Broadcast approval for camera

[David C Wright]

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.

[Augusto Manuel]

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

Originally Posted by David C Wright

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.

[Kenn Christenson]

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

[Tommy James]

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.

[Jiri Bakala]

Originally Posted by Tommy James

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.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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.

[Bill Pryor]

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.

[Richard Alvarez]

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.

[David C Wright]

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.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

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.

[John M Burkhart]

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.

[Steve Connor]

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

[Graeme Nattress]

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

[Bill Pryor]

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.