Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

New camera from Sony

M Most said:
But the fact is that you have also been very wrong on many things you've predicted here, and often for some of the reasons I've just enumerated. Being wrong on a prediction doesn't mean it won't happen, but it does mean that it didn't happen in the time frame you predicted. That's why I refuse to assign time frames, and why you shouldn't assume that I do.
Click to expand...

Fair enough Mike. I just can't help myself ... I'm an eternal optimist.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Sure. But that's just today.
Tomorrow is coming sooner than everyone thinks.
We see more clients and networks demanding file-based delivery all the time. And sure, we have an SR deck - and master to it often. But I assure you ... the future is file-based.
Click to expand...

Indeed so, but bear in mind that the recession is slowing that down. A robust file-based system needs fast servers and multiply redundant backups which is a fairly big capital investment...and system administrators usually need to be paid more than tape operators. For big centralized operations you are totally right, but tape will live on for a good while at the local affiliate stations because they're out of money after upgrading their news studios etc. to HD.

I know lots of stations that will do digital intake now but they are still oriented around tape because they can just read it in and stick it on the shelf in a storage facility and be happy that they have a safe master copy - while most of that footage will just gather dust forever they make money out of that archive, and tape is a very reliable storage medium over the long term.

On the other hand, when we've had >2 years of consistent economic growth and managers and executives are feeling comfortable again, the shift will probably take place much faster for having been postponed so long. Even then, tape will still have its uses - check out 'linear tape open' (in fact, many RED users might find this to be an economical archival solution).
 
Archive choices

Archive choices

Can you playback video from an LTO-4... can you record video to an LTO-4? LTO-4 is good for long term archival (a vault)... it's not suitable for a digital library. Currently we see using LTO-4 for archival, Drobo Pro's filled with 2TB drives for master R3D library (recent/current projects) and fast 16 bay RAID for current projects. If we owned an HDCAM SR deck then it would eliminate the need for the LTO-4 and the Drobo Pro.
Click to expand...

Well yes you can record video to an LTO-4. Because when video is data, by definition a data recorder can record it, and play it back.

The key issue is, is that record to / playback from operation in real time ?

As we can record 4K REDCODE data to a CF card or a hard drive, there is no reason why you couldn't cache the 4K data from tape to memory or a disk.

I accept that that isn't a facility of LTO-4 today, but if that is all that a video recorder offers, then the premium for that function seems illogically high.
 
Stuart English said:
I accept that that isn't a facility of LTO-4 today, but if that is all that a video recorder offers, then the premium for that function seems illogically high.
Click to expand...

Well I guess the workflow savings (VTR ingest/record via KONA+NLE control) plus the IT savings... matter to those who have that need. Not to mention whoever owns the deck can provide a service to whomever needs the media on a HDCAM SR for dailies, archival, etc. If you were in charge of a broadcast facility would you rather pay 90k for the HDCAM SR or spend millions for storage/IT maintenance?
 
Andrae Palmer said:
Well I guess the workflow savings (VTR ingest/record via KONA+NLE control) plus the IT savings... matter to those who have that need. Not to mention whoever owns the deck can provide a service to whomever needs the media on a HDCAM SR for dailies, archival, etc. If you were in charge of a broadcast facility would you rather pay 90k for the HDCAM SR or spend millions for storage/IT maintenance?
Click to expand...

An LTO-4 drive is under $2k. Add a Kona + average computer and for easily around $7-8k you have the hardware (not software though) that provides similar fuctionality for playing back or recording video from LTO-4. I've seen a demo of this from a software company (can't mention the name) doing this last year.

For a broadcast facility, there are advantages to using LTO tape libraries/robots for large archives of footage.

LTO is also codec agnostic which makes your investment much more flexible for archiving not just video in a single format.

Maybe it's not tape that people really dislike (well the whole linear thing still is a pain) but it's more that the media is limited to very specific resolutions/format rather than general purpose like LTOs or drives.

SSDs are the future regardless...
 
Deanan said:
I've seen a demo of this from a software company (can't mention the name) doing this last year.
Click to expand...

No need to mention LTO4+NLE+KONA functionality if nothing YET exist that can utilize it to record and playback realtime from a LTO4 VTR/NLE. Are broadcast facilities gonna wait around for a cheaper solution when a HDCAM SR VTR can do what they need right now with multiple NLEs? Don't get me wrong I would to have a LTO4 VTR that can be controlled by an NLE... but unless you can link me to one that exist... that argument is mooted.
 
ROI and dedicated video formats

ROI and dedicated video formats

Yes, this is very much an existing infrastructure and ROI discussion.

- and why this camera and the HDCAM SR format will be used even though the price premium is large

- and why new workflows are almost never invented by existing players, even though more efficient.

So if it works for you and your clients, it's the right commercial decision.


But like all existing infrastructure arguments, this technology's applicability will shrink over time.

It's just the timeline for phase out that's up for discussion.


One day we'll chat about the time when broadcasting over wireless internet seemed like a crazy idea :-)
 
Last edited:
Tape

Tape

Again, it's easy to confuse tape as a form of digital media to a tape as a delivery mechanism for a specific video format.

The key issue is that what you record is information, and the manner that it was recorded (and then archived) affects it's value.

At the end of the day, it's the value that's apparent to the end user that determines a technology's ROI.



So if it's news footage - the value is probably best perceived in a Betacam or DVCPRO PRO tape package.

But if you are building a stock footage library or shooting a feature film, it may well be in LTO-4 cassettes.


So tape may or may not die...

..but if you are starting an archive infrastructure from scratch, I'd go for a format agnostic medium such LTO-4 - or SSD - or HDD.
 
tape

tape

Stuart English said:
Again, it's easy to confuse tape as a form of digital media to a tape as a delivery mechanism for a specific video format.

The key issue is that what you record is information, and the manner that it was recorded (and then archived) affects it's value.

At the end of the day, it's the value that's apparent to the end user that determines a technology's ROI.



So if it's news footage - the value is probably best perceived in a Betacam or DVCPRO PRO tape package.

But if you are building a stock footage library or shooting a feature film, it may well be in LTO-4 cassettes.


So tape may or may not die...

..but if you are starting an archive infrastructure from scratch, I'd go for a format agnostic medium such LTO-4 - or SSD - or HDD.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.. no doubt in my mind that you are right.
So anyone starting out right now or in the future, this is definitely the way forward. The problem is the rest of us who have been around a while. Do we ditch our existing gear? And I mean ditch, cause nobody will buy it!
 
Well I think of it has a workflow issue and not a ROI or existing infrastructure issue. You take the documentary that was highlighted in the Sony reel... Oceans... if that was done on Solid State, Compact Flash or HD Drives... how much money would that cost? Tape is a great solution for those type of workflows and nothing else beats it. Lets look at the issues posed in those workflows... 500 hours of dailies per day recorded at a high data rate of say 440 or 880 Mb/sec. I can't see any other way those projects can get done other than tape.
 
Costs

Costs

Well I think of it has a workflow issue and not a ROI or existing infrastructure issue. You take the documentary that was highlighted in the Sony reel... Oceans... if that was done on Solid State, Compact Flash or HD Drives... how much money would that cost? Tape is a great solution for those type of workflows and nothing else beats it. Lets look at the issues posed in those workflows... 500 hours of dailies per day recorded at a high data rate of say 440 or 880 Mb/sec. I can't see any other way those projects can get done other than tape.
Click to expand...

Sony has been hammering away at the perceived cost of solid state media, but that misses the point.

Solid state acquisition media is re-usable, it's the archive media cost that's relevant.


A transfer rate 440Mb/s is only 55MB/s - so perhaps less impressive than it at first sounds.

I can buy a 2 terrabyte HDD for about $250.. which at that same data rate is

55MB/s x 60 = 3,300 or 3.3 GB / min x 60 = < 200 GB / hour so $ 25 per hour?

Now if you choose to shoot, edit and archive in the same media, what's a 40-minute BCT-40SR HDCAM SR raw tape stock - $75? If so; > $100 per hour?
 
Stuart English said:
Sony has been hammering away at the perceived cost of solid state media, but that misses the point.

Solid state acquisition media is re-usable, it's the archive media cost that's relevant.


A transfer rate 440Mb/s is only 55MB/s - so perhaps less impressive than it at first sounds.

I can buy a 2 terrabyte HDD for about $250.. which at that same data rate is

55MB/s x 60 = 3,300 or 3.3 GB / min x 60 = < 200 GB / hour so $ 25 per hour?

Now if you choose to shoot, edit and archive in the same media, what's a 40-minute BCT-40SR HDCAM SR raw tape stock - $75? If so; > $100 per hour?
Click to expand...

LTO4 tape is $35 for 800 gigs. That's about 6.6 hours of 4K in Redcode ... so ... under $5.40 an hour.
 
Stuart English said:
I can buy a 2 terrabyte HDD for about $250.. which at that same data rate is

55MB/s x 60 = 3,300 or 3.3 GB / min x 60 = < 200 GB / hour so $ 25 per hour?
Click to expand...

Samsung EcoGreen F2 1.5 TB = $90

= $12 per hour...or $9 per hour of Redcode 42
 
Stuart English said:
I can buy a 2 terrabyte HDD for about $250.. which at that same data rate is
Click to expand...

Can you hook up a off the shelf drive to any camera system? How much is a RED Drive... how much is a FS-100?
 
Media Costs

Media Costs

Can you hook up a off the shelf drive to any camera system? How much is a RED Drive... how much is a FS-100?
Click to expand...

With respect (and I do respect your position Andrae) that's not really a very relevant consideration.

You can re-use the acquisition media. And generally with solid state media people do just that.

So it's the cost of temporary media, plus archive cost that relevant. Sony of course argue otherwise.


I see the ROI case of leveraging an existing HDCAM SR infrastructure ... but there's a cost for that.
 
Well with respect... the off the shelf reference has nothing to do with the scenario I highlighted earlier. If you are recording about 500 hours of footage per day... then it becomes way more costly to use HDD or solid State based media.
 
Hmmm...

I think some are missing the point.

I have heard of the dismissal of tape back to the days of D1. Our local stations (and i would guess a bunch of other ones) dont' really want to get into the whole tapeless thing.

They reckon they get about 300-400 tapes of all kinds of material a week. All that is required for user is to ingest into their internal media server. That is done by one technician, doing something that is very straight and is real time. Changing to file based implies sooo many things..

1) if the footage looks like crap when it airs, was it because it got delivered in the wrong format or was it int he conversion to the internal media server? Tape allows you to go back and verify what you received. If it looks bad on tape, that's it. Stations usually offer the client a "make good" on each bad airing of the spot. they don't want to risk more of these.

2) for a spot to make it into tape it has to be on a given/approved standard. File based workflows lend themselves to all kinds of crazy formats/resolutions/pixel aspects/fps/codecs/blah blah blah... So in theory, if its on tape, it should be right, if its wrong, it very easy to see, and to allocate blame.

3) It takes ONE employee (usually union) to run the ingest deck. A employee who isnt that well paid. and this on MULTIPLE decks. What kind of infrastructure would be needed if u had a station receiving 300-400 pieces of content/advert a week? I highly doubt that the stations want to retrain that staff and also add specialized hardware, not to mention more union employees.

4)Tape adds a layer of security. Media is VERY easy to copy, a tape not quite as much.

5) a lot of media outlets charge for the actual tape copy, I really don't think they are going to be able to keep charging those rates for "e-delivery". And I don't think they want to kill that revenue stream.

6) What kind of media to deliver the files? or E-delivery? So the station is going to invest heavily on internet/network infrastructure just so THEIR clients can save money? I don't see that happening to easily, there has to be something in there for them.

7) we barely agree on standards for tape, imagine the mess it will be when some guy who is totally aloof of e-delivery formats screws up the file, and they only find out when it gets to the station and have no time to fix-it, therefore killing the income for the station of airing that spot, and IF the station decides to charge anyhow, even though it didn't air, then the client is pissed.

This are not MY points of views, these are the POV's of a lot of station people I have talked with, some technical, some management and some business. It would be lovely if we could exchange all kind of media, back and forth with stations, and be able to review the edit up to the second it airs. it WILL happen, but I don't dare guess when...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top