HD250 for Discovery HD?
 

Ok, so now I've heard a rumor that Discovery HD will now accept the HD250 (and I assume the HD200) for full acquisition for their programs. I know D-HD accepts the Sony XDCAM HDs at 35mbps for acquisition, and they're kinda-sorta HDV, but I think the HD250 is a bit of a stretch. Is 720p60p that good? All programming is mastered to HDCAM, of course.
Discovery HD will accept some HDV, but for no more than 15% of an HD program's content. Even the Panasonic HVX200 can only be used for 15% content, and it shoots in DVCPRO HD. The last specification info I saw for D-HD was only updated to June, 2006.
If Discovery HD, which has some of the toughest standards in the HD industry, accepts the HD250, then that makes that camera the bargain of the decade.
Does anyone have any links to other HD cable channel production guidelines?

The deal against the HVX200 isn't because of the format it records but because it relies on pixel shifting to get HD res. The chips have only very little more actual resolution than SD.

If D-HD is accepting HD250 for acquisition I wouldn't be suprised if there was a caveat like "But it must be recorded using an acceptable codec through the HDSDI output."

Or maybe their beef with it isn't HDV itself, just the fact that HD100 only shot [frame rates as high as] 30p. If you're broadcasting in a 60Hz standard, it's pretty reasonable to restrict the amount of material that's only running at half the frame rate.


[edited for clarification]

Except D-HD is a 1080i60 which, of course, is 30fps.

D-HD accepts 720p60. A huge amount of their programmimg is shot in 720p60. (You can tell as it's slightly soft -- or "filmic" -- depending on your love of fine detail compared to HDCAM.)

Monster Garage shot half an epidsode with a Z1. Intercut with 720p -- it looked "different" but neither worse nor better.

The anti-HDV bias -- see Studiodaily BS -- works on FUD. Of course, Sony isn't going to fight for HDV beause it gains $$$ if only HDCAM and XDCAM HD/EX is approved. That leaves JVC and its customers to push for HDV acceptance.

So, D-HD will accept footage shot with an HD250? I'm still confused. Just because Discovery uses 720p60 doesn't mean they'll accept it from the HD250, correct? I think to them, HDV is HDV.
I don't know why Sony wouldn't want their own HDV cameras to be accepted at D-HD. That's just increased sales for them.
What is Studiodaily BS and FUD?

Maybe technically, but the look is closer to 60p due to the 60hz scan rate. I'm really suprised that anyone, especially a guy who does "digital video consulting," would compare 60i with 30p at all.

I always thought the reason networks didn't want the Prosumer HD cameras was because of Chip Size and Pixel Shifting, not the format (hence why the HVX200 falls in the same league). The Pixel Shift is a non-issue in the JVC.

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a little politics involved as well. It does serve to protect a higher standard of crewing, budgets and working. Whether or not that is a good thing...

Absolutely. This sort of thing is as much about ring-fencing rates, status and jobs as about delivering quality.

Hmmm... I'd go for the higher standard anytime. If you've got the budget you go for the best you can afford. Budgets and crew rates have suffered for quite a few years now, so I see little point in volunteering to shoot yourself in the foot. In the future, you might start complaining about not being able to get the crew rates up again.

If the budget allows you to use a better quality camera, you go for it. Just because you own a camera doesn't mean it's the right camera for every job.

Agreed but this is not about choosing gear but about excluding gear. Programmes should be judged on their quality not on the gear they were made with. I'm sure no one would say the ProHD cameras are the best thing around but they are capable of very high quality 720p production in the right hands (people who should be paid properly regardless) and no programmes should be proscribed purely on the basis that they were shot on HDV. At the end of the day we're not talking about high-end cinema, we're talking about a niche telly channel that gets broadcast without sufficient bandwidth to justify any premium/high-end ideas. It's also worth pointing out that standard HDCAM is hardly technical perfection and techie snobbery should have no place.

Since you guys insist on starting rumors and conspiracy theories about Discovery HD, I'm going to tell you how it is.

Discovery HD has a 'torture test' scene that they use for evaluation of camera/format. This scene is designed to break the codec.

They shoot the scene, then it gets encoded for satellite uplink. It's then brought back down from the satellite where it goes through a typical set top box decode and finally onto a consumer HD display. It's at that point where the engineers evaluate the quality and decide whether the acquisition format can withstand the entire broadcast chain without falling apart.

I suspect the reason that the JVC HD250 might be accepted are...

1. It's technically not 'HDV'. It's a shorter GOP structure which helps reduce motion artifacts, etc.

2. The fact that the 250 offers the higher frame rate recording.

Forget about the camera snobbery and other rumors of manufacturers not caring in order to protect the higher end of the chain. That's purely uninformed speculation.

-gb-

Brian, sorry, just to make myself clear, I agree with you, crews should be properly paid for their talent and equipment. My comment about whether keeping production budgets higher was deliberately vague - many producers would love to save money and shoot on ProHD. Cameramen who strive for the best possible image quality (and proper rates) may be glad that Discovery forces the production to use higher spec gear. Some will benefit from such a rule, others won't.

I think that having rules about "acceptable standards" is, overall, a good thing, as it prevents producers who don't understand the technical side of things forcing inadequate equipment on the crew. Like you say, you need the right tool for the job if you want the best results.

I gather that Discovery shoot a range of subjects and actions rather than just a static shot. The BBC is also being extremely tough because of the codec they're using for broadcasting HD. They regard HDV and Super 16 (although they're arguing about the latter) as standard def formats.

It's a scene that, even with a camera sitting static, is going to get quite the codec workout.

-gb-

Technically, it is HDV1 not HDV2.

I do not think that it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that a broadcaster might discriminate against cost-efficient technology or that any manufacturer of high-end technology would wish to protect that technology within their own range by limiting the capabilities of their cheaper gear. When a rival company comes along without a high-end product range and user base to protect, they can introduce relatively capable technology at a lower price and pose a considerable threat. FCP is just such a threat to Avid in the long run and the HD100 series of cameras is potentially a threat to Sony and Panasonic at a certain level of the market. Those are just two examples of direct relevance to this board.

It is clear that Discovery and other channels have technical quality control for good reason. It is also clear to me from years of finishing programmes for broadcast delivery, that tech. review specifications and other delivery guidelines are also very frequently infected by technical snobbery and by a desire to ring-fence a certain stratum of the industry. At the moment, HDV is falling foul of exactly the same silliness as DV several years ago. These days, a vast amount of respected TV programming is actually shot on DV or DVCAM. Is there anyone out there still seriously suggesting that DV is inherently not good enough for television? Economics come into play, the rules get bent and eventually everyone accepts that a given format is just fine for telly.

To my mind, it is absurd for HDV to be restricted by channels like Discovery - for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that HD channels seem to be rather less precious about the data rate/quality they actually provide for the consumer than about the gear that producers use.

Of course there is HDV material that gets done right, and mastered to HDCAM, it slips through just fine. But that's because the shooter knows the limitations of the equipment/format and doesn't push it to the point of exposing its weakness.

Believe me, I'm not anti-HDV. I think it produces beautiful imagery. There may in fact be some 'snobbery' involved as well. But DVINFO is not the type of forum where we engage in those types of accusations.

regards,

-gb-

Couldn't have said it better myself... let's keep it technical, please. Conspiracy theories and related internet fodder are best aired on one's own site / blog / whatever, but not here.

Is there anyone out there who knows if this is more than just a "rumor?"

Well, the intent of my original post was not to open discussions of conspiracy theories, or whatnot. I was merely looking for confirmation from more learned and knowledgable members on this board as to the technical merits of the HD250. I was - and still am - hoping someone has definite news as to the acceptance of this camera for the Discovery HD network. Googel and Yahoo searches have proven ineffective, nor is there anything on the JVC website. If there's anyone on this board who has direct contact to the JVC corporation, they might be able to gather more information. I am hoping, anyway.
My original question still remains. if the HD250 (and HD200) camera is accepted to the high standards of D-HD, then this is surely the best bang for the buck amongst all the available HD/HDV-capable cameras. I am looking to purchase an HD camera in the near future, and cost is certainly a factor. If the HD250 can shoot for Discovery HD, then it can shoot for anybody, as far as I'm concerned. For its cost, it would be a tremendous bargain.
For the record, I love the images from the JVC GY-HD line of cameras. But then, I'm not an engineer at Discovery HD. I'v never shot an HD program that was submitted for that network's approval. But it would sure be nice to have the equipment that would make that a possibility in the future.

On a purely technical level: If broadcasters that proscribe and/or set limits on HDV content accept material properly mastered to HDCAM which was originally shot on any form of HDV, it means that they are incapable of reliably telling the difference. This, in turn, means that anyone out there worried about or interested in this issue, should be re-assured that such 'technical' delivery requirements should be taken with a pinch of salt. For years, I have been given technical delivery schedules that rule out DV-acquired content. On every single film delivered to stations on DigiBeta, anywhere between 10 and 100% of the content was shot on DV or DVCAM. I feel that it is important that those who frequent the DVInfo boards who do not have this technical experience should be aware of this and not be unduly intimidated by technical delivery specifications.

Tech. specs are clearly there for a reason but an engineer that sets guidelines that he/she is incapable of verifying is going well beyond good practice into the realm of - shall we say - unhelpful.

Of course, anyone funding/commissioning a film has every right to specify the acquisition format. However, my considered opinion is that - whether the HD100 series is 'allowed' or not - these cameras are certainly capable of producing images that are good enough for HD broadcast and - in addition - capable of passing HD tech review. It is also worth noting that the quality of certain HD broadcasts often falls very short of what I would describe as a premium image - technically speaking, of course.

To Glen: Many members on this board have frequently proved that you can shoot beautiful HD images on this camera series, so my advice would be to go ahead and buy/use these cameras if you like them. If a channel that broadcasts HD really likes anything you've done, they'll buy/show as part of a decision based primarily on content, I'm sure. Give them a master on the format they specify, follow the delivery requirements for that master and you'll be fine. Producing stuff for commissions is another matter, of course.

I highly doubt that it's about preserving large crew requirements. For one thing, what large crew requirements? I know you film guys are all used to having 5 guys operating one camera but that's just not necessary for video. One guy can run the camera whether it's a PD-170 or an F900. Camera rental is a good chunk of the budget but what camera you pick really only affects the rental budget and not your crew requirements.

The issue is whether HDV running at 25 mbps can hold up through all the processing and transcoding that happens between when you shoot it and when the viewer sees it. No more, no less.

This debate seems to come round every once in a while.
The simple answer is that whilst these cameras are not approved for broadcast acquisition by the likes of the BBC or Discovery, there are in fact a great many shows that are entirely shot on these and other similar cameras.
The reasons are simple enough, even if the guidelines are complex or ambiguous. You can get great images with these cameras, but you can get better images with other cameras. You can test that both objectively and subjectively. However, if your footage is compelling enough and your camera was the best tool for the job, then it will pass.

If I had footage of Tony Blair and George Bush having a...(insert from your own imagination) ...then the BBC and Discovery would be delighted to broadcast it.

There is a longer answer and it involves pdf documents, lets not go there.

Liam.

One guy can also use a film camera and you can also have 5 people in a HD camera crew. The issue is the concatenation with all these different codecs.

For certain types of productions I'd imagine they'll make case by case exceptions, but for most productions XDCAM HD (or some of the new $20K cameras) is difficult to argue against on a budgetary level, especially with the new XDCAM EX coming out.

The number of people operating a camera has a lot less to do with abilities or nostalgia than it does with the demands of the situation. It's easy enough to pull focus,iris,and zoom on the shoulder on an ENG camera, with the ENG/doc look. But can you hit the exact same focus, iris and zoom pull 37 takes in a row on your own, with NO slop? Try pulling your own focus and iris on a steadicam, while dimming an obie light. Is it most efficient for the camera op to load and label his/her own tapes and tend his/her own batteries on a shoot that's a single 12 hr. day? How about on a dolly - can the op push the dolly, pull focus and frame the camera while raising and lowering the arm? It's certainly possible, but the point of division of labor is to do exactly that - allow people to concentrate on one or two duties with more accuracy and speed than a single person doing everything. 5 people running a camera isn't necessarily lazy, nostalgic, or stupid. If everyone is good at what they do, it's probably very efficient, accurate, and fast.. regardless of what camera they use. And again, crew size depend on the complexity of the shot.



Truthfully, if you're gearing up for a show that D-HD has bought, and you're trying to spec cameras, then this is a perfectly valid question. If you're sold on a particular camera's look and usability for the content you wish to produce, then it can sometimes be helpful to shoot tests and submit them to QC at Discovery. They screen footage and come back with a definitive answer if the footage is "good enough" or not.

If one is simply trying to shop for a camera, then I would avoid bandwagon reasoning. Because Discovery thinks x-y-or z camera is good enough, then why does that necessarily make it right for me? Does that mean I can't produce my own films or content with anything less than an F900? As it's been said by the majority of users here- most cameras, in the right hands, can look fantastic. If the content is good, and the camerawork is good, then few people will notice what format it was shot on.

Oh, and if you shot a series on spec on your own equipment, and D-HD picked it up, then congrats - they probably could care less what camera you used, they liked it. Nuff said.

Some of the recent posts in this thread have become argumentative and sorry to say, we don't do that here. Those posts are no longer in view. Take it to private mail.

Thanks,

Greg Boston

Is it possible that the limitation has to do with the chip size of these cameras, not just the format they record in?

Tests on the Canon XL H1 recording Cineform onto a Wafian from the HD SDI have given pictures that hold up against the Sony F900 recording onto HDCAM. So the 1/3 CCDs aren't the main limiting factor.

Since we are talking HD here, and virtually all HD monitors/projectors display progressively, doesn't it depend on how the monitor de-interlaces the signal? My understanding is that many systems combine the fields to create a progressive frame (at 30fps or for 24p originated material at 24p with repeat frames) and that the alternative of uprezzing a field of 540 lines to a full frame at 60fps looks worse.
With the popularity of 1080i for cable HD, I would hope there is a better decoding solution - I'd like to know (but will remain a progressive evangilist)
How does this get interpreted to modern non-interlaced displays?

I have no direct experience, but every interview with a DP who has looked at cinealta vs film has commented that it was the "way" film over exposed verses video. Video tends to hard clip.
so when these tests are run -- are they run in really harsh conditions?

This was the Scott Billups test, it didn't involve shooting any film (only the XLH1 and F900) as such, although I believe they did a film out. Rather, I was making a point regarding if the 1/3" sensor or HDV was the limitation. Basically, the Canon/CineForm held up extremely well against the F900/HDCAM.

Certainly, any of the F900 and HDW 750 Cinealta cameras I've used don't handle highlights as well as film.

With regard to Discovery HD, the primary limitation is the 1/3rd-inch sensor size, and not the HDV format itself. Case in point: Discovery HD places the exact same restrictions on video originated from the Panasonic HVX200, which is not an HDV camcorder.

assuming that this is all just speculation, will the XDCAM EX, with its 1/2'' chips then make it onto the list of "acceptable" cameras. it would be nice to be able to afford a camera with a form factor that i like (i don't like shoulder mounts) that actually meets broadcast standards, instead of all this backdoor mentality. i simply don't like all the sneakiness that's implied. i'd just like to be able to shoot a camera that meets their standards, in a form factor and at a price point that meets mine. i'd like these things to converge, finally....

I see no reason why it wouldn't be accepted since it has the same size sensors and recording format. The sensor limitation they have in place is likely due to limitations in dynamic range. But you're quite right, Meryem. It's speculation until the camera actually hits the streets.

-gb-

Hmmm... the HDX 200's sensor brings other issues.

The XDCAM HD EX seems to be targeted at the Discovery HD and BBC HD type market. Although, with the potential size and weight of a rigged out camera with mics etc it might work better on the shoulder.

However, this isn't the forum to discuss these two cameras.

Here's an article that Phil Rhodes did for "Showreel" about recording from the HD 250's HD SDI output.

http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?239

[ADMIN EDIT: In accordance with DV Info Policy, corrected URL link to point directly to Showreel article.]

Thank you Brian. I had to edit the external forum link in accordance with DV Info Policy.

I openly invite Phil to post his side-by-side comparisons of encoded 720P60 compared to HD-SDI capture on DV Info Net. Unfortunately we can't link to his frame grabs without his permission.

No problem, I didn't have the link to his article.

I'm not expert in that area, but I'd guess that TVs are using some form of adaptive deinterlacing that uses the "weave" technique on static portions of the frame and the "bob" technique on the moving parts of the frame. That way you get full vertical resolution in static scenes and full temporal resolution in moving scenes. Again this is just my guess, I haven't done the research since I'm not in the market for an HDTV. FUN FACT: I don't even own a TV period, spending a whole day shooting just kind of turns me off to the idea of watching even *more* TV, y'know?