I have been increasingly puzzled by terms often thrown about when it comes to video cameras: 'professional' and 'broadcast (quality)' - what defines these terms?

For example, I have seen the Canon XH range as professional and semi-professional and I seen reference to both broadcast and near broadcast, presumably because it is not full HDV resolution as 1440x1080.

I've been looking at the Panasonic HMC151, Panasonic's brochure refers to it as 'professional', the resolution is full HDV 1920 x 1080p - as that is he current maximum resolution of our TV screens, does that male it broadcast quality?

Put another way, if someone was to shoot, say a documentary or short film on these cameras would a TV company such as the BBC accept the footage - it's OK, I don't have ambitions above my station! :-) - I'm just slightly confused by all this.

Hi Phillip
There are some posts somewhere on DV Info about what broadcasters will accept.
Big league broadcasters such as the BBC and National Geographic won't accept films that are orginated in HDV unless there is a compelling reason to do so eg a self-filmed adventure expedition.
I think that officially the BBC will accept up to 20% HDV in a film. If you look at HDV you have to agree with them. It's amazing what it squeezes onto a tiny tape but the downside is artifacts when there is a lot of movement.
I believe that different rules apply to acquisition of programming. And once it has been transferred to digibeta the situation may become even greyer.
Some of the smaller channels however will accept HDV or DV material.
I suspect that broadcast quality refers to what the BBC or National Geographic will accept ie that is the gold standard.
What's the definition of professional? To my mind anyone who makes a living from using a camera has a professional camera. Generally speaking I suspect that it is professional if it has the controls for picture and sound that most professionals would deem necessary for their craft.

It's a question that's been asked once or twice before and can yield a million answers. Networks do have technical specs for acquisition and many eschew HDV, but at the same time the fact is, more content shot on "prosumer" sub-$10K cameras is making it onto broadcast TV than ever before. If you are shopping for a camera, or deciding what workflow to use for a certain project, I think a more useful question to ask might be "what are my priorities?"

For example, I have seen the Canon XH range as professional and semi-professional and I seen reference to both broadcast and near broadcast, presumably because it is not full HDV resolution as 1440x1080.

I've been looking at the Panasonic HMC151, Panasonic's brochure refers to it as 'professional', the resolution is full HDV 1920 x 1080p -

Philip,

As a point of information, there is no such thing as "not full HDV" or "full HDV". HDV is a standard that was designed to allow the recording of HD material to DV tape. Under that standard, HDV has two specifications: 720p (1280X720 progressive scan) or 1080i (1440X1080 interlace). By definition, anything 720p or higher is considered HD.

HDV is a special version of HD, again designed to record HD to DV tape. when played back correctly, 1440X1080 will fill a 1920X1080 screen because in the 1080i specification, rectangular pixels are used as opposed to square pixels in 720p or 1080p specifications.

The term "full HD" (not HDV) is tyically used to describe the 1080p (1920X1080 progressive scan HD [not HDV] specification). This is more a marketing term than anything else as, again, 720p and higher is considred HD. For example, If 1080p is "full HD", then is a 2K or 4K camera ultra HD? It's all still HD.

A camera like the HMC151 doesn't use the HDV standard since it doesn't record to DV tape. it uses AVCHD standard, another HD format that is recorded, in this case, to SD and SDHC memory cards. This format typically records 1080p, although it may be at a lower bit rate than HDV, depending on the camera.

There was recently a documentary on Showtime that ran for one season that was shot completely on the XH-A1. The movie Crank2, I understand, was shot on A1's and HV30's. So, shooting footage in HDV is perhaps becoming more acceptable for TV and movies.

Oh, and as for "broadcast quality"... Guess what, when it comes to HD, the highest definition that can be broadcast over the airwaves currently is 1080i. Which is exactly what the A1 and other HDV cameras record. Currently, 1080p content is reserved for blu-ray disks and broadband broadcasts.

One last point, I have taken HDV from the A1 and dropped it into a 1080p timeline and saved the output as 1080p HD and then recorded it to blu-ray. Works just fine. Is the quality as good as a 2K or 4K camera? Of course not, but I have shot and seen some beautiful HDV footage. Remember, if you shoot something with great production value that is compelling and holds your audience's attention, they won't be saying... oh, that's only 1080i... that's not "ful HD".

Further to Marcel's point, this whole 1440 anamorphic thing is such a complete non-issue.

HDV at 1440x1080 is the *exact* same res. as HDCAM, which is the *single* most common HD delivery format in the world. So don't sweat the 1440 anamorphic. And "broadcast quality" is whatever is whatever is deemed worthy of broadcasting and makes it to broadcast, including choppy QVGA cel-phone video at 5fps.

The Canon XH series chips are native 1440, plus H-axis pixel offset which provides a further boost in resolution. At the CCD level it's practically producing 1920 (although it's recording 1440 anamorphic to tape as HDV, same as HDCAM).

Big league broadcasters such as the BBC and National Geographic won't accept films that are orginated in HDV unless there is a compelling reason to do so...One of Discovery's most popular series, The Deadliest Catch, is originated almost completely on HDV.

I've been looking at the Panasonic HMC151, Panasonic's brochure refers to it as 'professional', the resolution is full HDV 1920 x 1080p - as that is he current maximum resolution of our TV screens, does that male it broadcast quality?

"Broascast quality" has more to do with colours than resolution. Don't blow your whites, don't crush your blacks and keen an eye on that vectorscope.


J.

One of Discovery's most popular series, The Deadliest Catch, is originated almost completely on HDV.
I don't know why you preceded this with a quote from my post Chris. I was referring to the BBC and National Geographic, not Discovery.

I've always maintained that there are no professional camcorders Philip, only professional people. If the tools you use to accomplish your job are up to the task and the happy client pays you, then those camcorders - whatever they may be - have been used in a professional capacity and are worthy of the term.

A camcorder is just an inanimate lump of magnesium, plastic and glass. It may well have a CPU that is capable of multi-tasking at speeds better than any woman, but if it's not being cradled in professional hands then it's just so much mantle-piece junk. I've said it before: it's an accurate, fast, responsive idiot.

But back to your original question. All the tests on the 151 have shown that it performs at its best in the 720p mode, and that pushing it to its top 1920 x 1080p mode degrades the image as artefacts rear their ugly heads. So reading the specification would have you believe the camera performs better than it actually does - but Panasonic aren't alone in making claims like this.

tom.

I have been increasingly puzzled by terms often thrown about when it comes to video cameras: 'professional' and 'broadcast (quality)' - what defines these terms?

For example, I have seen the Canon XH range as professional and semi-professional and I seen reference to both broadcast and near broadcast, presumably because it is not full HDV resolution as 1440x1080.

I've been looking at the Panasonic HMC151, Panasonic's brochure refers to it as 'professional', the resolution is full HDV 1920 x 1080p - as that is he current maximum resolution of our TV screens, does that male it broadcast quality?

Put another way, if someone was to shoot, say a documentary or short film on these cameras would a TV company such as the BBC accept the footage - it's OK, I don't have ambitions above my station! :-) - I'm just slightly confused by all this.

The BBC will accept HDV for their SD channels - they also accept Mini DV for SD, yes they still shoot on it.

Currently, the amount of HDV material in each of their HD commissioned programmes is restricted, unless there is a justiciable reason for using it. An example would be the much quoted "The Deadliest Catch", which was shot using Z1s. However, companies like Discovery who commissioned that series, do want to know the post workflow to avoid a build up of compression/codec issues during the whole post/transmission chain.

As for what is a professional camera, I suspect most of the current generation of !/3" cameras has been used on a professional production in some manner or other. Perhaps from a professional point of view, the camera for day to day use should have a means of interfacing with other professional equipment eg have XLR connectors etc. It should be capable of withstanding say working 5 day weeks for a couple of years, so that it can earn an income for its owner.

Perhaps from a professional point of view, the camera for day to day use should have a means of interfacing with other professional equipment eg have XLR connectors etc.Pro-audio connectors can be considered as the one foolproof way of separating 'professional' from 'prosumer' & 'consumer' camcorders. Which is ironic given that audio is the not the strongest point of the HDV format.

Thanks to all for the explanation. I have no pretensions about getting any of my footage on any TV channel right now - maybe 'You've been framed' :-) I've just been confused by all the patter that comes with video sales.

I guess this is all very similar to my stills photography days and the comparisons between roll film and 35mm and now, more recently 35mm and digital

I don't know why you preceded this with a quote from my post Chris. I was referring to the BBC and National Geographic, not Discovery.Actually Richard you said "Big league broadcasters such as the BBC and National Geographic." I submit that the Discovery Channel network falls into the same category.

Topic already discussed at length in this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/general-hd-720-1080-acquisition/119068-bbc-hd-acceptability-guide.html, and others...

My 2 cents: the engineers are back, the same guys who years ago declared DV unfit for broadcasting, making it "illegal" (at the TV channel I used to work for) to air DV stuff, no matter what the content was (making some of us "outlaws", since we sometimes just went ahead with our "low-quality" stuff, 'cause we couldn't accept that engineers should determine what goes on air and what not...)
The engineers had decided that way not by watching what was on their TV screen, but by staring at their wonderful measuring equipments and running a few numbers, I guess
(which is not exactly how your average couch-potato watches his favorite show).

Then BBC changed their internal documents... equipped a number of crews with PD150s... then smaller TV channels copied what BBC was doing (guess why?) and DV became acceptable, no, wait: "GOOD"... (not to mention the fact that it was also cheaper and more agile & flexible: a one-man-band goes where heavily equipped four-guy crews don't get to go, in "physical" terms as well as in "journalistic-psychological" terms).

My forecast? This thing will last a couple of years, maybe... Then the engineers will be relocated to where they belong - and THEN, while actually watching their actual TV screens, they'll see that HDV is excellent.

Artifacts? I've shot my last four short docs. in HDV (downconverted to SD for editing, since my guys are not heavily involved in HD yet) and haven't seen one really noticeable MPEG artifact. The one and only thing about HDV that keeps me worried is the long GOP: when your tape fails you, you lose one full second of video & audio. And that's bad!
But please, don't tell me that the artifacts are the real problem. I have only one functioning eye, but I do see what's on the screen.

And speaking of artifacts: I love PBS, I love their wonderful documentaries, I especially love their wonderful documentaries shot in HD and aired on their HD channel, but there's a major problem: the on-air compression. Artifacts? TONS of them. So, what's the point?

Ranting and venting again... I'm getting old

Best

Vasco
PS: I love my A1. Period.
I just lack the $$$ for the A1s...

If you shoot something compelling people will watch,
whether is Super 8 or DV or HDV or whatever.
I understand the delivery spec's for different companies, but
if you have the best equipment in the world and you're shooting
mediocre footage, it doesn't matter much.

This is not directed at anyone in this thread btw,

I suggest that professional or broadcast "camera" is more applicable to analog video than the current world.

There was a huge difference between broadcast formats that would stand up to editing as compared to what was available to the home video user, remembering my RCA VHS camera. There was also a huge difference in price to get the professional format tape.

In the same comparison, I would suggest that any camera that can put out a better picture than a 3/4" professional "U-Matic" recorder can be considered "broadcast quality." That would include just about any DV or HDV camera sold.

As mentioned above, it was the PD150 that officially rewrote the rules. The two "professional features" that differentiated this camera from its consumer counterpart were (1) the XLR inputs, (2) DVCAM format, albeit on a small tape, that gave locked audio not available on regular DV.

The PD150 was ubiquitous around the world for news gathering in difficult situations. It was also used on a number of feature films.

With digital, once an image is acquired and transcoded into an intraframe and higher-bit 4-2-2 codec for editing, the camera that was used to produce the video is virtually irrelevant if the picture looks good.

In acquisition terms, I would suggest the shooting scenario dictates what would be considered a professional camera. Solo wildnerness docs means one camera, and studio bound game shows means something different. Background plates would suggest one choice, principal photography on a crane another, and action POV another.

New cameras like the JVC HM100, with a tiny form factor, XLR audio, PCM audio, 35mps codecs, progressive and interlaced HD capture will blur the line even more.

I don't think the future in broadcasting lies with HDV. With the 2/3" Scarlet coming up and the impressive EX1 & EX3 series currently in use, in two years time there will little reason to use HDV for broadcast productions for budgetary reasons - the driving force behind the drive towards the PD150s. Although, I expect HDV will still continue for some uses, the shorter the working life and relatively low investment in a HDV camera means that the kit wouldn't linger working away like the Beta SP or the still extremely busy Digi Beta cameras.

Personally I don't like artefacts, even on digital SD channels they can be bad and if I'm watching supposedly high end HD really I don't want to see them.

There are documentaries that really suit the small 1/3" cameras with one or two person crews living with the subjects. Unfortunately, they also got used on a lot of main stream programmes which had/have some pretty poor camera work shot by producers/directors/researchers without any great visual sense or technique.

I don't think the future in broadcasting lies with HDV.It's not intended for the future; it's intended for right now. It is an immediate-use format by virtue of its ubiquity and very low cost.

HDV camera means that the kit wouldn't linger working away like the Beta SP or the still extremely busy Digi Beta cameras.As comparatively cheap as HDV is relative to those more expensive systems, it doesn't need to. Five years at the most, I'd say. HDV gear should pay for itself immediately. Then the 48 months (preferably less) that follows is pure gravy. Then sell it and move on.

Personally I don't like artefacts, even on digital SD channels they can be badBut that's a by-product of low bandwidth for distribution, not the acquisition format.

There are documentaries that really suit the small 1/3" cameras with one or two person crews living with the subjects. Unfortunately, they also got used on a lot of main stream programmes which had/have some pretty poor camera work shot by producers/directors/researchers without any great visual sense or technique.Fully agreed, but that's not the camera's fault... are you suggesting that the bar for entry be set at a higher price? I don't think that would go over well. You've identified one ignominious aspect of the democratization of inexpensive acquisition, but the cure lies elsewhere. My vote would be compulsory media education at the teenage level.

It's not intended for the future; it's intended for right now. It is an immediate-use format by virtue of its ubiquity and very low cost.

As comparatively cheap as HDV is relative to those more expensive systems, it doesn't need to. Five years at the most, I'd say. HDV gear should pay for itself immediately. Then the 48 months (preferably less) that follows is pure gravy. Then sell it and move on.

But that's a by-product of low bandwidth for distribution, not the acquisition format.

Fully agreed, but that's not the camera's fault... are you suggesting that the bar for entry be set at a higher price? I don't think that would go over well. You've identified one ignominious aspect of the democratization of inexpensive acquisition, but the cure lies elsewhere. My vote would be compulsory media education at the teenage level.

HDV is very much a current format and its low cost has advantages. However, as IT technology has come increasingly into the picture, other formats do offer cost and performance advantages for broadcast productions, even for "The Deadliest Catch" right off a few cameras along the way variety.

The 48 months of gravy means that the cameras just won't be used for the up to 10 years that the Beta SP cameras can last, so a HDV camera will be out of the system in a shorter time frame. Basically, the format cycle is moving faster.

True it's not the the acquisition format as such that may cause them initially, but HDV does need care in post and distribution otherwise you can gather artefacts along the way.

The upcoming 2/3" Scarlet appears to be priced in the current HDV price range, so there is no price bar in that regard. Even the current EX1 is still in the high end HDV price range. What I'm saying is that these are the future for lower end budget broadcast productions rather than the previous generation HDV format, which is perfectly fine for what most people wish to use it for.

There's nothing to stop people making their own productions, it has never been easier.

...the cameras just won't be used for the up to 10 years that the Beta SP cameras can last...Er, *could* last (past tense). I would say *can* no longer. Beta SP has been dead for awhile, and the days of an acquisition system lasting ten years in a broadcast market are done and over with. At the rapid pace of format development recently, I don't think any current acquisition format will be viable for a full decade with the exceptions of HDCAM and DVCPRO HD (neither of which has much beyond five years left, in my opinion).

Er, *could* last (past tense). I would say *can* no longer. Beta SP has been dead for awhile, and the days of an acquisition system lasting ten years in a broadcast market are done and over with. At the rapid pace of format development recently, I don't think any current acquisition format will be viable for a full decade with the exceptions of HDCAM and DVCPRO HD (neither of which has much beyond five years left, in my opinion).

I was surprised to read recently on a professional forum that Beta SP is still going in the US, perhaps not in large numbers, but it was termed as in surprisingly high numbers.

I suspect HDCAM won't last longer than 5 years, although its demise has been shouted many times in recent years.

This 1997 article puts a historical perspective to the issue, "DV vs. Betacam SP: 4:1:1 vs. 4:2:2, Artifacts and Other Controversies":
DV vs. Betacam SP (http://www.dvcentral.org/DV-Beta.html)

This 1997 article puts a historical perspective to the issue, "DV vs. Betacam SP: 4:1:1 vs. 4:2:2, Artifacts and Other Controversies":
DV vs. Betacam SP (http://www.dvcentral.org/DV-Beta.html)

Here, for higher end production work Digital Betacam replaced Betacam SP. News used the old Betacam until Betacam SX came in.

I suspect it was the introduction of 16:9 that killed off the analogue Betacam formats a couple years earlier than would otherwise be the case. The BVW series of cameras were a much better build than the DVCAM cameras and they were amongst the nicest hand held cameras to use (Certainly a lot better than the Digibeta).

The only thing you can learn from this perspective on the past stuff, is that format change can come very quickly. The old Betacam only cameras became useless anything other than news once Betacam SP was introduced - that happened within weeks.

There are no professional cameras, only professional operators...

There are however cameras with a wide array of features and capabilities, and now the difference between the "consumer cam" like an HV20/30/40 and a "pro cam" may be pretty small in terms of image quality under many conditions!

For sure! The XH-A1 picture quality would be readily accepted by any major television company. A professional camera it often characterized by 3 ccd, and the ability to manually adjust all the settings. The real question is, is the operator professional quality?

It used to be easier but nowadays, I dare say there is no "definition". But a way to look at it might be to ask "what are the basic must-have features that a pro would want any camera to have?"

Three CCDs used to mean significant boost in image quality but that went down the tubes in recent years and you can get lousy DV from a 3-ccd camera and some good stuff from some single CCD ones.

Generically, having manual controls is definitely a must have but there are so many features these days that some have to be in menus. But things like audio volume, onscree VU meters, gain, white balance, shutter speed, iris and focus are mainstay features most would consider "must-have". How about a histogram on the EVF?

Additionally, in this day and age, I'd add XLR audio, phantom power, LANC, HDMI out, SDI, and the all important top handle with it's own secondary controls. The Battery system is another one that some might use to demarcate pro from consumer. And removable lens might be another.

Keep in mind image quality is a moving target. Pro cameras of yesteryear can be beat by $1500 cameras today (in the right hands).

This article is a few months old but may shine some light on the professional uses of the HDV format.

CANON U.S.A. PROFESSIONAL HD CAMCORDERS SERVE A WIDE RANGE OF VIDEO-PRODUCTION NEEDS FOR DIGITAL CONTENT CREATORS | The Briefing Room (http://blog.digitalcontentproducer.com/briefingroom/2008/10/22/canon-usa-professional-hd-camcorders-serve-a-wide-range-of-video-production-needs-for-digital-content-creators/)

Guiding Light Short Video
From Broadcast Cameras to Canon XH-G1

Guiding Light Switches to Hand Camera : BuzzFocus.com (http://www.buzzfocus.com/2008/02/24/guiding-light-switches-to-hand-camera/)


Another article:

"The Canon XH G1 camcorder’s low-light capabilities add to its portability in that it can capture broadcast-quality images without the need for extensive and cumbersome lighting equipment."

CANON U.S.A. XH G1 HD CAMCORDERS HELP REVOLUTIONIZE THE LOOK OF AN ACCLAIMED DAYTIME DRAMA | The Briefing Room (http://blog.digitalcontentproducer.com/briefingroom/2008/07/22/canon-usa-xh-g1-hd-camcorders-help-revolutionize-the-look-of-an-acclaimed-daytime-drama/)

Keep in mind image quality is a moving target. Pro cameras of yesteryear can be beat by $1500 cameras today (in the right hands).

It's very much a matter of selecting the tools needed for the job in hand. The image quality has improved all the way up the range and the camera that's good for following the action on programmes like "Deadilest Catch" or "Ice Road Truckers" probably won't be suitable as the main camera on a high end glossy documentary with sweeping landscapes on a HD channel.

Discovery seem to have sensible range of standards with their Bronze, Silver and Gold technical requirements.

There are no professional cameras, only professional operators...



BINGO!

I learned this years ago while trying to get great sounds out of what I thought was a POS guitar. ... Can I see it for a second, asked an old man. Sure, but it's a crap guitar I replied. Then Magic! The guitar came to life, and sounded every bit as good as a guitar costing 100 times more than what I paid for it. The old man handed me the guitar and said, your guitar is fine, you just need to learn a bit more.

In the same way, a professional videographer can make magic with the least of cameras.
While a person given a high end camera with all the trimmings, but lacking the skill set shoots something you wouldn't want to watch.

This is the case more than not. Just look at the majority of the postings on DVi for example. Someone buys an expensive camera then wonders why what they shoot does not look professional.

''Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst'' - actually it wasn't - it was posted by me (#8). But glad to hear it brings forth a Bingo.

Er, *could* last (past tense). I would say *can* no longer. Beta SP has been dead for awhile, and the days of an acquisition system lasting ten years in a broadcast market are done and over with. At the rapid pace of format development recently, I don't think any current acquisition format will be viable for a full decade with the exceptions of HDCAM and DVCPRO HD (neither of which has much beyond five years left, in my opinion).

In my neck of the woods there are still a couple of places that want Beta sp, or DVD.
But the majority of the commercials I produce are transfered directly to the TV station via ftp site for download. None of the TV stations in my market air local commercials in HD, or even produce local programming in HD.

Well, as the o/p I'd like to say thanks to everyone for their input.

Yes, I am fully aware that in a nutshell it is more about the cameraman's ability than the equipment used, I guess I should have asked what was the difference on a technical level. I now release that different broadcasters require different spec

My experience with broadcast (TV spots) is that you give them a tape (or download) in whatever format they require and that all the video and audio signals are broadcast legal. As to what defines a professional camera, I think those items are the same as they've always been: total manual control over audio and video, ability to white balance, to turn off gain and shutter controls, ability to record separate audio channels--ie., all the things that all the 1/3" and some 1/4" cameras now do quite well.

The last hurdle, in my opinion, was the lens. Up until Sony came out with the Z1 (and Canon with the XL H1 and XH series, Panasonic with the HVX and JVC with it's 100 series) it was not possible to follow focus or do repeatable focus shifts with the electronic lenses. Now it's not a problem--just set your in focus and your out focus and shift at will. The only difference between these lenses and manual ones is that with these electronic lenses on the 1/3" chip cameras now (JVC has manual lens) you read your distances in the viewfinder or LCD instead of with white marks on the lens. They actually have an advantage over manual lenses in that you can follow focus by yourself in many cases without the need for an assistant.

About the only thing these cameras do not do that the bigger chip cameras do is provide a color temperature reading in the viewfinder. There's no logical reason they don't, and it would be an easy thing for the manufacturers to provide. The problem is solved in my case with my old Gossen color temperature meter left over from my film days, but I'd rather be able to get a readout in the viewfinder. Oh, there is one more--underscan in the viewfinder. Some do that and some don't.