Betacam Vs VHS, the better one of the two lost out.

[Rob Ruffo]

I have to disagree with the whingers complaining about the new tech on offer, Canon knows where the money is to be made, many students, wildlife shooters, B cam, soccer mums, divers etc. can all afford this new tech NOW, it's pretty good stuff IMO. I believe a lot of people have large amounts of $$$ invested in the industry with outdated equipment and are too willing to hang shit on the new stuff coming out. Times are changing rapidly, you can go with the flow or stay in the dark ages and whinge and bitch about it....meanwhile the pimply faced kid next door with his $4000 outfit just took *your* contract and is profiting more because of less overheads.
Sure the standards will be lower but the consumer is the market which really depicts the pricing point of the visions worth and it seems quality is not a priority at present

It's not about tech. It's about talent and expertise. Youtube will never replace Citizen Kane, not even replace The Hangover. These kids have their abilities, but how many know how to develop a character or keep us engrossed in a narrative for more than 3 minutes (or even for 3 minutes)? On our budgets, the camera and film are rarely more than 7% of the total. Even if that 7% = $0, it would make little difference. The rest is mostly for the time of talented people (the big bulk of it), lighting (which you still need even if your cam is ISO 1000000), locations etc. This is something indies often fail to understand.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

You can not possibly get the standards any lower than they are now.

Nick

What are you talking about? Do you really think the AVERAGE film in the 1970s or 1980s looked better than the AVERAGE film today? How about the average TV show? Network has never looked better. Stuff used to looka lot rougher.

 

[Truls Skare]

It's not about tech. It's about talent and expertise. Youtube will never replace Citizen Kane, not even replace The Hangover. These kids have their abilities, but how many know how to develop a character or keep us engrossed in a narrative for more than 3 minutes (or even for 3 minutes)? On our budgets, the camera and film are rarely more than 7% of the total. Even if that 7% = $0, it would make little difference. The rest is mostly for the time of talented people (the big bulk of it), lighting (which you still need even if your cam is ISO 1000000), locations etc. This is something indies often fail to understand.

Why are you comparing kids to adults and youtube to feature movies?

 

[Michael Hastings]

Let's not forget the more mature analog video formats that rode off into the sunset, Panasonic MII and the even more obscure W-VHS.

Hey, don't forget RCA Hawkeye - the first camcorder - circa 1980. It used the RECAM M-format (M1) with just a high grade VHS tape running six times as fast, actually a little better recording than Betacam. But just the reverse of Betamax and VHS it lost out for other reasons - primarily that there were many more stations that had Sony 3/4" editing and they could plug a BVW10 BETACAM source deck right into their edit system and start editing.

My first broadcast CAMCORDER underwater system was a RECAM that Mike Bravin sold me in 1986.

 

[Stephen Williams]

What are you talking about? Do you really think the AVERAGE film in the 1970s or 1980s looked better than the AVERAGE film today? How about the average TV show? Network has never looked better. Stuff used to looka lot rougher.

This made me laugh!

 

[Nick Gardner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
You can not possibly get the standards any lower than they are now.

Nick
What are you talking about? Do you really think the AVERAGE film in the 1970s or 1980s looked better than the AVERAGE film today? How about the average TV show? Network has never looked better. Stuff used to looka lot rougher.

Between reality TV and music videos lowering the bar as to what looks "acceptable", most viewers are so desensitized to crappy footage, it doesn't even register. Look at Hill Street blues. Great show. Lots of hand held, but good hand held. Homicide, pushed the barriers of acceptable cutting, used a ton of hand held. Great show. Now look at Southland, looks like it was shot by an epileptic monkey. They are actually shooting it badly on purpose, for the "Look".

Edit- If the operators from Southland are floating around, I don't mean to disrespect your skill, as I said, some one decided to shoot it and cut it that way. I'm sure the operators are fully capable of shooting hand held well.

Nick

 

[Michael Hastings]

Mark, it was Betamax that competed against VHS. Betacam was always a professional format.

Betamax was much better, but even way back then Sony was shooting themselves in the foot with restrictive licensing terms and costs.

One of the primary reasons VHS won was that Sony wouldn't allow, uh, "adult" films to be distributed on their hallowed format.

Betamax wasn't much better than VHS, it was marginally better, nothing like the difference between 4K redcode and "sort of 1080P" on the Canon.

VHS won primarily because it was a bigger cassette (akio morita goofed on that one - he told his engineers he wanted it to be the size of a paperback book) and so could record two hours on a single standard thickness tape and longer on special tapes so a movie could fit on a single tape.

There was also a six-hour mode which was fine for recording tv shows.

Since tapes were about $20 each (over $50 in todays dollars) that was a pretty big deal.

It got to a point where video rental stores had to make a choice instead of stocking both formats. The trend was in VHS favor so that was the direction and that further pushed people in the direction of VHS and round and round until BETAMAX was marginalized.

As far as REDCODE vs Canon vDSLR, the problem is that the Canon really is inherently very good - "good enough" for a lot of things. You have to remember that the vast majority of "professional" video never gets color grading (you are expected to get it right in camera) and the data rate in the Canon's is something like 45 Mbps - 30% higher than the EX1/3 and given it is H.264 which is twice as efficient as HDV it would give equal video quality at 12 Mbps - so there is a lot of "headroom" in the recording compared to those formats. And there are a ton of TV shows that were shot on Z1s/HDV.

Betacam was originally thought of as a field format - 1" type C was the quality standard. But people found it was "good enough" and with some improvements on BetacamSP it became the standard. The standard isn't always the best - it is what works in the overall picture. As David has pointed out 2K is pretty much the standard now as it works in the overall pipeline. 4K probably will become the standard as the hardware in the post pipeline catches up.

I like to shoot the best possible origination format whenever I can - and RED1 and soon Epic makes a lot of sense for that, but simply dismissing the "good enough" doesn't make sense either - which is why I also have a 7D.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Why are you comparing kids to adults and youtube to feature movies?

By 'kid' I mean any newcomer who just bought a 5D or whatever. All I am saying is that cameras will not "bring studios to their knees" or change the game all that much. It's still all about exceptional talent, and by exceptional I mean rare, as does Websters, and most of the cost of making a film has nothing to do with cameras and film.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Between reality TV and music videos lowering the bar as to what looks "acceptable", most viewers are so desensitized to crappy footage, it doesn't even register. Look at Hill Street blues. Great show. Lots of hand held, but good hand held. Homicide, pushed the barriers of acceptable cutting, used a ton of hand held. Great show. Now look at Southland, looks like it was shot by an epileptic monkey. They are actually shooting it badly on purpose, for the "Look".

Edit- If the operators from Southland are floating around, I don't mean to disrespect your skill, as I said, some one decided to shoot it and cut it that way. I'm sure the operators are fully capable of shooting hand held well.

Nick

There are a million great shows that look great - you are singling out just one that does not. I find Hill Street Blues ugly and dingy, and the editing feels slow and geriatric - not my taste - maybe I'm just the wrong age group. Even comedies like 30 Rock look way better than sitcoms did 20 years ago, and random shows like Numbers look as good as mid-budget features.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Betamax wasn't much better than VHS, it was marginally better, nothing like the difference between 4K redcode and "sort of 1080P" on the Canon.

VHS won primarily because it was a bigger cassette (akio morita goofed on that one - he told his engineers he wanted it to be the size of a paperback book) and so could record two hours on a single standard thickness tape and longer on special tapes so a movie could fit on a single tape.

There was also a six-hour mode which was fine for recording tv shows.

Since tapes were about $20 each (over $50 in todays dollars) that was a pretty big deal.

It got to a point where video rental stores had to make a choice instead of stocking both formats. The trend was in VHS favor so that was the direction and that further pushed people in the direction of VHS and round and round until BETAMAX was marginalized.

As far as REDCODE vs Canon vDSLR, the problem is that the Canon really is inherently very good - "good enough" for a lot of things. You have to remember that the vast majority of "professional" video never gets color grading (you are expected to get it right in camera) and the data rate in the Canon's is something like 45 Mbps - 30% higher than the EX1/3 and given it is H.264 which is twice as efficient as HDV it would give equal video quality at 12 Mbps - so there is a lot of "headroom" in the recording compared to those formats. And there are a ton of TV shows that were shot on Z1s/HDV.

Betacam was originally thought of as a field format - 1" type C was the quality standard. But people found it was "good enough" and with some improvements on BetacamSP it became the standard. The standard isn't always the best - it is what works in the overall picture. As David has pointed out 2K is pretty much the standard now as it works in the overall pipeline. 4K probably will become the standard as the hardware in the post pipeline catches up.

I like to shoot the best possible origination format whenever I can - and RED1 and soon Epic makes a lot of sense for that, but simply dismissing the "good enough" doesn't make sense either - which is why I also have a 7D.

The big problem with 5D is not resolution, which I suppose is good enough in some situations - although it would be frustrating to me to pour sweat and tears into shots only to film them with mediocre technology - it's the impossibility of shooting man-made environments with small apertures. You cannot shoot brick, you cannot shoot cobblestones, you cannot shoot a lot of things because you will get really, really awful rainbows of moire. This is not good enough by anyone's standards. You can only shoot close-ups with blurry backgrounds. In this way a 5D 7D etc. it is more limited than a VHS camcorder from 1985.

What you say about the EX1 is not true. XdCamEX footage gives you way more latitude for grading than 5D footage does - I have graded both. 5D footage also does not recompress for broadcast nearly as well.

The size of a compression algorithm is no way determines its quality.

People want free lunch, are desperate for free lunch. No free lunch.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

This made me laugh!

Why does it make you laugh?

 

[Truls Skare]

By 'kid' I mean any newcomer who just bought a 5D or whatever. All I am saying is that cameras will not "bring studios to their knees" or change the game all that much. It's still all about exceptional talent, and by exceptional I mean rare, as does Websters, and most of the cost of making a film has nothing to do with cameras and film.

I agree with this

 

[Stephen Williams]

Why does it make you laugh?

Generally quality today has fallen way short of what the BBC would call 'broadcast quality' 20 years ago. FWIW BCSP was only approved for 'news & current affairs' Technical standards & lighting in particular have fallen a very long way.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Generally quality today has fallen way short of what the BBC would call 'broadcast quality' 20 years ago. FWIW BCSP was only approved for 'news & current affairs' Technical standards & lighting in particular have fallen a very long way.

this comment irritates me. i'll quote something here: "Kids today know nothing about real value in life, nothing about respect, nothing about duty." You would agree yes?

And yet it is a quote from Plato in Ancient Greece.

There are many more hours of TV now, on many more channels, that go out to smaller segmenst of the viewing population. That said, The Rockford Files looks way less nice than CSI Miami or even than semi-obscure shows like Eastwick (rsolution aside). Teh visual language has evolved, and so has the ability of viewers to decode complex visual messages. Broadcast quality 20 years ago was generally sets illuminated by 100% uncreative floodlighting and shot on SD Betacam or 3/4 tape.

You old guys have to get over yourselves. It's like that incredibly annoying comment that music doesn't have soul anymore because it's all made by machines, and there are no new bands as good as the Beatles and blah blah blah.

Fact is, if your tastes are stuck in another era, then that is the impression you get. To many people from my generation DJ Tiesto is in many ways a lot easier to connect with, as is modern-day TV. Cool things didn't stop happening, they just evolved.

 

[Nick Gardner]

I think Steven and I are talking about craftsmanship, and you are talking about technical specs. Alas, one day you will be an "old guy" too, so judge not etc. etc........

Nick

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I think Steven and I are talking about craftsmanship, and you are talking about technical specs. Alas, one day you will be an "old guy" too, so judge not etc. etc........

Nick

I have no idea how old Stephen is as a no. of years. I measure age by openness to new ideas. Maybe Stephen is 26, for all I know. What I do hear is that he loosk down on current work in general, and I think that is unfair.

I too am talking about craftmanship. The gritty "reality" of 1970s films/TV, to me, is not all that creative. Sure, the first few films shot this way were innovative, but after that shooting this way requires LESS work than creating a unique fantasy world that remains believable and relateable.

I also stand behind the floodlighting argument. How was most TV in the 1970s visually creative in any way? Now even obscure TV makes a genuine effort to explore visual possibilities in creative ways. Most shows have their own, very distinctive visual approach. You knwo instantly a 10 secodn clip of CSI MIAMi vs. a 10 second clip of 24, and so on.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This reminds me of David Denby's book ("Great Books") about going back to college in his 50's to take a literature course. When the students discussed the Book of Job from the Bible, the difference in age between him and the students radically affected their interpretation of the story of Job. Same goes for a discussion on King Lear.

And it wasn't that the younger group's interpretation was right or wrong compared to Denby's, it's just that the perspective from years of living affected one's connection to the material, one's analysis of what was of value in life, etc.

So a perspective of an older person on cinema and cinematography based on years of experience will be different than that of a young person's. One has to try and understand and value these differences in perspectives. Youth has the advantage of seeing things with fresh eyes but Age has the advantage of being able to evaluate one thing against another based on direct knowledge and personal experience gathered over time, and is tempered by the knowledge that some popular opinions are just fads destined to fade over time. On the other hand, memory is suspect and nostalgia is always the enemy of clear thinking.

But in terms of close-mindedness, I don't see any evidence that this is a characteristic of age (or Stephen) because I see plenty on display in youth as well. I think this sort of intellectual arrogance is just a personality type (and I suffer from it as much as anyone else).

In terms of TV shows, obviously the level of cinematography on display today in dramatic narrative is at quite a high level compared to the 1970's and earlier. On the other hand, a lot of TV shows today have budgets and schedules comparable to midrange features, so it's not surprising that the level of craftsmanship on display is feature-level. That said, there is a lot of crap on TV today as well, which is hardly surprising since we have a thousand cable channels.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Ok, here's my point. In the 80's (you don't even have to go back to the seventies) there was no absolute garbage on the TV. Everything had to conform to broadcast, and acceptable aesthetic standards.

No we have Americas funniest home videos, cops, mtv, etc. Where there are no standards at all. Absolute complete amateur crap is now regularly seen on TV. This lowers everyone's expectations, and standards, as to what CAN be on TV.

That's all I'm saying,

Nick

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I don't buy the "Porn drives standards" business. Porn didn't do anything for HD-DVD. When the major studios chose Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray won.

Porn just has a small budget and piggy-backs whatever is cheapest and most popular amongst the general population. In the case of VHS cheapest meant VHS. Correlation != Causation.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Ok, here's my point. In the 80's (you don't even have to go back to the seventies) there was no absolute garbage on the TV. Everything had to conform to broadcast, and acceptable aesthetic standards.

No we have Americas funniest home videos, cops, mtv, etc. Where there are no standards at all. Absolute complete amateur crap is now regularly seen on TV. This lowers everyone's expectations, and standards, as to what CAN be on TV.

That's all I'm saying,

Nick

Yeah, but we also had much fewer channels back in the 1980's -- now the industry has to generate thousands of hours of programming.

My feeling is that, today, we don't have an overall lowering of quality, what we have is a greater range of quality - or to put it another way, we don't really have standards that everyone conforms to.

Anything can be on TV, but that doesn't mean that high-quality images don't have a place in TV either, because they do.

In fact, one can argue that the run-of-the-mill cable show like, let's say, "Mythbusters" or "Good Eats", or "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report", actually look better recently now that they are shooting in HD. Or look at nature shows like "Planet Earth". Not to mention how good network dramatic fare looks these days.

So on the one hand, you have "Smallville" and "CSI", and on the other hand, you have "Jersey Shore" -- that's quite a range.

I feel that theatrical features are showing the same trend -- if you look at movies of the 2000's, what you mainly notice is not one single dominant style, but a huge range of styles and qualities. We had consumer DV movies become big hits in the theaters, we had high-contrast desaturated action fare and low-contrast flat-lit romantic comedies, we had movies use diffusion and others shot sharp. We had more gritty realism and more stylized fantasy, we had movies shot with mostly available light and movies shot with more lighting and wattage than probably was ever used in the Golden Era of Hollywood.

-

I forgot to add that in the 1980's we did have public access channels with often abysmal quality footage.