 are only the first generation portable systems used. Mag shows in the 80s were shot on 3/4 inch composite tape. Today you'd be laughed at trying to get a gig like that using 3/4 tape. In the future you'll be laughed at trying to get a gig like that using HDcam or DVCpro100.

We are in the very early stages of HDTV gear and anyone that thinks that today's HD formats will be around for the next 50 years is sadly mistaken. Both Panasonic and Sony are racing each other like greyhound dogs to come up with the better HD system. Now finally SR-HDcam meets the ATSC highest (to date) standards. (not the SR beta tape but only the third party Hard Drives) All near in the future systems will be compared to those ATSC specs just like in SD all systems are compared to D1. A little farther down the road - for theatrical shoots HDTV formats will be compared to something much better then today's ATSC HD television standards.

Still with HDTV, FILM and the "broadcast colorspace"
Thank you, I know how components (Y, B-Y, R-Y,) and (RGB) work. The funny thing is that the networks were spending big bucks on episodic television being """filmed""" since day one. Even though our analog televisions were and still are only capable of receiving over the air composite NTSC signals. Episodic television quality is not judged by decades old NTSC specs, nor is episodic TV judged by the better then NTSC Betacam Y R-Y B-Y specs not even by the better then SP Digi-Beta specs. Not even HDcam or DVCpro-100 specs. Episodic television is still to this day judged by 35mm film specs. WOW EH!

Still with sampling COLOURS, BRIGHTNESS & COMPARING SAMPLING RATIOS.
In the opinion of many engineers - if you're dealing with high bandwidth - 3:1:1 is closer to 4:2:2 quality then 4:1:1: quality because the sampling ratio between Y and B-Y R-Y is closer together. In other words even though you are throwing away more luminance percentage with 3:1:1 as opposed to 4:1:1 - your Y versus the two colour elements ratio is still fairly close and they figure with the high bandwidth you can afford to throw out more Y. That is the whole principal with HDcam and even BetaSP, 3:1:1 ratio. "Since we have a high bit ratio we will throw away more "over-all" data but keep the ratio between the elements as close as we can afford to do. In any case "TRUE SD STUDIO QUALITY" should be 4:2:2 ratio. Panasonic JVC and SONY will all admit to this. You will find out in the near future that they will also admit that with "TRUE HD STUDIO QUALITY" 4:4:4: RGB should be used, even for episodic television and one day when HD consumer sets will beat ATSC specs then even for EFP and ENG shoots. (just like today consumer tvs beat composite ntsc specs and SD shoots are done using component formats. )

What were you trying to say regarding "broadcast colorspace anyway"? RGB 4:4:4 studio sampling is too high for HDTV television? Oh never mind, you're the person that claims 4:2:2 studio sampling is to high for our limited analog broadcast colorspace.

For a very long time "ANALOG STUDIO QUALITY" wasn't judged by composite NTSC specs but by you guessed it judged by the higher component specs. Hell even ENG quality has been judged by component specs since the early 80s. I bet your teachers taught you that component analog is to high for the limited composite NTSC broadcasts. It all gets squished to our sets and no one can tell the difference between Y/C SVHS and component Y R-Y B-Y betacam specs when squished to out tee vees, right? JEEEEZZZ! How many time have I heard this crap trying to be justified by people who work with less then studio accepted quality!

Oh wait, I do have a top ten list after all.
DRUM ROLL
10) Whether Digi-Beta or XL1 - after it gets squished to our home TV sets you can't tell the difference.

READIN' up on MPEG-2
BEFORE 1994, MPEG-2 was considered for delivery purposes only. """BUT""" in 1994 the MPEG society started working on a MPEG-2 """MAIN-LEVEL" profile for acquisition & studio purposes -- ONLY TWO YEARS LATER (well after digi-beta came) the MPEG society proved to the world that MPEG-2 should indeed be used for all DTV (including studio) purposes. You are living in the dark ages, all major industry related societies including SMPTE and ATSC verified this. Geez, this was proved a whopping 7 years ago.

Of course at the time only SONY was brave enough to invest in MPEG-2 (betacamSX) but SONY screwed themselves big time keeping their SX codec all to themselves. Perhaps they thought that the same will happen with SX like with SP.

Finally SONY learned their lesson giving IMX access to everybody and today we have pretty well every major player offering MPEG-2 edits routers and switchers. (IMX to be specific)

You can call editing SX a hack but the real hack is editing 4:1:1, even Panasonic encourages editing in 4:2:2. Lately they been encouraging acquisition in 4:2:2 as well. (they know what a difference it will make when we all own digital sets. (even SD signals will be received in component at our homes as opposed to composite received on analog tuners.) BTW - in the old days SX was hard to edit but not today. Just like SR HD is hard to edit today but won't be tomorrow - no SR-HD isn't a "hack" either.

You might want to read up on MPEG-2. It isn't a single standard, it's a group of standards.

There is no "transcoding" going from IMX or SX out to DVD, Satellite, Cable or Air. It's still going through the MPEG-2 "ML" (Main Level) system.

Yes, IMX, SX, DVD, SD-DTV (air, cable, satellite) all are MPEG-2 @ Main Level" (ML) encoders - decoders. SX and IMX works at Studio 4:2:2@MainLevel and for broad-cast, cable-cast, sat-cast or DVD MPEG-2 dumps at the same level but reduces the bit rate to 4:2:0. no transcoding, just dropping bandwidth and sampling.

Your final out to air play-out will not look as good as the studio stuff but the only quality reduction is caused by lowering the bit rate. With non MPEG-2 material you are causing further quality loss due to - you guessed it "transcoding.

Almost forgot, this is taken from SMPTE papers, I'm sure you seen it before.
... Common image sampling structures were touched upon: Reference Master (CCIR/ITU 601 4:4:4), Subsampled Color Components (CCIR/ITU 601 4:2:2), MPEG-2 MP@ML Distribution (4:2:0). showed the Video Data Rates for several Digital Video formats, and how CCIR/ITU 601 Video (including Digital-S and DVCPRO50 Video Tape formats) can transcode to MPEG-2 easily, but DV25 will bring in errors, sacrificing source quality.

One final thought on MPEG-2 and how SX uses it:
You are right about SX being harder to edit due to GOP and B-Frames. Since you know so much about GOP and stuff why don't you admit that the only reason SX is done the way it is - is to preserve quality, yes at a trade off in editing but 18Mbps MPEG-2 is comparable to a much higher non GOP system.

------------------------------------------

As to performing tests on """tape formats""", what the hell does that have to do with camera heads, lenses and lighting conditions??? The last set of test we done, (SX versus DVcam in this case) we took computer generated graphs and dumped them to tape using various methods from component analog to SDI to native SDTI (with SX) and firewire (with DVcam). Out of these tests DVC came close to SX only with the native SDTI test and only came close in the first three generations, after that SX started kicking ass like it kicked ass in component and SDI tests. As you can see I'm not a sony bigot.


I don't get why you 4:1:1 lovers keep insisting that average people can't tell the difference between 4:1:1 and 4:2:2. I have friends too, most of my friends can indeed tell the difference between the two. By your own self admission, so can you.

Sorry about the 5:1 mistake on my part - of course you are right, .DVCpro-50 and D9 are 3.3:1 compressed, not 5 to 1. (must of been typing too much)


POST SCRIPT
As to the Nat. Geo. channel I was being sarcastic. What I meant is that they seem to buy a lot of really really bad crap produced by three week trained VJs whom tend to use consumer cameras. The ITU-R 601 compliant DVCpro-50 codec isn't that bad. Especially when it's used in the studios on hard disk instead of the dinky tape.

Verified Info
Gotta go for now but I must laugh at that format link you posted.

Even the b-roll market info is more accurate then your ""link - what a joke.""
From the trendwatch questioner that has been sent to about 200 stations
Please check which format you use
Analog Video (Tape, BetaCam)
Digital Video (DV, DVC Pro)
Compressed SD (DigiBeta, D2)
Uncompressed SD (D1, D5)
Compressed HD (DVCAM, DV100)
Uncompressed HD (D9, Voodoo)

What the hell? DVcam is compressed HD??? Where the hell does this survey offer a choice for SX or IMX or D9 in this stupid survey???? I bet it belongs with the "digital video category. What a joke! If you really believe that only 14% of broadcasters use SX, IMX, D9, SVHS, M11, DVcam, 3/4 inch HDcam .....I bet what they meant is that 47% work with analog and 39% work with digital - not just DVCpro.

Nice verification dude
---------------------------------
PS,
Nice introduction and entrance to the forum - Are you sure we haven't met before? Hmmmm, let me think.
Keep pointing out how stupid the broadcasters are using formats like digi-beta - looks good on ya...

 

[Thomas]

Is it wrong of me to be proud of myself for knowing none of this stuff? I'm sure there's something important being discussed here. I just don't know enough to know what it is.

 

[wtv]

Thank you Thomas,

I was lost after the first line and thought who needs this stuff, I am sure there is a place for it, but basically I just look thru a camera and shoot what I see (after a bit if trial and error things seem to work just fine).

What I mean to say is my head is spinning, how can you guys know so much? At least I know there is somewhere to come if I need some pretty deep information.

Happy shooting

[ September 05, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: wtv ]

 

[cameragod]

Ok maybe you don’t need to know this stuff verbatim but it is useful when you have explain the difference to some snotty git on the phone moaning about the rate of your kit hire when they could get a PD150 for free from a mate. If you want to keep getting paid to just look thru a camera and shoot what you see then you need to know some of what makes us worth the cash.

 

[Thomas]

I don't think it is really all that possible to explain to someone why they should hire you -- a high-end video photographer -- instead of the PD-150 toting neophyte. It is THEY who need to know the difference, not me who needs to explain it to them.

If I had to justify my existence by explaining the technical advantages of working with me I'd go nuts. I have worked hard to create aesthetic advantages (I make good pictures, I understand how they will integrate with the final program, I anticipate visually epiphonous moments) and personal reasons (I'm a good person to work with, I am very professional, I work very dillignetly, I don't complain) that would compel potential clients to work with me. The technical choices (which format to shoot with) are ones that are pre-determined by them OR something we might arbitrate in advance. If they want to work in Mini-DV, that's their choice. Mine is not to work in that particular format, unless it blends with something like Beta SP, DigiBeta or HD.

Finally, I'm not saying the technical stuff isn't important. Knowing it always gives one an edge because it allows for more control in the shooting process. However, the video camera is merely a tool and it can be mastered without immersing oneself too deeply in the technical reasons for its existence.

The more important elements of the job, I believe, have to do with aesthetics, craftsmanship and attitude. Do you do good work? Can you adjust your style to accomodate your client? Is it pleasureable to work with you?

In my estimation, compression ratios rank far below those attributes.

 

[cameragod]

Maybe it’s just me but I seem to get a lot of calls from clients who want to talk formats and cameras, it could just be they just want to reassure themselves that they have made the right choice. It’s funny how often I get asked something I just read the answer to on b-roll, thanks Ivan, I’ll wait for the next call on MPEG 2 compression and wow the socks of them.

 

[dayrate]

Douglas--
I'm mirroring your decision. Next week, I'm taking the plunge on the DV-7AW. (Barring any night-sweats). Puttin' in the order. Same deal, basically. It's been gnawing away at me for a couple of months, now. It's a horrible time to do it, probably. Business is incredibly slow. No real promise of work for this camera. It's more of a hunch, piggy-backed on one 5 shoot-days project that the client (my former soundman) booked me on. He booked it with my betacam, but has two other DV cameras on the shoot (a video of his clients presentations). He's now an editor/producer and is doing this turnkey project on his NLE. He was going to use my Ike for the main cam, a Sony DSR-500 for the cuts, and a lockdown XL-1 for an occasional wide shot. We'll have a tape change during the presentation (with my beta only, if I use it), but I talked with him about this DV-7, mentioned I was thinking about it, and after a long lunch he said he'd love it if I got this DV-7 in time for the project (starts next month over a 5-week time period). Since he's editing, it'll keep his formats simpler (firewire in), no tape change "strategy" needed with two DV cams rolling, etc. The reality is he knows how good the Ike beta is. We worked together for 5 years. He used to hire me more for his projects, but lately, he's been renting this DV cam elsewhere, because ... well, everyone is looking for a way to save a buck and find some work. A large portion of his work is not for broadcast. His reality is that budgets are down, and the quality is not that far off. (Sorry, Ivan, but it is a "real" camera with a real lens, controls, etc)
I know I'll eventually have to spend some more $'s for gear down the road, but initially, I'll share with my other camera, until I get a good idea how it's utilized. I will get the 26-pin out spigot, just in case a 3rd lockdown camera is needed down the road (I'd love to try and pay off that damn BVW-50 somehow!) The cameras first stop will be Roger's shop.
When will you be getting yours? Keep in touch. Let us know how it goes. I think there are quite a few guys trying this.

 

[Douglas]

Hi everyone,

I'll bring you up to date on my adventures into DVCAM. I got the Ikegami DV7 about 2 weeks ago and yesterday was the very first time I actually used it in the field. I've just begun this week letting current customers know I have it via a postcard mailing.

From the moment I first got it I loved it. It's a rugged, well-designed camera that (physically) looks nice with the dark gray/black housing. I mean, my main camera is a dockable HL59, and you can't get a much more uglier behemoth than that. Getting familiar with it and setting up all the menus to settings that I prefer took only an hour or so.

Picture quality is good but not as good as my HL59. Actually, that's kind of a relief. I don't want a $10,000 camera looking better than my $40,000 bread & butter camera.

I have NOT set the two cameras down side by side and compared them head to head, so comparisons between the two aren't scientific. However, my impression is that the DV7 does not handle contrast as well, does not seem to have as much resolution, and generally looks more like a Sony than an Ikegami. No offense Sony users, but there is a difference. I'm sharing the same Fujinon lens on both cameras, so that can't account for any difference.

Will I like the picture better if I send it to Roger? I dont' know. Truthfully, I use Roger for repairs only and have never had him touch the setup on any of may cameras. He's very good and people like his setup, but I personally don't care for the way he sets cameras up, and my clients don't ask or care if I have the "Macie setup". Not to get off track here too much, but whenever I do a multi-camera shoot with someone else, doesn't matter if it's another Ike or a Sony, my camera ALWAYS is the best looking one. I think so, the clients think so, and I can tell the other shooters think so as they start to fumble with thier menu settings. My setup is brighter, crisper, and cleaner feeling. The other cameras have a muddy feel to them and we usually end up dumbing down my camera to match. Will Macie make me like the DV7 better? I don't know. I'd like to borrow or buy some files off of someone else's setup card and try other looks.

I'm watching playback of yesterday's shoot for NASCAR while I type this and it doesn't look as good as the HL59 would have looked. However, the DV7 is much better in low light though, and that was a big plus last night. I wish I had a studio DVCAM to play the tapes on because playback never looks that good out of camera. Maybe DV is different -- but hey, isn't it nice to PLAY out of the camea without lugging out the adapter! (I also have a UVW-1600 player for beta)

One thing I don't like is the earphone jack is up under the lens. 95% of my shoots are with my audio tech and the return cable won't reach to the jack. I've had to rig up a 5" ext. to reach, and now I've got an ugly cable runng down the right side of the camera. The viewfinder is pretty much the same exact viewfinder as is on my 59, so that's very nice to have.

I had the DV7 on one shoulder or the other for 8 hours straight yesterday at NASCAR track and I appreciated the lighter weight and smaller camera size when it was slung over my left shoulder with a portabrace strap while walking around; but when shooting, the HL59 would have been steadier. The smaller, lighter camera just didn't seem to give me the mass I like for rock solid hand-held work. I can generally zoom in all the way and hold the HL59 as steady as as if it was on tripod for 10-20 seconds and the DV7 wanted to bob and weave a bit more. It's like comparing the steadiness of a cruise ship to a dinghy. I like the heavy mass.

This past week I did a postcard mailing to 300 contacts on my mailing list announcing the new camera. I made sure the design of the postcard inlcuded a nice photo of both cameras side by side so that people wouldn't be picturing a palmcorder when I said that I can do DVCAM now too. The next step is to find a few hours to update my website with the new info.

I've been casually mentioning the camera to clients when they call to book jobs and so far three of them have said yes to shoots this month. Two of them actually preferred DVCAM and were originally planning to dub from Betacam. I think there is a feeling out there that if you want a decent crew you have to go Betacam. They seemed happy they could get the same crew/gear/lights/ etc. straight to DVCAM. When they ask what the rate is, I tell them it is the same, and they say O.K.

So, these are jobs I would have gotten anyway, but they are going to take some of the work load off the Betacam rig. I want to milk as much life as I can out of that camera, and lightening the work load is a good way to do it.

That about it.