Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Red and major broadcasters

B

Brian Broz

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.brianbroz.com
Hi,
We all know Red looks to be an incredible digital cinema camera for the price!
My question more relates to broadcast, which (funny enough) seems to have more strict guidelines for footage and compression. For example, a 720P HDX-900 is approved for Discovery and Alliance Atlantis productions, whereas the (equally expensive) Sony 350 XDCAM HD is not approved for Alliance Atlantis shows.
Its just a point I wanted to bring up. We can assume Graeme and the Red team are working on the codec to not only be efficient, but approved for HD broadcast for the bigger players like NBC, CBS, ABC, Discovery HD, National Geographic HD, etc.
My point is, in 2006...spending $35,000-50,000.00 (with lens) does not guarantee the footage will be approved for broadcast.
Thanks and I'm pretty confident this wont be an issue...but it's a question I'm sure will be answered soon enough.
Cheers,

Brian Broz
1007
 
Well the REDCODE formats probably won't win broadcaster approval, but with RED you shoot in RGB or RAW. It's uncompressed and can be converted to any format/codec you need for delivery. So, while the HDX900 is on the list of approved cameras for Discovery, they're not going to care if you deliver something shot on a camera with equal or better optics, but at superior resolution and you have downconverted the footage to DVCPROHD 720p. Why you would do that is beyond me though, they accept other formats. A significant portion of what is shown on discovery HD and the NGHD channels has been shot on film anyway. The best thing to do about delivering to broadcasters is to ask what formats they accept and prefer. Then deliver a reel showing that you can produce good visuals and interesting content. They won't give a rat's ass what camera you use if you're showing them great detail, colors and it's formatted in a way they like... If you're delivering to a broadcaster, you may have to invest in a VTR to output your video for delivery or find a good post shop that can cut an HDCAM or DVCPROHD tape for you from the video stream you give them on a hard drive or DLT.

IMO, for doing ENG work, the biggest obstacle isn't going to be formats and codecs, but rather lens selection and operation for that type of work. There's no real auto focus with RED and run-n-gun could be a challenge.
 
Actually, my experience differs from AppliedVisual's - the camera of origination most definitely DOES matter - some networks will reject is sourced on HDV for instance (or at least that was the case at one point in time). You start with "the REDCODE formats probably won't win broadcaster approval" and I think that is a misleading statement - they probably won't want a digital file in Redcode format, but having originated on Redcode compressed will be fine, I'll betcha.

There are three questions to be concerned with here:

1.) What was it originated on? Red One to Redcode compressed should be fine I'll bet.

2.) How was it posted? Not paid much attention to by networks, but it matters in terms of quality - did you master from uncompressed 1080p or DVCPRO HD 720p24?

3.) Deliverables - this they definitely care about - what tape format are you providing it on - usually HDCAM, sometimes D-5.

-mike
 
I would say that the images I'm making through REDCODE look so amazing, and I'm not just saying this, and our data rates are more than high enough, that there should be absolutely no problem with broadcast acceptance.

1) REDCODE is not IBP long GOP. It's I frame only at a high bit rate.

2) It's an advanced, modern codec that outperforms the old and currently accepted formats.

3) wavelet based so no macroblocks - ever.

4) not possible to tell it from uncompressed without extreme levels operations, and even then it doesn't necessarily look worse, only different.

5) RED is built from the ground up for quality. In that respect, the images I'm working with are better than any other image from a digital motion camera I've seen, and are more than comparible with the best DSLRs.

Graeme
 
Yeah, Mike.. That's essentially what I was getting at about the REDCODE. I was just saying that broadcasters aren't going to want delivered footage in REDCODE format... Once they all get a taste of what RED can do, I don't think they'll have any issues with footage originating on RED with REDCODE.

I personally don't have much experience delivering to broadcasters, actually I do, but it's all animation and graphics work occasionally combined with video elements they supply me. On the rare occasion I have shot video of my own, it's been for an established project and the camera used was never a concern - just as long as the quality and format of the delivered product was up to expectations.

As far as HD content goes, I'm most familiar with delivering to HD.Net as they're local to me. Although, I've only dealt with them on two occasions and it's been a couple years. Back then, they didn't care what it was, as long as it was HD because they were starved for content. And in many ways they still are.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
I would say that the images I'm making through REDCODE look so amazing, and I'm not just saying this, and our data rates are more than high enough, that there should be absolutely no problem with broadcast acceptance.
Click to expand...

Graeme... You're making me drool on myself.
 
Sure, beaurocrats can always come up with some way of keeping indies out. If it's not the camera, it will be the tape format (tape - today - how silly), or whatever. However, RED gives indies a great tool, and that's exceptionally high quality that cannot be denied.

I'd certainly like to see broadcasters take deliverables as REDCODE over FTP. I don't think they really want to be wasting $100k's on "HD" decks any more than you do.

Graeme
 
History will not repeat itself in Technology

History will not repeat itself in Technology

Just like in the past, we can fight off the bearcrats (unless you still are in Russia) and publish a new REDbook.

Power to the people! But please please please don't shoot RED RAW for YouToob... ;)

Rosco

WhyDoYouTube? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7JgtjeIsuY
 
I'd certainly like to see broadcasters take deliverables as REDCODE over FTP. I don't think they really want to be wasting $100k's on "HD" decks any more than you do.
Just my opinion... tape formats work very well for their needs. As many TV series get constant revisions, the ability to do insert edits onto the master is a big plus. Theoretically you could make a data-based VTR with a CBR codec that'll accept insert edits- although someone will need to build this.

Tape formats also have the advantage of working with other equipment, SDI + deck control is spoken by all high end equipment, unlike ____ data format. And the media itself is well-suited for backup, being low cost and not very failure-prone.

Tape does have its flaws (filtering, not full HD resolution, expensive decks, has to be physically transported). But it works. I haven't seen a data format that works as reliably and gets stuff done just as well.
 
All I can think is tape -> CD -> MP3 download.

With video, it's analogue tape -> digital tape -> Hard drives -> FTP

It'll happen very fast when it takes off.
 
...makes me think the first TV commercials i made...
...without any tape deck actually.

For TV commercials, i'd do the same as i do now, QuickTime uncompressed file ( SD or HD) on a DVD.
Then the TV station "bump" it to their own format.

For long programs, i would first convert to their codec, and bring a hard drive and then bump it to tape.

Unless i had 50 long programs, i think there is no reason i'd buy a 50K deck.

There are too many tape formats out there... i mean ... a lot of $$$$


...and what will happen to these decks in 3 or 5 years ?

There is a lot of studios that have good prices for hard drive to tape transfer.
 
Antoine - that's the cutting edge. TV Stations don't want tape decks either. They're expensive, and they lock you into a format too easily. They all run off servers now, and "ingest" from a deck is still painful, whereas just copying or transcoding a file is much less intensive.

Graeme
 
Hi Graeme,

Well said, "they're (tape decks) are expensive, and they lock you into a format too easily."

At first, they hated me because i didn't bring the BetaSP tape...

...now, they like it.

and tomorrow, they'll love it.

they have pain to decide between HDCAM-SR or DVCProHD or whatever deck format...

Tapeless is "universal", it's freedom.
 

There are too many tape formats out there... i mean ... a lot of $$$$
For delivery, it's mostly:
Digital Betacam
BetaSP
D-1 (not anymore...haha)

HDCAM
D5
(HDCAM SR is still not that common unfortunately)
(DVCPRO HD?)

And in terms of formatting, the broadcasters are all over the play in terms of where the breaks occur, how much bars, etc. You also have to deal with 50i and 60i (you want to sell to as many territories as possible).

Compare that to data formats, where you have multiple MXF variants, Quicktime, AVI. And then different kinds of essence. With tape, every deck speaks SDI.

Certainly for commercials, FTP would be pretty convenient.

...and what will happen to these decks in 3 or 5 years ?

People are still commonly delivering on betaSP.
And heck, many post houses still keep a Umatic deck around.
 
Right,

But now, when it is possible, i ask for a DVCPro50 or Digital Betacam to transfer to the server and the image is then much better than with Beta SP.

Here in Montreal, they're going quite fast toward High Definition.

Within a year, i think all major Broadcast Network ( here at least ) will have a fair portion of their programs in true HD.
 
And if broadcasters have any savvy, they'll decide on a cheap, does all they need, easy to support and compatible file format, and some one will write an app that converts from format A to format B, and the world will live in peace. However, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

SDI might be the common language of the broadcast world, but it's still only 1080i, and 4:2:2, so it's still compression off the bat. You've got to move up to dual link to get rid of 4:2:2, but it still won't do 60p at that. And all that is a darn sight more expensive to implement than an ethernet cable which will carry anything.

Graeme
 
A good friend of mine is working at a local (and pretty small) TV station. Ingest is tape or Blu-ray. That gets copied / digitized onto the (gigabit) network. The edit stations access the network and once edit is done mark the take ready for air.

In the control room the operators can see which clips have been completed (green) and which are still being worked on (red). They start the news broadcast and start and stop the clips playing off the network servers, cutting that with live camera's. Goes straight from the server to the outside world (through an MPEG-2 encoder or analog transmitter or whatever).

Once it's delivered it never gets analog again (if it even was that to begin with). The tapes / discs are stored in the archive. Not sure what they do with the edited and finished items...

Obviously this workflow can be quite different from company to company. But I would think more and more are moving to such a digital workflow.
 
Even CHINA has made their own Databased format CAMCORDERs for their Largest Broadcaster in the CHINA. Tape is OK only " DATATAPE " not S/P tape from the CAMERA/Corder on their shoulders.

By Joke, if any broadcaster say they do not accept VideoTAPE but DataTape or DATADisk from REDCODE, think about the storage costs of the Broadcasters if they have 400Mb/s just for HD format ???

If broadscasters have No Server in place, and I sure they are out of the business not just now and they won't exist in future!!!

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