Deck control and time code issues

[Charles Roberts]

I appreciate your book and knowledge and presence. I'm not trying to provoke you, and frankly, this is unproductive. I'm not going to cut in the HDV color space and in a native HDV codec. The shoot tape is the last time I want to be in the HDV codec. I'm not bringing up 'professional' or 'practical' or 'prosumer' or any of those code words. I want to cut and correct in my output I frame format, which is not going to be in HDV, you can be sure. I want to use the freakin 422 port that JVC was kind enough to put on the deck. I want to rely on TC, which is still on the tape for a good reason. Why is this bothering people so much? I have a good workflow that does what I want. Good lord.

I haven't gotten any math wrong at all, and I'm fully aware of the super low data rates for HDV and higher ones for uncompressed SD and compressed/uncompressed HD. I never said anything about bringing it in through Firewire HDV. I'm fully aware of Firewire DV and Firewire HDV and use of capture cards and RAIDs and up/down/cross-conversion and color space and sample ratio and media manage/consolidate and all that crap. You do too, and probably everybody here does. That isn't my point.

We indeed work 6:1 ratios in uncompressed SD or DVCPRO HD, sometimes more sometimes less. We ingest through Decklink and either down-convert or upconvert and then work natively in an output format. We bring online from shot logs. We don't worry about burnt hard disks because we have RS 422 and TC and a project file. Yes we shuttle tapes to capture good clips. Haven't seen a tape drop out yet. In my experience with DV tape, drop outs occur before they get to the deck. Never seen one from use in a deck by people who know better than to drop them on the floor.

Dig, if you want to work in an HDV sequence and I/O through FW, go nuts. It sounds perfect for you. Its certainly one of a number of ways to work, and it must do exactly what you want. But please leave me out of subsequent discussions on the subject. I'll post back if JVC gets me any info about the deck issues I had in a new thread since this has gotten WAY off target of my posts about the deck issue I encountered.

[John Mercer]

"At a 6:1 ratio that's 180 minutes of tape (9GB/hour native HDV) to keep on-line. That's 27GB -- less than an iPod. You don't need to be rich, just able to multiply correctly."

Steve,

I think you have an entirely legitimate point about a native HDV workflow that does not involve offline/online conforming, but why make it at the expense of those who need and want to use offline/online with TC?

In broadcast TV, which I work in, it is almost mandatory to need TC that works for re batch digitizing - if only to protect against system failure. For Avid, which we use, their 'Total Conform' strategy makes sense for us. I want to be able to digitize and playout any format with frame accuracy and to recapture if necessary via RS422 contolled decks reliably day in day out and then take my tapes to a DS or Symphony HD suite and online to HDCAM.

For HD with HDV originated material very few NLE solution work end to end particularly in Europe at the moment. Cineform looks great but I personally cannot bear to use Premier Pro or Vegas. Avid Liquid seems to very well for 25p but I am not very familiar with it.

When Avid gets to grips with HDV properly (i.e. 25p and full HD monitoring/digital cut) its ability to integrate native HDV with the excellent DNxHD codec and DVCPROHD/SD uncompressed etc. will be a great boon to us and as an end to end finishing workflow will work in the way you suggest but we will still need TC implementation to function correctly.

Therefore can you please please stop inferring that TC in HDV does not matter - it may not to you but it does very much to those of us who need it and that certainly includes broadcast professionals.

Many thanks.

[Jiri Bakala]

Originally Posted by John Mercer

... can you please please stop inferring that TC in HDV does not matter - it may not to you but it does very much to those of us who need it and that certainly includes broadcast professionals.

I second that motion...TC is here to stay for some while.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Try these setup changes and see if it helps.
In XP's device manager, change the serial port settings to:

Data Bits 7
Parity Odd
Stop Bits 1

It's what we have to do in Liquid to control BetaSP.

[Steve Mullen]

Will folks please read posts accurately!

I never said TC was NEVER needed -- I said IF you wanted TC, you had to use the VTR and RS-422 control.

This was based upon Sean claiming: "My last note on this issue for now is to point out that Avid still insists, according to their supported hardware list, that the HD100 camera cannot use capture from TC (no setting in, out points to capture) or batch capture at all from the camera. That could be read potentially as Avid stating that 1394 deck control is not to their liking."

In short, according to Sean, if you want to use 1394 with camcorder or deck -- you must work the way I'm recommending without TC because you can't use TC. Thus, I'm simply saying if Avid doesn't support TC with 1394 it is pointless to argue that they "should" when they clearly state -- according to Sean -- that they "don't."

So that leaves the VTR as the only path for those who do need TC. According to Sean "The BR-HD50 deck still hasn't made the list of acceptable hardware at all."

Now if Avid is correct about their own list and Sean is reporting what Avid says correctly, then one can logically say:

1) no TC via 1394

2) TC only via RS-422 from VTR

3) Avid doesn't support the VTR

4) Hence, there is no TC possible using Avid.

Therefore, at this point, the only way Avid supports HDV is using the workflow I advocate. Now if you reject that flow -- which is fine by me --then you need to find a different NLE.

This position is supported by Charles who reports: "The serial control and TC and capture has been dead on every capture on both our decks (we are using FCP and RS 422 and decklink capture card). Picture is great, captures are accurate."

THIS WOULD SEEM TO END SEAN'S THREAD.

--------------------

However, Charles brought up the "MUST HAVE TC" issue -- bringing to life an issue that was weeks old. Don't bring up a closed issue if you don't want it reopened! Or, more particularly, don't bring up a closed issue claiming that the reason you must have TC is because you aren't rich -- when your conclusion is based BOTH upon a math error and a rant on not using native HDV.

Because now you've opened another topic in a thread on "Sean's VTR problem" -- the supposed inability to work in native MPEG-2. To make a blanket statement about native HDV shows little deep thought about this issue.

But let's assume I agreed with you. An intermediate codec (like AIC) can still be used with a 7200rpm FireWire drive. Your 30 minute program sources will still fit on a 300GB drive at a 6:1 shooting ratio. So, your statement about WHY you need TC remains as wrong as it was when you made it the first time.

------------------

LASTLY, no matter what NLE and no matter what TC support you get, you will NEVER be able to Assemble or Insert edit to any HDV tape. Not possible. So the whole rant about needing TC for HDV export was a waste of breath. If you need this capability you can NOT use HDV.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

[Greg Corke]

Hi Everyone,

I've seen this thread a few times and never looked in until now, just as well it all sounds pretty contraversial. Anyway, just thought I'd come and lower the intellectual tone a bit, so here goes;

1) I've just started to timecode stripe my first tape, however, Judging from the above am I right in thinking I don't actually need timecode?

2) I was kinda wondering what the timecode through firewire thing was? I saw a bit about it in the manual but didn't really get it. Now, flicking through the above, I'm kinda getting the idea you can add time code on capture through firewire, am I getting warm?

3) However, I'm currently shooting sd 25p and capturing on premier 6.5 so is the whole 'do need, don't need timecode thing relevent?

Okay, you can all have a good laugh now.

Happy New Year, Greg C.

[Sean McHenry]

I'm going to try to refrain from contributing any more noise to this thread as it just isn't going to help.

Here are my potentially final words.

There is a real and genuine disconnect between folks who want to use HDV for true, multi-suite, traditional post processes and those one man, single suite folks that do it all themselves (and all my best to those folks too, been there).

Basically the workflow issues with HDV are forcing a major change in how a real post facility has to cope with NLEs and HDV material, at least with gear that doesn't work seemlessly with TC and 422 control (despite them being a function of the recording process and the manufacturers putting the hardware and connection points on said hardware). Why include TC at all. Why make it so we can preset time code or gen lock TC from various sources if it doesn't apply or if folks seem to think it is a dead issue?

So what we have is a class distinction Karl Marx would surely recognize. The higher level old school post facilities, like my day job, need and in fact demand, correctly functioning time code and RS422 control for their gear. The single suite folks really don't seem to care then? I think some do but perhaps for the most part they don't?

I do know that if I am given a raw tape and the producer want's a TC window dub on VHS to make an EDL, even if it's just in the form of paper notes, it better be accurate or it's a waste of time. If I am doing anything longer than a few minutes, I want to be able to batch capture the proper segments of my tapes, not the entire duration of all my tapes, just to locate a single shot on each one.

I think the level of "expertise" on the forums is interesting. We can sort of see who is thinking like a post professional and who is "just making it work". Unfortunatly, a thousand people just "living with it" will never get it to change. A thousand professionals demanding proper tools will probaby be heard and maybe get some results. I'm all for the pros demanding tools that work right. Doesn't matter to me if its JVC or Avid or FCP or Liquid...I don't care really. I can say that if it doesn't work in a professional atmosphere, it isn't really professional now is it? I will resist change that detracts from the professional methods that have been established by a long list of folks who have been doing this for a long long time.

Is there room, or a time to change the working methods of any system? Sure. You bet there is. Making it less professional isn't the way to do it however.

HDV is getting better as better tools are developed - and we are all on the edge of this wave. It's a wave where a few of us are going to wipe out and a few will make it to the beach. Some of us will make it because we just can't sink. Some will make it on sheer will power and some of us will make it because they are just plain lucky. I can live with that, but I want to make it because I know that what I am doing is the right way to do it, not on luck.

Anyway, we see the divisions in the system pretty clearly now. I just wish we were all in the same boat paddeling this thing in the same direction.

Sean McHenry

[Jiri Bakala]

Originally Posted by Sean McHenry

Unfortunatly, a thousand people just "living with it" will never get it to change. A thousand professionals demanding proper tools will probaby be heard and maybe get some results.

I cannot agree more!
Jiri Bakala

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Sean McHenry

I will resist change that detracts from the professional methods that have been established by a long list of folks who have been doing this for a long long time.

If that's true, then Sean, you don't beleive in DV.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Panos Bournias]

Coming back to the drop outs that occur at the final printed back to tape project:
We got the Avid update 5,21 and there are a few things that really work better.
But we still get drop outs while printing back to tape.
The M2T looks perfect on the descktop and while is playing on the monitor during the rec. but when we play back is full of drop outs.
We do not have a problem of control the BRHD50 via firewire, everything works... fine.
We exported to tape using the HD Link program and the drop outs were even more.
We transcoded the project in DNXHD75 not to have layers and potentially unrendered effects and the drop outs were there.
We copied the M2Tfile, 32min - 4,2 GB, and we tried on a mac, the drop outs were there.
We end up with the conclusion that the drop outs are a problem of the BRHD50.
Now we gave the copy of the M2T file to Avid - Jakarta and we wait to see if they will succeed to get it exported back to tape without these defauts.
I ask again people that experience same problems:
Does anybody has a remedy for the problem.
It looks like that we are unable to deliver the project back in HDV 720p format, printed on a tape.
Our clients want to project the movie using an HD projector and the small JVC HD spooler.
Final experience: We exported via Canopus Edius - Same problems. We used a second BRHD50 - Same problems
Panos Bournias

[Jiri Bakala]

Here is an overview of Avid support for JVC HD equipment:

On 11/23/05 – Added JVC HD-100, Sony HDR-FX1 PAL, Sony HDR-Z1U, Sony HDR-HC1, and Sony HDR-HC1E to the HDV Devices under High Definition.

Specifically:

HD-100:
Frame rates: HDV 720/29.97P, DV30i, DV 25i PAL, DV 24Padv, DV 25P PAL
Control: 1394
IN and OUT captures and batch captures are not supported due to TC limitations
Capture: On the fly only
Digital cut: not frame accurated in HDV
Support since: MCA HD 2.2, XPRO HD 5.2 (PC only)

HD-50:
Fully supported for SD ONLY since Meridien, incl. support for RS422

So, really, until Avid adds the hardware to their list, if it works it's really a bonus. I sure hope they will add it soon...:-)

[Panos Bournias]

Yesterday JVC updated my spooler with a new software that will be available at the end of January. This was a beta version and was tried on my spooler as I have the pressure to deliver the project this week. We exported to tape with no drops this time, so I hope that this is the solution that I was waiting for. I have seen the e-mail sent by JVC and it was written that this update is for the better performance of the BRHD50 with Avid.
So I hope that this update solves other problems that occur during the operation of the spooler. Thats all. I
am happy because finally I can deliver a project without dropouts.
Panos B

[Sean McHenry]

I have been in touch for a while now with one of the Engineers at JVC. He confirmed by e-mail today that there is a software update that specifically targets issues with RS-422 control on the BR-50 HDV decks. He will be working on the upgrades for our decks in the near future.

Also, they have replaced one of our HD-100 cameras as we had a failure to record TC and audio, in DV mode, even though the shooters were able to monitor both during the all day studio shoot. More on that in another thread.

Hopefully this RS-422 upgrade will allow Avid to add the deck to their qualified list, and actually correct any 422 control and ultimatly TC issues.

Sean McHenry

[Steve Mullen]

One very positive aspect of Avid is they really know video and the try very hard not to release anything that could screw-up someone's production.

As soon as you said the deck was not approced my guess was that Avid ran into problems in testing. They contacted JVC and said YOU have a problem with our standard way of working with RS-422. We will not change our code base -- you supply some software to us.

Looks like JVC responded and this may allow Avid to certify the deck giving you and the others the TC they need.

I'm not sure if TC will be supported by Avid when 1394 control is used. Avid may decide the 1394 verses RS422 control is the dividing line between the traditional post operation and the one-person post operation.

Apple makes this distinction between FCE using AIV and FCP using HDV.

[Sean McHenry]

That very well could be how it shapes up. We will have to see what Avid does next. I think they will certify the deck when this is straightened out. Can't see why they wouldn't.

Once they do that, we will all be much happier.

Sean