Before this camera can be used for networks like Discovery, the tech department will have to approve the results. Does any one have a suggestions for speeding up this process? Bottomline means getting a camera to Discovery ASAP. The sooner this is done, the sooner we will know if it meets their expectations and the sooner we can feel safe to buy a unit.

We need someone at JVC to send one of the first units to Discovery. This will help us all and boost their sales.

It is not just the camera model or type, most importantly it is the video format (ProHD, HDV, etc.)which needs the approval.


Before this camera can be used for networks like Discovery, the tech department will have to approve the results. Does any one have a suggestions for speeding up this process? Bottomline means getting a camera to Discovery ASAP. The sooner this is done, the sooner we will know if it meets their expectations and the sooner we can feel safe to buy a unit.

We need someone at JVC to send one of the first units to Discovery. This will help us all and boost their sales.

One wonders about any sort of approval process the Discovery Channel might employ, considering how horribly compressed their HD signal is.

First of all there is the argument that HDV is not true high definition because it only outputs a signal at 19.7 megabits per secound therefore it is not broadcast quality like DVC Pro HD which outputs at 100 megabits per secound. The problem with that argument is that no broadcaster uses a 100 megabit per secound bandwidth. The broadcasting bandwidth standard is 19.7 megabits per secound. So if HDV is not broadcast quality high definition then nothing is. Also the camera features an uncompressed output for the broadcasters who want to record at higher bit rates. an HD-SDI converter is needed though.

First of all there is the argument that HDV is not true high definition because it only outputs a signal at 19.7 megabits per secound therefore it is not broadcast quality ....

Well, the "broadcast quality" argument doesn't really have a leg to stand on because broadcasters WILL air anything, as long as there is a true or perceived audience. We have gone through that many times over with SD. In the end they will air a VHS originated programming if it's interesting enough to find its audience.

Having said that though, I know about the Discovery requirements and I agree that it would be great to get them the camera asap. In the end, they will require broadcast specs for the delivery of the program and they may not really care (or know about) the acquisition of your particular show. It may be that it's cut from S16 film, CineAlta and ProHD and the final delivery is HDCAM and that's the footage they will judge. If there are no problems, they will accept it.

My comment is attempting to stop the argument about the so-called 'broadcast quality', not the fact that it would make our life easier and our purchasing decisions faster if the broadcasters embraced the format, and in extension, the camera.

Unfortunately, you'll never end the "broadcast quality" disussion/argument. It's 1997 all over again, when DV wasn't broadcast quality, and to some, still isn't.
Content is king. Period, end of discourse as relates to the images. People will watch old schlock and new schlock, regardless of what it is. Broadcasters used to demand specifics, but today, if the colors are right, the format delivery is convenient, they'll air it if there is merit there. I can't count how many bad, crappy commercials or infomercials are out there done on some little kid's palm cam. And even CNN broadcasts webcam stuff.
But on the tekkie side, pixel counts, colorspace, etc don't matter when it's in the face of a chief engineer for a station. What counts is what he sees, and what his opinions are. I know of a specific where a VP of engineering of a major broadcaster turned down one DV editing solution over another based on name brand and a relationship with a sales rep alone, no other factor entered the decision. The sad thing is, what he turned down was infinitely superior, has better options, better cost, and a broadly trained editing base. From my reasonably experienced view, what's "accepted" and what isn't is entirely specious, and not necessarily found on anything factual.

Indeed, I think these days "broadcast quality" can be succintly defined not at all in numbers but simply as a matter of whether or not the content is compelling enough. Case in point: when embedded journalists rolled into Iraq with the troops, their videophones with their tiny, blocky, grayscale 160x120 images were carried around the world for hours and hours on CNN and other news media outlets.

I think Douglas hit the nail on the head. Chief engineers at lots of local stations will recommend stuff based on their like or dislike of the sales reps, or how good a time they had boozing it up at NAB. I'm not slamming engineers--that's the way things are in just about any industry. I have a friend who used to be close to somebody in a local police department; one time he asked the cop why they chose the full size Fords over the full size Chevys (this was about 10 years or so ago). The cop replied: the Ford rep buys the best steak dinners.

Ditto the "Content is King" reasoning. NO ONE would tell you that 8mm film is 'broadcast quality'... and NO ONE would turn down broadcasting the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assasination.

While I agree content is crucial, for people shooting commissioned films for the big networks, it is also crucial to shoot with an approved format. I shoot natural history documentaries and there is an ever growing push to orginate in HD. It would be wonderful if we could start using more cost effective cameras than currently available. Shoots tend to be long in order to capture the required animal behaviour etc. More economical HD cameras would mean that money could be spent on time in the field rather than keeping rental houses in business. May be those days are not quite here yet? But not far away.

An approved format doesn't lock itself down to XXX. DV was, and still more or less is, an "unapproved format" by MANY broadcasting organization standards. I doubt you'll see HDV accepted as a shooting standard any time soon if ever, either.
On the other hand, I know that segments for National Geo, MTV, Discovery, ABC News, at least one PBS doc, and GMA are being shot on HDV/Z1's. I'm aware of a doc being made of an Imax film production also being shot on the Z1. Will it be acceptable by broadcasters? Not if it's delivered on an HDV/DV tape. But if it's delivered on HDCam, it will air if it's shot well.
Everyone is wanting acquisition on HD, and that's expected given future demand, but at this point nothing has been locked down, and I doubt it will be, that XXX will be accepted, and YYY will not be accepted.

I've done some programming with Discovery and NatGeo (in Asia) and here are Discovery's Deliverables Requirements regarding formats (from 2004):

Delivery:
SD: Digtal Betacam
HD: HDCAM (1080i60)

Acquisition:
SD:
Betacam SP
Digital Betacam
DVCpro 50
IMX 50

HD:
HDCAM
HDCAM SR

Formats NOT permitted for general programming aquisition are:

SD: DVCPro25, DVCAM, MiniDV, BetacamSX, Umatic (SP or otherwise), SVHS, VHS, Hi8, Betamax, and 8mm.

HD: HDV, HDVCpro (No Varicams, I'm not sure if this applies to 1080i footage from HDVCpro, but definately to 720p)

From their document: "There are some acceptable uses for small amounts of non-broadcast quality footage. These are "newsworthy events" that were soley captured on amateur video, or in situations which physically demand the use of smaller cameras, e.g. in a cave expedition or high up a mountain."

"Please keep in mind that the [Discovery]Networks are distributed on compressed digital satelite feeds, and non-broadcast footage usually has poor chroma response which produce sub-standard results when transmitted on these services."

As an aside:

If you want to pitch an idea to Discovery, the best way is through e-submission (they really do read them). Go to http://producers.discovery.com

It takes them between 6-8 weeks for them to get back to you.

That's what they say, however in the UK there are entire programmes on Discovery that are shot on DVCam and delivered on Digibeta with no problems at all. I expect the same will happen with HDV as long as it is bumped up to HDCam

Surely the reason a lot of broadcasters don't want programmes shot on cheap gear has nothing to do with "broadcast quality" or other such spurious notions, but job preservation of their wealthy producers who don't want "unfair" competition?? Or am I being a bit to cynical?

It's easy for me to get swayed by Discovery's technical arguments about recompression of highly compressed video over MPEG2 for delivery, but really, when you look at compressed broadcast HD, it's so bad that it's not the source footage that's a problem, but the over excessive compression to the viewer's house! That compression is totally in the hands of the broadcasters, but they want more channels, so they drop the bandwidth of each channel.

It all sounds like protectionism to me, and indeed, I think CH4 in the UK has "banned" the use of DV in production for just such a reason - to stop cheap programmes being made, to get the focus back on quality programming.

Graeme

And, some of that shows a total ignorance of production. Accepting Betacam SP over DV, for example. That would mean you could use something shot with a UVW100 over a DSR500, when the DSR500 recording to DVCAM looks better than any of the Betacam SP camcorders until you get to the BVW600. Like so many who should know better, they seem to confuse the format with the camera. I'm sure they've got to be running stuff shot DVCAM and other DV25 formats that have been delivered on Digibeta masters.

However, the UVW100 is an exception of low quality Betacam SP. While for DV there are so many inexpensive units which do not compare to the quality of the medium grade Betacam cameras.

About the DSR-500 and being better than any of the Betacam SP camcorders until you get to the 600, that is highly debatable. I would settle for footage coming from a Sony PVW-D35 or PVW-D50 over a DSR-500. Same with the BVW-400a.

And, some of that shows a total ignorance of production. Accepting Betacam SP over DV, for example. That would mean you could use something shot with a UVW100 over a DSR500, when the DSR500 recording to DVCAM looks better than any of the Betacam SP camcorders until you get to the BVW600. Like so many who should know better, they seem to confuse the format with the camera. I'm sure they've got to be running stuff shot DVCAM and other DV25 formats that have been delivered on Digibeta masters.

It's true the UVW100 was an exception, but that simply makes my point about specifying format over camera quality. As for the DVW35, it's the same camera head as the second generation of the DSR500, and the 30 was the same as the first run of the 500. They are dockable and you can use a DVCAM or Betacam back with either. I don't know of the 50 is the same as the 570 but it most likely is. Nice thing about the dockables is you can control all 4 audio channels separately. There are also lots of cameras that are not camcorders that were (and still are) used with Betacam decks. Some of them are comparable to the current crop and some aren't. There is very little difference between DVCAM and Betacam in the final result. I've run the 26 pin cable from the DSR500 to the Betacam SP deck and recorded simultaneously onto Betacam SP and DVCAM, and it's almost impossible to tell the difference, except when you get into very saturated low light areas, and the DVCAM looks just a bit better.

Thats all debatable !

It's true the UVW100 was an exception, but that simply makes my point about specifying format over camera quality. As for the DVW35, it's the same camera head as the second generation of the DSR500, and the 30 was the same as the first run of the 500. They are dockable and you can use a DVCAM or Betacam back with either. I don't know of the 50 is the same as the 570 but it most likely is. Nice thing about the dockables is you can control all 4 audio channels separately. There are also lots of cameras that are not camcorders that were (and still are) used with Betacam decks. Some of them are comparable to the current crop and some aren't. There is very little difference between DVCAM and Betacam in the final result. I've run the 26 pin cable from the DSR500 to the Betacam SP deck and recorded simultaneously onto Betacam SP and DVCAM, and it's almost impossible to tell the difference, except when you get into very saturated low light areas, and the DVCAM looks just a bit better.

I dont think that HDV will ever achieve broadcast quality acceptance unless HDV can demonstrate its ability to compete with high end high definition head on. If HDV can demonstrate its ability to produce ultra high definition images then there will be no question that HDV not only rivals high end cameras but rather blows them out of the water. A start is the ultra high definition display technologies being developed by JVC namely the JVC line of 1500i CRT projection televisions that upconvert and display all signals to the full 2560 x 1440i resolutions. Now if an HDV camera were hooked up to that type of display would there be any doubt whether or not HDV is true high definition ? Now I am not saying that ultra high definition will be needed on a daily basis as it would be a bandwidth hog but the capability to produce these images would look good on the HDV resume. And remember unless HDV can demonstrate Rolls Royce quality the broadcasters will reject it. Also another step in the right direction is the HDV cameras ability using pixel shifting technology to shoot 3 megapixel JPEG images continously. Could this be a step towards ultra high definition if we change the JPEG to MPEG?

What I would like to clarify is that the formats 720p, 1080i and 1080p for television broadcasting are probably set in stone and are not likely to change for a long time.

Nevertheless formats like 1440p and 2160p are viable Digital Cinematography formats that are used to replace 35mm film. The next Star Wars will be shot in 2160p.

If an HDV camera is capable of shooting in these ultra high digital cinematography resolutions with the addition of proper recording and encoding equipment can a television station manager dare say that these cameras are not broadcast quality ?

How is HDV, a format that is already too compressed, going to cope with recording a massively greater amount of detail. The whole thing about HDV is that it's cheap - that's it's unique selling point among HD cameras!

You can't put more resolution on a small chip because of noise, and because the lenses are not up to it. You can't make the chips bigger as they become more expensive, and bigger lenses cost more too. You can't record more data as it's using miniDV tape, which is not reliable above the data rates they're using now. The only option would be MPEG4 compression rather than MPEG2, but then it's not HDV anymore. This would improve it's quality somewhat, although I don't think realtime MPEG4 encoders are cheap either.

HDV is a transitionary format to bring affordable HD to the DV masses, and to ease them over to shooting at a higher definition. It seems it's been totally successfull in meeting that goal. Why try to make it something it isn't, and really, cannot be?

Graeme

The next Star Wars will be shot in 2160p.

Ummm.... there won't be another one. Lucas has the licensing locked up for eternity basically and he's said that he's done. Unless one of his kids spends all of his inheritance on space flights and blow (and trust me, that's a lot of coke) after Lucas passes on, there's no chance in hell that any one will ever be allowed to shoot another one...

1. First of all the mini dv tapes of the HDV camera are not the only way to record images. The JVC HD100 cameras feature optional hard drives and they feature a 720p60 uncompressed analog output that can be captured and recorded at much higher bit rates using HD-SDI

2. Not only can you triple the resolution of a small one megapixel chip JVC is already doing that with the JVC HD100 camera. By using pixel shifting technology JVC cameras have the ability to record continously shot 3 megapixel equivalent JPEG images. And it is probably technologically feasable to convert JPEG images to quadruple high definition video. Frame rates would have to be increased but this can be done using interpolation technology. Pixel shifting technology is not only an acceptable way to increase resolution but in theory this technology can be used to resolve infinite detail with the resolving power of the glass being the only practical limitation.

If you're not recording to DV tape, then it's not HDV, but something else. You might be recording MPEG2 transport streams to your hard drive, but that's not HDV, it's something else, no matter how similar it may seem. As you point out, the 720p60 mode is available on component analogue output. This is only uncompressed in the sense that it's not been through a digital codec. It is not uncompressed in the sense that either a true HD-SDI output (avoiding codec) is uncompressed, or even a dual link 4:4:4 HD SDI output is uncompressed.

"Not only can you triple the resolution of a small one megapixel chip JVC is already doing that with the JVC HD100 camera." That sentence doesn't read properly. Can you explain what you mean more clearly??

"By using pixel shifting technology JVC cameras have the ability to record continously shot 3 megapixel equivalent JPEG images". As we previously discussed, PixelShift is in practical terms, going to give you a 30% resolution advantage over not using it. As you pointed out, you could move the CCD very rapidly and get multiple shifts, but although this may be a fun lab experiment, it's not practical, will incur a massive shutter speed increase as each shift is made, lower the low light capabilities, and basically, just not work in a real practical camera. It might be a fun experiment to integrate the images for a stills camera to increase the resolution, but that's not going to work for moving images. In any case, you'll hit lens limits way before you get any resolution advantage from the pixel shift. The limits of the glass are a very real and practical limitation.

Frame rate interpolation is one of the trickiest image processing tasks you can perform. It takes massive processing power, and with some hand-tweaking can work ok for a cool slomo effect, but is not practical for an entire movie, and it would look "odd" in the extreme, as even the best algorithms currently produce visible artifacts.

Uprezzing technology is, however, practical. It can do a very good job from a high quality SD image, making it look very HD indeed. However, if you have a good uprezzer, you could turn a HD image into a super-HD image, or a super-HD image into a mega-HD image. It does not level the playing field but bumps all formats up to the same degree.

Graeme

I am in complete agreement with your explanation. Excellent clarification on the matter. Dont take me wrong but the previous poster needs to take a class on video engineering.

If you're not recording to DV tape, then it's not HDV, but something else. You might be recording MPEG2 transport streams to your hard drive, but that's not HDV, it's something else, no matter how similar it may seem. As you point out, the 720p60 mode is available on component analogue output. This is only uncompressed in the sense that it's not been through a digital codec. It is not uncompressed in the sense that either a true HD-SDI output (avoiding codec) is uncompressed, or even a dual link 4:4:4 HD SDI output is uncompressed.

"Not only can you triple the resolution of a small one megapixel chip JVC is already doing that with the JVC HD100 camera." That sentence doesn't read properly. Can you explain what you mean more clearly??

"By using pixel shifting technology JVC cameras have the ability to record continously shot 3 megapixel equivalent JPEG images". As we previously discussed, PixelShift is in practical terms, going to give you a 30% resolution advantage over not using it. As you pointed out, you could move the CCD very rapidly and get multiple shifts, but although this may be a fun lab experiment, it's not practical, will incur a massive shutter speed increase as each shift is made, lower the low light capabilities, and basically, just not work in a real practical camera. It might be a fun experiment to integrate the images for a stills camera to increase the resolution, but that's not going to work for moving images. In any case, you'll hit lens limits way before you get any resolution advantage from the pixel shift. The limits of the glass are a very real and practical limitation.

Frame rate interpolation is one of the trickiest image processing tasks you can perform. It takes massive processing power, and with some hand-tweaking can work ok for a cool slomo effect, but is not practical for an entire movie, and it would look "odd" in the extreme, as even the best algorithms currently produce visible artifacts.

Uprezzing technology is, however, practical. It can do a very good job from a high quality SD image, making it look very HD indeed. However, if you have a good uprezzer, you could turn a HD image into a super-HD image, or a super-HD image into a mega-HD image. It does not level the playing field but bumps all formats up to the same degree.

Graeme

"Broadcast quality" - the elusive butterfly, the great debate, etc. A left-brained pragmatist will quote copious amounts of tech specs, while a right-brained artist will lean on dreamy filmic visions of aesthetic wonder. A mid-brained fence sitter will see the dual necessity of tech and aesthetics. The FCC and NTSC specs will quantify minimum IRE levels for "legal" broadcast standards. ATSC specs somehow reduce HD and DVCProHD originated HDTV broadcasts to highly-compressed 19.2mbps (or lower) MPEG2. Low-res satellite phones suddenly become "broadcast quality" when the economics of TV news dictate that public hunger for images trumps resolution and composition. And on and on and on ad naseum...

Does advanced technology negate the bedrock need for talent and experience in order to create compelling motion media images, whether they be in film or video? Would you rather watch content produced in a lower resolution format that was created by superb artists, or high resolution schlock created by wealthy techies that can afford the highest level of technology, but are creatively bankrupt? Which is more important to creating a masterpiece painting - the artist or the paintbrush?

No matter how creatively and aesthetically inclined we are, if we ignore the economics of the motion media marketplace we are dooming ourselves to decline and fiscal failure. Even media giants must maximize technology and minimize overhead to compete effectively. It's even more critical for small boutique facilities to do the same.

How have the dynamics of this economic model affected the television industry? Enormously. Before the mid-1990's there was very little latitude available to producers who self-syndicated their television programs. The industry was dominated by a few "gatekeeper" programming executives who cracked the whip on all the proletariat masses. In the early '80's they dictated 3/4" and then 3/4" SP. Then in the mid-80's Betacam revolutionized the industry, followed by Beta SP. In the mid-90's, along came 3-chip DV, DVCPro, and DVCAM - right at the time when cable and satellite was geometrically expanding the need for cost-effective programming to fill the many new channels. Station and network executives who had traditionally been the "gatekeepers", now had a dilemma: they wanted to maximize their legacy investments in Beta SP, but they also wanted to economically compete with the new hordes of producers that could now afford inexpensive DV25 equipment and emerging non-linear editing systems. So what was the "gatekeepers" declared mantra? "Broadcast quality". It mattered little that the DV25 formats met the technical specs for FCC mandated NTSC broadcasting - and that what the DV25 formats lacked could be easily corrected in the new NLE systems (IRE levels, etc.). Even though network "Producers Guidelines" routinely specified that analog and digital formats above DV25 were mandatory for acquisition, independent producers were increasingly having the audacity to use 3-chip DV25 cameras in the field, editing their programs, and simply mastering them seamlessly to Beta SP and DigiBeta for delivery to the networks. How dare they attempt to maximize technology and minimize overhead!! Television was democratizing at the speed of light and the "good ole boys" that traditionally kept the washroom keys were bewildered and frightened. The self-proclaimed elitists and purists were shuddering in disgust...

Fast forward to 2005. Satellite and digital cable television now exhibit an insatiable demand for content. Acquisition and post technology is extremely affrodable. The new 3-chip HDV and DVCProHD cameras obviously meet or exceed the bitstream requirement of HDTV broadcast standards - and yet a new generation of supposed "gatekeepers" raise the banner of "broadcast quality"! Would you rather watch a high-definition program created by master artists working with a Z1, HD100, or HVC200 - or a program created by inexperienced but wealthy also-rans that simply had a big enough budget to rent F900 for their production? Does the old phrase "Garbage in - garbage out!" only apply to lines of resolution? Can gifted storytellers, DPs, and directors create a masterpiece of motion media in a lower bitrate hi-def format? Better yet, do the general public viewers of HDTV programs quible over formats, bitrates, MTF curves, editing software nuances, etc.? No - they simply want interesting programs that look good on their HDTV sets. All our endless online techno-babble isn't going to change that. The DV25 history of the mid-90's is repeating itself with the low end hi-def cameras and formats of 2005. Pressure on independent producers - and networks - to hold overhead down is even greater now.

Does HDV meet the tech specs to be "broadcast quality" under the ATSC guidelines? Technically speaking, the answer is yes. Do the same elitists and former gatekeepers that fought tooth and nail against the broadcast of DV25 formats in the 90's now look down on the HDV users from their lofty HDCAM and Varicam perches and cry that HDV is not "broadcast quality"? Yeah. Will HDV content be broadcast widely on HDTV stations and networks? Yeah. Will the cycle of Bourgoisee Elitists and Proletariat Scrimpers repeat itself? Yeah. Time after time after time after time...

So what drives this elitist cycle? Ego? Economics? Techno-pride? Investment maximization? Resistance to creative evolution? Media democratization backlash? Greed? Jeolousy? All of the above?

Rather than use the term "broadcast quality", perhaps we should use separate terms of "broadcast tech standards" and "broadcast creative values". If "broadcast quality" is only determined by gatekeepers and techno-egoists, the entire economic vaibility of the television industry is in jeopardy. To fill the geometrically burgeoning programming needs of HDTV channels, high-caliber, but cost-effective, lower bitrate productions are an absolute necessity! Does that invalidate or infringe on the business model of HDCAM and Varicam users? Not necessarily. Will there be a giant, ongoing viewer demand for limited-budget, low bitrate hi-def productions? Yeah. Will networks like Discovery have to re-evaluate their position on acceptance of HDV-originated content? Yeah. What will force that? Economics of the HDTV programming marketplace. Is Discovery Network's position on HDV a throwback to their analysis of the 1-chip JVC HD10U's performance? Probably. Has Discovery really taken the time to analyze the capability of the Z1 footage edited with one of the outstanding NLE systems? Probably not. Should Discovery take the time to analyze the possibilities with the new JVC HD100 for HDTV broadcast? Yes. Will Discovery take the time to test the new HVC200 or say "Well, the bitrate is higher, but it's small, inexpensive, and only has a fixed lens". Who knows.

If a format meets the minimum tech requirements to be broadcast in a designated country or region, isn't it "broadcast quality"? Can we all respect the creative aesthetics of each others work without getting hung up on endless circumlocution about formats, bitrates, and chroma sampling? Aren't we all in the same worldwide creative family? Respect is contagious. Send some out and you'll be surprised how much comes full circle back to you. After minimum broadcast tech standards have been met, "Broadcast quality" should imply the broadcasting of quality productions - meaning good production values, storyline, etc. If "broadcast quality" is only about lines of resolution, our collective myopia is incurable...

Wow. That's a good one with some good points.
For me, however, it's basically irrelevant. Nobody at any TV station has ever asked what cameras we used or what format the original tapes were on. We just give them the type of dub they ask for.

Right on Bill. That tells me that you do good work in the field, edit good, and master correctly for who you're delivering to. That will keep any TV station or almost any TV network happy. If your master is conformed to their specs and your production values and content are spot on, everybody is happy. That said, there are some networks I produce for that have 5" thick Producer Guidelines that give you little "wiggle room". Some of them even resort to unannounced spot checks of your source tape to check for compliance with their acquisition format guidelines! These are almost invariably the networks that use packagers to do contract production, where they keep the copyright to the programs. The self-syndication world is much more lenient on acquisition guidelines. I work both ways, but I prefer the creative freedom of independent production and self syndication (time buys, barter, etc.). As channels and networks that use self-syndicating producers profilerate, the economic pressure increases on networks that use packagers. They're all competing for the same sponsor and advertiser dollars. If the self-syndicator user networks get their equal quality programs by giving affordable rates on airing time buys, and independent producers are holding overhead down by maximizing overhead while still delivering quality programs, the pressure will continue to mount on packager-using networks to be more lenient on their acquisition format guidelines. Economic necessities drive the whole engine...

I've done some programming with Discovery and NatGeo (in Asia) and here are Discovery's Deliverables Requirements regarding formats (from 2004):

Delivery:
SD: Digtal Betacam
HD: HDCAM (1080i60)

Acquisition:
SD:
Betacam SP
Digital Betacam
DVCpro 50
IMX 50

HD:
HDCAM
HDCAM SR

Formats NOT permitted for general programming aquisition are:

SD: DVCPro25, DVCAM, MiniDV, BetacamSX, Umatic (SP or otherwise), SVHS, VHS, Hi8, Betamax, and 8mm.

HD: HDV, HDVCpro (No Varicams, I'm not sure if this applies to 1080i footage from HDVCpro, but definately to 720p)

From their document: "There are some acceptable uses for small amounts of non-broadcast quality footage. These are "newsworthy events" that were soley captured on amateur video, or in situations which physically demand the use of smaller cameras, e.g. in a cave expedition or high up a mountain."

"Please keep in mind that the [Discovery]Networks are distributed on compressed digital satelite feeds, and non-broadcast footage usually has poor chroma response which produce sub-standard results when transmitted on these services."

As an aside:

If you want to pitch an idea to Discovery, the best way is through e-submission (they really do read them). Go to http://producers.discovery.com

It takes them between 6-8 weeks for them to get back to you.

Hi John. You're in a great location to get good images! Southeast Asia is loaded with good production possibilities.

I have also aired content on Discovery, and nationally on several other U.S cable and broadcast networks. I regularly use almost every format on Discovery's list of "approved" and "unapproved" formats. As you know, some formats and specific cameras lend themselves best to certain types of field acquisition - and some don't. Do the DV25 formats get used extensively on SD programs of Discovery? Yeah. Some of the highest-rated programs on Discovery USA (American Chopper, etc.) are reality-based mobile ENG style programs in confined spaces that simply make the use of full-sized cameras impractical. Just this week, while I watched an American Chopper episode, I counted two times that one of the PD170's the camera crew was using was in the frame. I don't think Discovery is in the dark about one of their highest rated programs using a "not permitted" format for acquisition. In this case the format and the camera is perfectly suited to the "look and feel" of the American Chopper programs.

I understand Discovery's need to have airing masters delivered on Digital Betacam for SD and HDCAM (1080i60) for HD. Those are good, solid delivery formats. It's their list of "approved" acquisition formats that is ludicrous. They provide no latitude for some cameras within a given format that have great chipsets and optics, and conversely allow other questionable cameras just because they are within the "approved" format list. At a glance through the approved list of formats for acquisition, the first obvious common trait for the approved SD formats is 4:2:2 color space. 4:2:2 is obviously superior to 4:1:1 if a lot of compositing and motion graphic work will be done on the programs. But how many of the reality-based shows that dominate Discovery's programming have a lot of compositing and motion graphic work done to them? Not many. Their list of "not approved" formats is largely 4:1:1 formats, including all of the DV25 formats. And yet the cameras of those formats are generally the most effective, and cost-effective, tools to use for many of the Discovery programs! Tens of thousands of DV25 format originated programs have been broadcast worldwide by TV stations and networks, but they're not good enough "officially" for Discovery Networks - and yet, as noted above, DV25 formats are used widely on certain Discovery SD broadcasts.

Even though I use and respect all of the formats on Discovery's approved for acquisition list, I find it very questionable that Beta SP is included and the DV25 formats are not. I've been seamlessly intercutting well-shot DV25 format footage with Beta SP footage since the mid-1990's! Scores of producers have. Even such respected video engineers as Adam Wilt (www.adamwilt.com) acknowledge that well-shot DV25 formats are on a par with Beta SP. Discovery's position on this is unreasonable, costly to producers, and as illustrated above - it is often ignored.

Discovery's approved HD acquisition format list is also out of step with economic and field production realities. Discovery HD broadcasts in 1080i60. To exclude DVCProHD and HDV acquired programs, that are conformed to Discovery's Producer's Guidelines spec sheet for mastering, is baffling to me. If top-level shooters and editors are using DVCProHD and HDV for mobile, cost-effective acquisition, and creating excellent programs that are mastered in 1080i60 HDCAM for delivery, what is the problem? The entire program is then going to be compressed down to at least 19.2 mbps MPEG2 for HDTV delivery. In the hands of seasoned professionals, the Z1, HD100, and HVC200 will be very effective acquisition tools. Add in expert editing, NLE-based color correction, etc. and the end product is truly worthy of airing on Discovery HD.

I feel that Discovery and other networks that exclude DV25 formats for SD acquisition, and DVCProHD and HDV for HD acquisition are out of touch with the technology, economics, and dynamics of the rapidly evolving television marketplace. Fox, ABC, and ESPN broadcast in 720p60. Any DVCProHD or HDV camera that can acquire or output a 720p60 image should be considered "approved" by them. Discovery, HDNet, NBC, CBS, and others broadcast in 1080i60. Any small DVCProHD or HDV camera that can acquire or output a 1080i60 image should be "approved" by them. With a proliferation of HD channels and networks that WILL accept DVCProHD and HDV acquired programs on the horizon, the networks like Discovery that exclude those cost-effective programs will begin to lose serious money to the networks and channels that will accept the formats for acquisition. When Discovery has lost enough money they will somehow include DVCProHD and HDV on their "approved for acquisition" list. Economic viabilities drive our entire business. That said, there will always be a solid niche for high-budget HD format productions. Overlooking the equally solid niche for low-budget HD format programming is a very perilous course - even for a company as large as Discovery...

Hi Steve,

Well I for one completely agree with you. I also think that Discovery's a bit out of touch with modern production realities.

The O.P. asked about if broadcasters like Discovery had approved HDV as a format for broadcast yet. My answer to him was yes they had looked at it, and no they did not approve it, and to give a list of formats they did approve.

Purely an informative post on my part , and should not be construed as an endorsement by me of Discovery's policies and procedures, nor those of any third party, now or in the future.

(Sorry, going through contracts all morning, and lawyer speak starts to pervade everything you do.) :)

A few caveats though (gah! can't stop it!), these are the the specs from 2004, when the only HDV camera available was the JVC GR-HD1U (the jvc one chip camera). So maybe once these new cameras show their quality, Discovery will re-consider.

I also think the relatively high guidelines are there to make sure their budget ends up on the screen and not in the producer's pocket. They don't want to give you a Digi-Beta budget, and then have you turn around and shoot it on DVCAM, and pocket the difference.

The decision to approve BetaSP I think is there as more a concession to reality not to quality. In so much as it's dominance as the ONE TRUE BROADCAST FORMAT for so many years, means that there is a huge amount of stock footage out there (and probably hundreds of thousands of hours in discovery's own extensive archives) and to dismiss all of that out of hand is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

They really really want you to shoot DigiBeta for SD (which I did) or HDCAM for HD. And I mean fair enough, DigiBeta gives you great pictures no doubt, and renting them is not completely out of the question.

They are very hung up on bandwidth (data-rate) as a measure of quality. HDCAM, DigiBeta etc. One of the engineers was talking about a show they did for DiscoveryHD about world capitals that was shot on HDCAMSR, and how beautiful it looked etc. I was thinking in the back of my mind about the feasibility of sneaking through the jungle with a full crew, generator, hard disk array etc.

So there does obviously have to be a middle ground, and like most things these days the middle is coming down in price.

Eventually the engineers will lose this fight for supreme quality only, simply due to the economics of it.

Tell the Discovery producer that your show you're co-producing with them (they hardly just buy shows outright these days) will cost this much if I shoot it on HDCAM, and this much if I shoot it on HDV, and see if they don't come around and have a word or two with the engineers.

In the early 70's "broadcast quality" meant it was recorded on "king quad". It's interesting to me that the term still exists. At any rate, my perception is that it's hardly a benchmark. Analog tv has played second fiddle to DVDs for some time now, and the quality of broadcast tv varies widely. The bar has been raised with HD, but the quality is still pretty inconsistent. What's a little troubling to me is that the technical issues being discussed here seem to have little to do with the final quality. Here's what I mean:

Most HDNet and DiscoveryHD stuff looks really good.

"Oscars". and "Emmys" looked good.

"The King of Queens" looks good, but that gawdawful opening is waaay too contrasty. Any HDV would look better - although maybe there's something artsy here I'm not getting.

"Joan of Arcadia" looks good until we go to the police station, then everything turns blue - again maybe the art thing?

While there are many filmed shows that look good, it seems like many are a little too contrasty, and a little too grainy - while we complain about the HD10. Some films are just downright soft. Maybe the artsy thing - I don't know.

On the other hand, did anyone see HD Net's broadcast of "The Music Man". That's from the 60's. Wow!

I vote for the demise of the term "broadcast quality". Blue lasers will make possible 1080p60. Maybe even the film folk might see a reason to increase frame rate.

While some may argue whether tv programming has advanced, there's no doubt technology has. And the future...

The term "broadcast quality" does have merit, I think.

It should be remembered that the video we receive in our homes must travel through lots of electronics after the signal is retreived from the master. Many steps along the way degrade the original signal.

Imagine a technician inserting a master at the network programming station:

Once the signal leaves the tape deck, it may travel through patch bays, switchers, audio equalizers, color correction, sharpeners, time code correctors; then another machine inserts closed-captioning into the video-blanking interval, maybe other data goes into the line-blanking interval, then signal may be amplified, digitized (many satellite feeds are digital, even if the programming originated as analog), transmitted, bounced off of a satellite, received, decompressed, converted back to analog, amplified, routed through more patch bays, composited with graphics (station logo, or "bug," time/temp, stock prices, weather alerts, etc.), run through more video processors (color, contrast, sharpen, VBI, etc.), more audio processing (compression, normalization, equalization, etc.), then transmitted on VHF/UHF to the home, or transmitted via satellite to a cable/dish provider who goes through the same process on their end.

Each little step modifies the original signal, and introduces error/noise (hopefully marginal) further destroying the beauty of the master. Adding in solar flares, radio interference (millions of sources are around us), less exacting engineers downstream, equipment malfunctions, etc., it's a miracle we get anything decent in our homes. And an all-digital pipeline experiences this problem, too, though we make it easy to change just the bits we want and not disturb the parts of the stream/signal that we shouldn't.

Since we know our signal will undergo significant degradation by the time the viewer sees it, our goal is to record our master in a much higher resolution than the end signal can actually encode. This way, we can degrade our signal but still end up with a beautiful work of art. The concept of "broadcast quality" tries to set this higher standard. If our technician started the above example with a signal equal in quality to what is literally "broadcast" into your room, the signal reaching the end-point could look just horrible. That's why some camera's and formats frowned upon by network engineers and programmers. They look great direct-to-dvd, or on your NLE, or maybe even on short-range UHF broadcasts. However, they degrade too much going through the pipeline like we looked at above.

Additionally, while networks may recognize the technical merits of un-approved formats, it is very expensive to maintain multiple workflows in their production pipeline to support them all. Camera are expensive. Decks are expensive. Scopes are expensive. Monitors are expensive. Software is expensive. Capture cards are expensive. Engineers are expensive. Training all of your production staff on using all of the other expensive stuff, in each format, is expensive. It's unreasonable to expect a network to pay for all of that. Life was simpler when everything originated on 16mm, or 35mm, or on studio cameras. I'm sure Discovery, and everyone else, would love to be able to support any and all formats (or even five, or ten). In a time of massive format proliferation, however, I think it's fair for networks--or any production/distribution company--to pick a format or two and stick with them.

Just my two cents.

Hi everyone.

Channel 4 in the UK has an excellent producer's section on it's website. Below is a link to a very detailed tecnical requirements document in PDF format. A thorough reading may answer some of the general points raised here ...

http://www.channel4.com/corporate/4producers/resources/documents/FullTechnicalRequirements.pdf

All the best ...

When video leaves the deck, it goes directly into a media server from where it is broadcast. The major loss in the system is either the conversion to an analogue signal that can be broadcast, and the broadcast of that signal over the air, and compression to MPEG2 for digital broadcasting.

Broadcast standards are basically there for a few reasons, but to account for the losses in the production chain should not really be one of them. I can sort of see the point for MPEG2 compression where you don't want to MPEG2 compress the same video over and over, as it will crumble very rapidly, but the broadcast MPEG2 compression is so viscious on even a pristine signal you have to wonder why a broadcaster would worry whether the picture in the home is poor because of compression out of their control as well as the over-compression that they apply.

The other main use of broadcast standards is to keep the price of TV production artificially high, for obvious protectionism reasons.

Graeme

If you look at JVC's website they say they are aiming this camera at broadcasting. Maybe it won't be used for Leno or CSI but I would have to think that the demand for high-def programs is going to be pretty big in the next few years and some kind of cameras will have to fill that gap. I guess it won't be only the panasonic HVX200 either.

JVC runs full page ads that aim their GY5000 at broadcast news too, but that doesn't necessarily mean TV news departments are sucking them up. A small, shoulder mount lightweight camera that runs forever on a battery and is cheap enough to be considered disposable by a TV station would, you would think, be a no-brainer. However, I don't think equipment is bought based on things like that in TVland.

I don't think they are aiming the HD-100 at news that much.

Apparently Bob, they are. They featured this camera at NAB in several configs, including one as an ENG cam tethered to a live truck which was also present in their booth. Part of their sales pitch made mention of using the camera in that capacity.

-gb-

I was reading something somewhere and it was talking about other stuff. But if it will do news that is good. Those news guys need smaller cameras.

Very interesting thread!
As for Discovery (as well as broadcasters in 44 other countries)... they all broadcast our documentary "Women are..." shot on a DVX100 (first generation) for World AIDS Day 2004. Delivery was on a DigiBeta tape (with clear mention that the originating footage was shot on DV...).
Bottom line, I agree, that content is king. This said, so is the quality of composition, lighting, sound, etc. If the complete package is good enough that programming and engineering departments don't get a chance to say: "what's that?" then you are ok.
We are currently preparing two new productions - one shoots in September, the other in October. The first is for the Clinton Foundation to be shot in Africa and the other an on-location talk show with five cameras. My current thinking is to shoot in HDV on the JVCs and then downsize to SD for output to broadcasters. I would have preferred the HVX but, alas, it'll be out too late.
In closing, I have no doubt that we will get both broadcast, my only hope is that the 'package' will be good. That the sound will be good, that the JVC will not, as rumours have it, have dead pixels, etc.
I will post elsewhere, but I do want to know if the JVC can sync sound with an external recorder. Don't think so but, like I said, another thread awaits...

Let's remember although Discovery is most Docco makers main target, the forthcoming availablility of iPTV and video on demand is going to create a whole new market for shows, where crappy bandwidth and mpeg 2 streams may not be such a factor.

Over here in the UK one of our main cable carriers has just stated that their minimum broadband package is going to be 10mb from later this year. That brings HD on demand a lot nearer.

I accept none of this is going to happen in the short term, but their is a revolution coming and HDV is going to fit in nicely in my opinion.

As for Discovery not taking DVCam originated material, I know at least 3 Producers in the UK who have shot their Discovery commissions on DV!

I do too...