I asked a question in the "Techniques for Independent Production" forum that no one has answered about whether there are any TV channels at all that accept HDV format as the primary format for a project (I believe that Discovery channel does accept HDV but for no more than 15% - DVCPro HD is more highly regarded, but not that much more). Is anyone here working on a V1U-filmed project that's aimed at national/regional TV broadcast, or is the minimum expected standard still an XDCam production?
Thanks
Greg

This has been discussed and answered extensively before. Not in Techniques for Independent Production though, but in HD / HDV Acquisition.

It all depends on which Discovery you're talking about... plain ol' standard definition Discovery, or Discovery HD? If it's Discovery HD, then yes there is a 15% cap on HDV originated material (but if it's a one-time submission and the cameras aren't seen, how would they ever know if it was shot on HDV). But if it's for plain ol' standard definition Discovery, then no there is no such restriction on HDV.

See http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80922 for one of those previous discussions.

Chris thanks for the link. I'm still curious whether anyone plans to use the V1U for a TV project.

Hi,

I do plan that, however I am aware that most HD channels do not accept HDV as source. What Chris told above made me think though.... Is there any way for them to figure out that the original shot was taken by a HDV cam? Lets say the edited movie would be printed on a HDCAM tape - is there any way to figure that the original was taken by HDV? (ok, original color space is different...but will they check that?)

is there any way to figure that the original was taken by HDV?

MPEG2 artifacts?

Zsolt,

A few months ago (September 06) when I still lived in Maryland.

I used to go to Communications Televideo, Ltd on Georgia Ave in Silver Spring.
This is located .5 miles from Discovery Channel World Headquarters and Discovery buys quite a lot of items from that Broadcast store.
This is a very well known 2 story PRO Video and Broadcast store (pro/ prosumer HDV and DV sttuff like FX1 HVX 200 and such on the first floor and the broadcast stuff upstairs DVCPRO and HDCAM and other Broadcast HD (XDCAM) stuff).

One day I oveheard a conversation. It seemed that someone had recentley talked to a Discovery person who had something to do with QC.

That person said that there were quite a few people putting HDV on HDCAM tape and trying to pass it as HDCAM. He said that QC could spot this (I have no idea how) and they would reject it. This is very reliable and credible info since it came from one of the senior guys in the brodcast department.

My take on this is that the MPEG 2 compression (as mentioned by Greg mentioned) could be what they go on.

I also believe that a lot of users in DC metro area were submitting stuff to Discovery HD since it is pretty much the biggest game in town for HD material to air on TV.

I think that Discovery was used to watching HDCAM in their production studios and when a lot of people sent FX1 and V1U (and others: XL-1H HVX200) footage the compression was a bit noticeable and they went to QC to find out why and the QC figured it out.

I guess the other outlets are local news stations (all the locals are broadcasting in HDin the DC metro are: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, etc.). But with the local news the footage may be a bit different in content. It seems that in the US all the local news channels are on HD in the majority of the areas. In Maryland I could get the ABC...FOX...NBC...PBS...CBS in HD...some of them have multiple channels (since HD gives you more channels) so I would get CBS in standard, 720 and 1080...

Hope this helps.

"Steadycam Merlin "Zsolt.... it's actually "Steadicam" and not "Steadycam". just thought i'd mention it..

My take on this is that the MPEG 2 compression (as mentioned by Greg mentioned) could be what they go on.

There's probably also a noticeable difference to the experienced eye in respect to sensor chip size used by these cams (i.e. half inch chip in the XDCam, two thirds in the HDCam compared to a quarter or one third inch chip in the prosumer HDV cams). I must say that now I've gotten a usable 24P workflow with the V1U on the Mac, I'm absolutely delighted with the picture quality, but prom a professional perspective, I probably need to start aspiring to an XDCam plus lens - time to remortgage the house again....

Zsolt.... it's actually "Steadicam" and not "Steadycam". just thought i'd mention it..

Stu - you are right, those folks might have issues with the right spelling :)
Nevertheless I corrected my signature.

Since the camcorder does have HDMI output, you can use this to bypass HDV and store your footage on the DVCPRO-HD codec.
http://www.decklink.com/products/intensity/
Not a portable solution by any stretch but it’s the best way to get your stuff accepted.

It is possible to eliminate a lot of the mpeg2 artifacts by shooting wisely and eliminating them with smart filters. But it does need time and care to do properly. Mpeg2 with the Sony encoders is pretty easy to spot, Canons a1 seems to do better in that regard.

I've had some ideas of PBS or cable documentary-style pilots I might do at some point. I wouldn't shoot the bulk of the material on a V1. If I ever get to the point where I want to do it, I'd buy an XDCAM HD camera. It just wouldn't be worth the risk shooting on a V1. A PDW-330 with an SD lens would run around $20,000, if you're serious about producing for HD broadcast that's the minimum I'd be comfortable with. That being said, the V1 would come in handy because the size might allow you to do things with it that you simply can't with a bigger camera. So long as it's used in a limited capacity.

I'm also guessing Discovery HD has had a lot of stuff submitted that was shot on the HVX-200 that they've also had to reject.

I'm also guessing Discovery HD has had a lot of stuff submitted that was shot on the HVX-200 that they've also had to reject.
Your footage still has a much better change of being accepted originating from the HVX200 than any other camcorder under 10,000 dollars. That is why I’ve always wanted one to shoot my stock footage in. I think the acceptance rate for the HVX200 is up to 25 to 30 percent of a program verses 15 percent of HDV although they may be more liberal now concerning footage coming from the HVX200.

I think the acceptance rate for the HVX200 is up to 25 to 30 percent of a program verses 15 percent of HDV although they may be more liberal now concerning footage coming from the HVX200.

Then there is a burning question popping up: why are these cameras called as "professional"? They are HD, they are called professional, yet in professional broadcasting they are not recognized.

Your footage still has a much better change of being accepted originating from the HVX200 than any other camcorder under 10,000 dollars. That is why I’ve always wanted one to shoot my stock footage in. I think the acceptance rate for the HVX200 is up to 25 to 30 percent of a program verses 15 percent of HDV although they may be more liberal now concerning footage coming from the HVX200.


I'd like to see credible evidence to support this statement. I am in possession of internal documents from more than one national broadcaster that places the HVX either on par with, or in a lesser capacity to, HDV. Having had personal discussions with many of these broadcast engineering teams, the same thing is voiced, both in Canada and the US.
On the other hand, I'm also aware of those same broadcasters having Sony and JVC camcorders in-house, being used for production in several situations.
Certainly not a primary cam, but...
Additionally, the shootouts by all parties biased and non-biased have placed all of the camcorders on par with each other, with very small subtleties between them.
Since the HVX is not a primary cam for us in any event other than needing overcrank, it's not fair for me to say that we've only had one HVX piece go to national vs dozens of HDV pieces, but we've had a LOT of HDV pieces going to air, part of a Superbowl spot being one of them, and an upcoming commercial being one of them.

Your footage still has a much better change of being accepted originating from the HVX200 than any other camcorder under 10,000 dollars.

You should know that if you shoot 24PN using the HVX, the actual compression-ratio is HIGHER than if you shot 720p24 HDV -- as in the commercial shown during the Superbowl.

Then there is a burning question popping up: why are these cameras called as "professional"? They are HD, they are called professional, yet in professional broadcasting they are not recognized.

I think they're legitimately called professional in some areas of work and are going to really take off in areas such as wedding videography, but it's only recently dawned on me that, commercials aside, you couldn't seriously base a production facility creating documentaries and wildlife work aimed at a major TV channels such as PBS and Discovery/History etc. solely on HDV. As Brett has mentioned above, I'm also now looking to acquire an F330/lens XDCam kit, otherwise I'm locking out major potential buyers. I could quite see myself using the V1U for shots where a smaller, high quality cam is needed for inserts and where hauling around a twelve pound XDCam is not practical.

I'd like to see credible evidence to support this statement. I am in possession of internal documents from more than one national broadcaster that places the HVX either on par with, or in a lesser capacity to, HDV. Having had personal discussions with many of these broadcast engineering teams, the same thing is voiced, both in Canada and the US.
On the other hand, I'm also aware of those same broadcasters having Sony and JVC camcorders in-house, being used for production in several situations.
Certainly not a primary cam, but...
Additionally, the shootouts by all parties biased and non-biased have placed all of the camcorders on par with each other, with very small subtleties between them.
Since the HVX is not a primary cam for us in any event other than needing overcrank, it's not fair for me to say that we've only had one HVX piece go to national vs dozens of HDV pieces, but we've had a LOT of HDV pieces going to air, part of a Superbowl spot being one of them, and an upcoming commercial being one of them.
My example was mainly for using the HVX200 as a B camera to coexist with much higher end cameras in programs from both the Discovery HD and the History channel. I didn’t mean every channel since this thread is about giving footage to the Discovery HD channel.

it never fails to amuse me that people expect the same results from a $7k camera as they'd get from a $20+k one.

nor for that matter, it doesn't how hard you try, dv / hdv never quite looks like 16mm.

i can spot hdv shots in a high end production with no problem - simple resolution. softer, not quite 'right'.

but, i guarantee you - shoot a unique, once in a lifetime event on dv, let alone hd, and discovery, history, et al will buy the material - padding it out with gorgeous hd talking heads, expensive animation and cg elements....

leslie

shoot a unique, once in a lifetime event ... and discovery, history, et al will buy the material

You can say the same thing about a special event uniquely caught by a low res phone camera - it immediately becomes important footage regardless of imaging issues - but that doesn't go to the issue of V1 general use for TV broadcast commissions.

I do think cams like the V1U will be very popular for ultra-low budget indie movies and weddings.

You can say the same thing about a special event uniquely caught by a low res phone camera - it immediately becomes important footage regardless of imaging issues - but that doesn't go to the issue of V1 general use for TV broadcast commissions.

I do think cams like the V1U will be very popular for ultra-low budget indie movies and weddings.


a volcano exploding on a mobile phone would make headlines, captured well on dv it could be the basis for an hour long, suitably enhanced, 'doco'...

i wouldn't limit it to just those examples, well thought out doco's that don't require 'money shots' al la discovery, are regularly shown on national broadcasters here. then again, australia in general prefers thoughtful, let alone beautiful doco's - no flames please - i get paid for shooting sd 4:3 for a national broadcaster - though they want 16:9 by end of year.

leslie

You can say the same thing about a special event uniquely caught by a low res phone camera - it immediately becomes important footage regardless of imaging issues - but that doesn't go to the issue of V1 general use for TV broadcast commissions.

I do think cams like the V1U will be very popular for ultra-low budget indie movies and weddings.


The bottom line really comes down to the bottom line. There ain't no free lunch. *if* your primary target is Discovery, then you'd better plan on shooting only XDCAM, Varicam, HDCAM, HDCAM SR, or open a very large piggybank and move up from there. Camcorders like RED et al might change that, we'll have to wait and see. If you have the only content anyone can get their hands on and it happened to be shot in HDV, on a cell phone, or with an old VHS recorder, it'll get it's 15mins of fame no matter what. The cell vid of Hussein's hanging demonstrated that already, in more depth than we need to discuss.
That said, we've already aired V1 footage on CNN, ESPN, ESPN 2, MTV, and more for more than one event shot with the V1. That's not our target market, it just happens that it all worked out that way. We process it fairly heavily in post as well, but we'd do that with most things, as most folks do.
HDV, HVX, etc all have their place. You're not going to get a quarter of a mil broadcast contract or package shooting HDV exlusively, unless there is a reason for it, such as say....skydiving or other extreme sport where the danger of the sport affects the choices in camcorders. American Chopper uses Z1's on occasion, so do other Discovery productions. It demonstrates the cams work well in those realms, but...no one is giving up their Varicams, HDCAMs, or XDCAMs anytime soon.