"network quality" at DVinfo.net

Robert Bobson · June 5th, 2010, 09:08 AM

I've heard that some tv networks will only allow a certain percentage of footage in a program to be shot in HDV as opposed to HD.

How would they know? Just from the quality of the images? or is there some tell-tale indicator in the video signal?

thanks

Shaun Roemich · June 5th, 2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Bobson

How would they know? Just from the quality of the images?

Technically and aesthetically. They have engineers.

EDIT: VISUALLY, not aesthetically. Need more coffee...

Brian Drysdale · June 5th, 2010, 11:25 AM

The larger DOF found on HDV cameras would be one feature that might be spotted.

Robert Bobson · June 5th, 2010, 12:46 PM

I'm curious as to whether HDV signals contain (or lack) something that HD signals have?

or whether it's just a question of how the video looks - the subjective quality of the image.

Can a well lit HDV scene look better than a poorly lit HD scene?

If they're saying "only 25% can be HDV" - are they really saying "only 25% can be inferior looking imagery"?

Steve Phillipps · June 5th, 2010, 01:30 PM

The main problem is the compression. It's such a low bit rate that the images are massively compressed, and this makes the images fall apart when going through edit, grade and especially the transmission process. This is why your images played straight out of the camera might look better than stuff you see on TV and that's why people wonder why there's this limitation if their stuff looks so good.
Steve

Brian Drysdale · June 5th, 2010, 01:37 PM

The resolution on most HDV cameras is usually lower than the 2/3" HD cameras. There's the compression is a lot higher on HDV and the post production and chain can result in artefacts that certain TV channels rather not have in their flagship HD channel.

There are channels which will accept HDV and they'll also accept HDV on programmes like "Deadliest Catch", however, they write off a lot of cameras shooting that, so they're almost being used as crash cameras. So it can be a decision based on the story that you're trying to tell.

It really depends on how you define poorly lit, unfortunately, many productions that use 1/3" cameras are the ones that don't have much in lighting resources or have cameras operated by the researcher. They are also often being used in situations in which the film maker wants to keep a low profile, so lighting is often available light or basic.

Many of these HD channels mostly work on a commission basis, so the choice of acquisition format will be part of the discussions with commissioning editor.

Many people are shooting for these HD channels with one of EX1 or EX3 cameras fitted with a Nanofllash, which makes a lot of sense. Programmes for SD channels often use HDV or even DV.

Robert Bobson · June 5th, 2010, 02:52 PM

interesting.

Would using an intermediary format - such Prospect HD - during edit help maintain the video quality?

Brian Drysdale · June 5th, 2010, 03:23 PM

One work flow converts the HDV to decompressed HD which is then used for the online edit. You really don't want to go through too much transcoding, it can possibly introduce artefacts that weren't there in the first place when you go through the whole chain.

With the Sony EX series now available there really isn't a reason to use HDV on these HD channels except in specialised circumstances. Although, I imagine there will now be pressure for them to accept DSLR HD video.

There may also be an element of the networks protecting themselves from some of the pretty sloppy post production workflows and practises that some people use.

June 5th, 2010, 09:08 AM	#1
Robert Bobson Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bay City, Michigan Posts: 585	"network quality" I've heard that some tv networks will only allow a certain percentage of footage in a program to be shot in HDV as opposed to HD. How would they know? Just from the quality of the images? or is there some tell-tale indicator in the video signal? thanks

June 5th, 2010, 11:25 AM	#3
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	The larger DOF found on HDV cameras would be one feature that might be spotted.

June 5th, 2010, 12:46 PM	#4
Robert Bobson Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bay City, Michigan Posts: 585	I'm curious as to whether HDV signals contain (or lack) something that HD signals have? or whether it's just a question of how the video looks - the subjective quality of the image. Can a well lit HDV scene look better than a poorly lit HD scene? If they're saying "only 25% can be HDV" - are they really saying "only 25% can be inferior looking imagery"?

June 5th, 2010, 01:30 PM	#5
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	The main problem is the compression. It's such a low bit rate that the images are massively compressed, and this makes the images fall apart when going through edit, grade and especially the transmission process. This is why your images played straight out of the camera might look better than stuff you see on TV and that's why people wonder why there's this limitation if their stuff looks so good. Steve

June 5th, 2010, 01:37 PM	#6
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	The resolution on most HDV cameras is usually lower than the 2/3" HD cameras. There's the compression is a lot higher on HDV and the post production and chain can result in artefacts that certain TV channels rather not have in their flagship HD channel. There are channels which will accept HDV and they'll also accept HDV on programmes like "Deadliest Catch", however, they write off a lot of cameras shooting that, so they're almost being used as crash cameras. So it can be a decision based on the story that you're trying to tell. It really depends on how you define poorly lit, unfortunately, many productions that use 1/3" cameras are the ones that don't have much in lighting resources or have cameras operated by the researcher. They are also often being used in situations in which the film maker wants to keep a low profile, so lighting is often available light or basic. Many of these HD channels mostly work on a commission basis, so the choice of acquisition format will be part of the discussions with commissioning editor. Many people are shooting for these HD channels with one of EX1 or EX3 cameras fitted with a Nanofllash, which makes a lot of sense. Programmes for SD channels often use HDV or even DV.

June 5th, 2010, 02:52 PM	#7
Robert Bobson Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bay City, Michigan Posts: 585	interesting. Would using an intermediary format - such Prospect HD - during edit help maintain the video quality?

June 5th, 2010, 03:23 PM	#8
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	One work flow converts the HDV to decompressed HD which is then used for the online edit. You really don't want to go through too much transcoding, it can possibly introduce artefacts that weren't there in the first place when you go through the whole chain. With the Sony EX series now available there really isn't a reason to use HDV on these HD channels except in specialised circumstances. Although, I imagine there will now be pressure for them to accept DSLR HD video. There may also be an element of the networks protecting themselves from some of the pretty sloppy post production workflows and practises that some people use.