EX1 for National Geographic?
 

Hello,

We're busy with (very early) preparations and meetings for a documentary for National Geographic, and we wanted to know if an EX1 is allowed for 100% as shooting format, XDCAM HD EX.
After a long search on Google, I couldn't find the technical sheet from National Geographic with technical demands. I've seen those floating around this forum a couple of time, but I couldn't find it back.

If anyone has the link to the sheet or list, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and best regards,

Discovery
 

Not able to locate the National Geographic spec, but found the Discovery Tech Spec at
http://www.videoscope.com/pdf_files/...DSpec.logo.pdf

Thanks, Arild! I've heard Discovery is owned by National Geographic, so it gives us a more concrete idea about what to expect. Seems that XDCAM EX is allowed in HQ for Discovery.

Actually
 

Discovery is not owned by National Geographic. It's owned by Discovery Communications, LLC in Silver Spring, MD. National Geographic Channel (actually Discovery Channel's rival) is owned by National Geographic Television & Film (50%) and News Corporation (50%).

Can't you just call the client and find out..

I am not sure if it matters, but you might need to consider that XDCAM HD and XDCAM EX are different. Perhaps to the client it doesn't matter.

XDCAM HD includes the PDW-F335, F355, and 700.
XDCAM EX includes the EX1 and EX3 only

Convergent design ...
 

I will be picking up the nanno/flash unit because it offers 4.2.2 50 meg and 100 meg recording and that falls well within specs of every broadcaster. XDCAM HD is 4.2.2 ~ 50 meg recording.

In the Discover HD guidelines it states:

"Discovery HD requires programs to be mastered in the 1080i 59.54 signal standard."

Can anyone tell me what the "59.54 signal standard" is? How would one achieve that for delivery?

I was on a National Geographic shoot less than a month ago and the EX1 was at the time NOT allowed for 100% acquisition. Things can change that quickly but that's what I was told.

I'm not sure about the EX3. This may differ if you use a less compressed recording chain such as the Nano Flash or use high end 15K+ lenses on the EX3. But the EX1 is only allowed for I think 10% of the footage for HD programming.

Silly question, but what if you used Clip Browser to convert the EX files to HD 422?
Who would know the difference then?

I assume you're referring to the Discovery Channel pdf spec sheet.

That looks like a typo to me as right below it the manuscript reads, "1080i 59.94" which is the correct spec. There is no "59.54" field or frame rate. The Sony EX1 and EX3 both shoot at this spec in their HQ 1080/60i mode. Mastered usually refers to the "master tape" i.e. the format it was acquired in.

format ...
 

Isn't that HD Cam SR for Discovery?

The quality control tech guys could tell. They have audio/video spec tools and know what to look for...or at least they should. You may be able to sneak something by them but I personally wouldn't risk my reputation by doing that.

If you look further down the sheet they list the formats that are accepted. XDCAM HD at 35Mbps and DVCPro HD are amongst them. And even though HDCam is really only 1440x1080. Full raster 1080 is still a relatively new format.

I remember seeing that XDCam EX in its HQ modes were acceptable for 100% general HD programming (Silver status) but not for high end (Gold status) stuff. Which is what HDCAM SR would probably fall under.

By the way I am not speaking as an expert for Discovery or National Geographic. But their headquarters are both in my neck of the woods and I know people who work for them...so, yeah. Grain of salt and whatnot. I would call up NatGeo if you're working for them...it should only take a minute or so. If you're doing something on spec that's a whole other ball game.

Nat-Geo or Discovery
 

Bottom line: If you have THE footage, they'll buy it, regardless of the bit rate, format or camera. It's been done. But hey - it's just a phone call to verify.

It is not only bit rate that determines their tech spec. I think the EX1 is superb and use it all the time. When compared to an HDCam fitted with a full broadcast Fujinon high Def lens there is a difference - you do get something for the extra money. Now - perhaps an EX3 with a full high def lens may fool the people all of the time with a convergent design recorder added to the mix.

Yes, and the specs specifically allow for up to 15% to be shot on an HDV camera or an HVX200. The allowance also includes SD upconverts.

So if THE footage of the exploding volcano is neccesarily on HDV, that's allowed for - just don't try and sneak in all the interviews on a 1/3" camera.

Bruce, in what way is the lens on an EX1 not a "full HD lens"? I think you'd be surprised at how little difference you'd see on an EX3 bewteen the stock lens and any other HD lens. What part of its spec does not qualify as HD? And what are the "proper HD" lenses you're talking about - pretty all the ones I've used are well short of perfect.
Steve

But in the pdf it says that the 35mb/s version of the codec is allowed, at that is just HQ on the EX1, right? Is there another difference between the codecs?

EX cameras are 1/2".

we are getting ready to a 16 1/2 hour show for a public tv station, I believe if they want you to have the specs they will direct you to a page or pages on their site, which most can't get to, and it will give you all the specs for delivery to them, the reason they don't give out the site info because they are usually deluged with 100's of projects. once we had the go ahead, they gave us the info.

Steve, The Fujinon 2/3 inch lens is sharper around the edges and there is less barrel distortion but then it costs £10k. I am not knocking the EX1 lens I think it is superb, I have just started cutting an SD project with HDCam/Digibeta/EX1/Z1/and BetaSX, the EX1 pictures look superb and integrate well with 'pro' formats. My comments were aimed at those thinking of trying to pass off EX1/3 pictures as what they are not. In the end as stated elsewhere the broadcasters will use any format if it suits them.

WhenI was at IBC in September the word on the Sony stand was that
National Geo/ Discovery had anounced that the EX3 in 35Mb/s could be used for 100%
acquisition.

Bruce, how can you compare 2 lenses on completely different cameras, doesn't make any sense as there are so many other factors involved. If you put the 2/3" Fuji on an EX3 my guess is that the EX3 standard lens would look better in fact.
Steve

Steve, I am only commenting on pictures I look at on a decent monitor produced by the various cameras. As an editor my observations are subjective not scientific. I have just been looking at EX1 material down converted to SD that beats BetaSX pictures shot with a 10 year old Fujinon broadcast lens into a cocked hat.

Understood Bruce, but I'm just saying that it makes no sense to say that an EX1 looks worse than a 2/3" camera and think it's something to do with the lens. You said "perhaps an EX3 with a full high def lens" but I think you'd find that the lens would be the least important factor in the equation.
Also, none of the Fujinons that I've seen in the £10k range have been much to write home about, mediocre at best I'd call them, same goes for most HD lenses short of the seriously expensive ones.
Steve

.

I'd say one of the best quotes on the matter in relation the EX1's built-in lens. I can't remember who said it but to paraphrase "A lens of this quality has no business being on a sub-$10K camera." So indeed the lens of the EX1 is fantastic and thankfully it is because that's the most important element in getting a good image. If everything else is great in the chain but the lens isn't up to par your image quality will suffer. This is definitely evident when comparing my old Nikon film lens to my Nikon DX (made for digital) lens on my D300. The colors and general clarity are so much better with the newer more expensive lens.

Expensive glass does matter. Maybe the lower end (for example) Canon HDgc lenses don't matter as much but when you put a Zeiss DigiPrime or DigiZoom lens on an HD camera it makes a BIG difference. Of course we're talking $$$$$ at this point but still...the glass does matter.

Yes indeed. Sorry I didn't make myself clear - I was trying to say that an HDV camera or the HVX200 are allowed for up to 15% ("THE" unique footage), but not for "the rest", interviews etc.

The EX should indeed be OK for the other 85%.

I agree Adam, the lens is definitely very important, and I agree that the EX1 lens appears at least to be up to scratch, that's why I said that comparing two completely different cameras (chip size, chip type, codecs etc.) and concluding that putting a £10k Fujinon on it might make a difference doesn't make sense.
Steve