Betacam SP VS. Betacam SX

[Alessandro Machi]

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Pryor : I would definitely not put any money into Betacam SP or SX. Both are obsolete, and you'd need a deck for either one (although the SX deck will play Betacam tapes too). It's really not a good idea to buy into an obsolete format, especially Betacam SX because it wasn't out there all that long and I don't know of anyone who actually bought into it except for a few TV stations. -->>>

And yet, BetaCam SP is the BEST format for archive mastering your Digital Video Edit Masters when one considers the cost and quality of the BetaCam SP format and the video decks made for the format.

And I believe the BetaCam SP Video decks are still being made. Remember, you can shoot and edit digitally and still archive master to BetaCam SP, if you can afford the deck.

[Bill Pryor]

We're doing the opposite. We're dubbing old Betacam masters to DVCAM via component in and out of the decks. Last I heard, Sony had discontinued most Betacam decks, but I think one model was still being made. If so it won't be long before that is discontinued too. Analog is dying very fast.
We still have Betacam decks in the system, but anytime we have a Betacam tape in, or pull an old one out of the files, it gets transferred to DVCAM. The component-to-component transfer is almost indistinguishable from the original, and once it's digital, we can clone it via firewire with no further quality loss. When DVCAM eventually starts to go away, we can do the same thing from DVCAM to whatever the digital format du jour happens to be.
I would not buy a Betacam deck today, unless I needed to transfer all the masters to another format.

[Alessandro Machi]

The reason to dub to DV-CAM from BetaCam SP has more to do with being able to then go firewire into Non-Linear, and it does save space.

But if you are dubbing Edit Masters from BetaCam SP and then getting rid of the BetaCam SP Edit Master, the only reason to do that is for space purposes. If you can afford the space allocation, you better off keeping the BetaCam SP Edit Masters until a true, uncompressed DVD Recorder is made.

BetaCam SP is a more robust archival format then any of the lower cost digital formats.

The Sony BetaCam SP UVW-1800 is still being made and is still very popular. The Sony BetaCam SP PVW-2600, PVW-2650, and PVW-2800 are really fine machines. I don't know if they are still being made.

Sony also makes Digital BetaCam. Sony UVW-1800 still sell for at least half of what they were purchased for, the demand is very strong for the decks.

Does anyone know if Cable stations are using DV-CAM for air? That would be the best test as to a formats archiveability is if the Cable stations use it for commercials or for local programming.

[Mike Rehmus]

Oh I don't believe that any analog tape format is more robust than a digital storage format. Certainly not if you use DVCam tapes. Between the tape quality and the error correction and recovery, the digital tape should outlast the analog version by quite a bit.

And if stored quality is a major goal, then 50Mhz digital, either DVCPro or D-9 should handle that too.

AFAIK, some stations are coming directly off of DVD. Certainly for program material.

My local Comcast tech center will now accept DVCam masters but they dub it over to BetaSP because all of their editing gear is still BetaSP. They claim to be going to a massive change-over in the next few years but I do not know if that includes the program storeage. I'd more readily believe they are going to hard disk storage for program material.

They do say that the Silicon Valley Comcast tech center can accept commercials on CD.

It won't be long before they will start accepting short video clips like commercials as email. Then they can consolidate their tech centers.

Locally, Comcast sends out camera crews with DSR-300's

[Alessandro Machi]

Analog has a 25 - 30 year head start on DV and those tapes are still fine. I have a 3/4 archive tape that was given to me that is from 1979. It still plays perfectly.

The chemical make-up of BetaCam SP is superior to Digital tape. OK, that's just my opinion.

I've had two BetaCam SP tapes rip in 10 years of BetaCam SP use. Both tapes that ripped were actually operator error, the two tapes fell on top of something that put a rip in them. Something landed inside the protective flap.

Here's the amazing part, one of the two tapes had a rip that spanned 4/5 of the way across the tape. I didn't know the tape was ripped and continued using the tape. I would fast rewind and fast forward. I noticed a funny sound coming from the machine when it got to that part of the tape, but the point is the tape would not rip the rest of the way even though it went over the heads at least a dozen times before I discovered the problem.

I've heard that digital tape is really really thin. Have I heard wrong? If the tape is really really thin, then what overrides this factor that allows for the tape to be more durable than a robust BetaCam SP tape?

[Bankim Jain]

Well it seems like WWF

-> THE BIG DADDY DIGITAL v/s the over grown puppy analogue <-

Well lets hve a break. The guys who have old gear like Beta SP etc can do nothing but to continue use their gear and when they wish to ad on more they are left with just one choice CALLED DIGITAL and when they ever will do so they wouldnt ever stop praising about the Digital format which surely have lot os superlatives over its BetaSP. I am not treating BetaSP as country cousin I have grown up playng with my Father's Umatic then Beta SP gear say since 1988. Those who dont buy digital will continue baiting their money on vintage second hand Analogue gear !

Guys we should accept the change gracefully. Digital is to rule the roost and analogue has to give the way to the Digital Brigade... !

The Digital tapes as one mentioned is thin really thin as comparared to BetaSP but one should not forget that the Digital is not developed to be editing in Linear fashion instead they ae to harness the rw beat called Non Liner Editing...so question doesnt arises of it longitivity onshelf. I have had my first digital gear in March'03 and now i am using hard disk recorders like FS3...digital media has given us unlimited flexibility which no one would have ever dreamt of in the Analogue Era (I call t Era cause it is fased out and its the Digital Era !)

If by any way digital is not as good as analogue then why the would the betaSP guys be longing to use D30 or D35 or latest D50 instead of DXC537/37 etc ! Boss Digital is teh ey to development. PERIOD !

Yes one can say i am a very happy Digital platform user...!

[Alessandro Machi]

I don't see the two formats in conflict with each other. I do see a bit of over exuberance on the part of digital users who never comprehended or got a chance to appreciate the value of INSTANT color correction knobs and buttons both on betacam sp video decks and digital switchers such as the MX-50.

I'm not talking about digital "effects", I'm talking about making a picture look as good as possible and do it in a very fast manner.

I know that Final Cut Pro-4 has taken huge strides in the area of color correction but I'm not convinced it is as fast as using knobs and buttons.

Wouldn't it be something if NLE systems actually created an interface keyboard that allowed instant correction of the NLE image without having to do any mouse clicking.

[Margus Kivilaan]

i'm going quite far off topic now
in theory it is not possible to build a digital system what cannot be exeeded by analogue. digital signal contends always a mistakes because of quantisation and sampling. but that's very theoretical because such a analogue system will cost too much. it's all tied up to money

my fivepenny...
Margus

[Alessandro Machi]

Perhaps for the first generation this could actually be true. But as I say, Analog Origination, Digital Destination.

[Bankim Jain]

So lets put down the curtains shoudlnt we....!

Long days of discussions for no good end result :o(

What did we proove out of these three pages......

[Mike Rehmus]

<<<-- Originally posted by Alessandro Machi : I don't see the two formats in conflict with each other. I do see a bit of over exuberance on the part of digital users who never comprehended or got a chance to appreciate the value of INSTANT color correction knobs and buttons both on betacam sp video decks and digital switchers such as the MX-50.

I'm not talking about digital "effects", I'm talking about making a picture look as good as possible and do it in a very fast manner.

------------------------
There is nothing limiting color correction to analog signals.
------------------------

I know that Final Cut Pro-4 has taken huge strides in the area of color correction but I'm not convinced it is as fast as using knobs and buttons.

-------------------------
Most NLEs have color correction available and, like audio amplitude controls, can be set for discrete sections of video or the entire timeline. This color correction on real-time systems is in real time—no rendering needed—and can be effected on the video signal as a whole or only on highlights, or mid-tones, or shadows. There are few analog systems that accomplish that.

Furthermore, although some NLEs can do it all in real-time, the operator has the luxury of determining the changes at any speed they wish.

So if you wish, you can Color Time the entire timeline just as they do with Hollywood films.
--------------------------

Wouldn't it be something if NLE systems actually created an interface keyboard that allowed instant correction of the NLE image without having to do any mouse clicking. -->>>

---------------------------
I think that would be a step backward ONLY IN THIS SENSE:

A mouse is a generic tool that can be used to adjust or select anything presented in a soft menu. It is kind of the Crescent-Wrench of user interfaces.

Once you start creating keys and knobs to do the job, you increase the expense and frequently limit the scope of the interface. A mouse has no such limitations as long as one can change the on-screen menus.

That said, I do like having some specialized controls. The Contour Shuttle-Pro is an example.

Bankim, discussion and disagreements are quite good, frequently adding to the knowledge of the participants, and may benefit folks who just read the threads and don't participate.

[Bankim Jain]

Ri8 u r Mike !

[Alessandro Machi]

I do agree that the time line color correction is an excellent tool. So if you shoot an event that has non-changing visuals, or your camera position remains static, or your camera was off in color in a similar manner all the way through, the NLE system is terrific for fixing and changing the color for each camera literally in an instant.

However, for "two-camera shoots" where the cameras are stationary, I get amazingly good results by using my MX-50 and the built in clip and set-up level with additional color wheel adjustment.

My criticism of NLE color adjusting is directly related to shoots where the camera person is running and gunning and virtually every shot is from a new angle and position.

I can adjust those shots faster with knobs and buttons than on an NLE system. The White elephant in the room has less to do with whether digital is better than analog and more to do with how much the editor has to "pee" on the cinematographers work so they can take credit for it.

I prefer to put the majority of my energy into making the shot look the best it can look rather than adding all kinds of effects so that I can remind everyone how much "better" the video is because of post production techniques.

Now, in the name of broadcast and ratings purposes, peeing on the cinematographers work is essential for a television shows survival, and I stay out of that arena.

[Mike Rehmus]

<<<-- Originally posted by Alessandro Machi :

I prefer to put the majority of my energy into making the shot look the best it can look rather than adding all kinds of effects so that I can remind everyone how much "better" the video is because of post production techniques.
-->>>

As does everyone. But it isn't always possible in real world situations.

And there are needs of a production that cannot be met during the shoot and if they were, would lock in an effect or color balance that later may not work. I speak of, for example, making a scene slightly cold and then tapering off to a warm appearance as the mood transitions.

And and, if you are making changes in the VTRs in the control room during post, how is that any different from doing it in the editing program?

My preference is to always make the best and most neutral footage possible because that then allows choices when editing. That is, I get to change my mind without having to reshoot the footage. I can also re-purpose the video without having to accept prior choices.

Even Hollywood is starting to make a large number of their movies by using Digital Intermediaries to edit off-line and then using the EDL to direct the cutting and processing of the master film. If it weren't more cost-effective and, more importantly, didn't generate better results, they wouldn't do it.

[Alessandro Machi]

There are differences in the way shots are color corrected. What I have found to be the most effective way of all is to lay down the shot onto the edit master.

I then color correct my source tape footage and I "preview" the identical edit over the already laid down version of the shot. As I preview the shot I hit video insert on and off and the result is a completely in sync method for instantaneously comparing what exists with a new possibility.

Keep in mind the actual color correction that includes clip, set-up, hue, color intensity and brightness all takes between 10-20 seconds.

I totally agree with you about making the footage "neutral". It's scary because sometimes the client expects "more" yet you know that it's best to not lose choices later by over committing on a certain look now.