IS
Digibeta is very much the standard for programmes these days, with newer formats such as HDCAMand MPEG IMX being used for HD production.
Editing, transmission and increasingly storage is now commonly hard-disk based. Normally rushes will be recorded on tape, digitised into a computer for edit and then dubbed off onto tape. Then the programme tape will be digitised onto a video server for transmission.
DVD isn't a broadcast format, the quality isn't good enough.
wheator posted:
Does anyone know what the main braodcasters use these days to record their programs? - Is everything now put to hard disk ie some form of dvd or do these still record to video tape?
Digibeta is very much the standard for programmes these days, with newer formats such as HDCAMand MPEG IMX being used for HD production.
Editing, transmission and increasingly storage is now commonly hard-disk based. Normally rushes will be recorded on tape, digitised into a computer for edit and then dubbed off onto tape. Then the programme tape will be digitised onto a video server for transmission.
DVD isn't a broadcast format, the quality isn't good enough.
PC
Is DVD generally not accepted because of the bitrate, the resolution, or both?
What is the resolution/dimensions of broadcast material that is non-HD? Does this stay constant when the data actually reaches TV sets?
What is the resolution/dimensions of broadcast material that is non-HD? Does this stay constant when the data actually reaches TV sets?
PE
peterrocket
Founding member
On the subject of tape formats, i'm noticing more and more using XDCam, which is a disc recording method. It's main advantage apart from cost and quality is that it can feed files straight through into an NLE without the need for digitisation and people can now shotlist with a laptop and appropriate software and be able to e-mail lower quality versions.
I've heard a rumour TV3 could be going to this format for news but not sure on how true that one is.
Digibeta is widely used as a delivery format but many places for acquisition use different formats, which is often a pain in the bum. With DVCam, DVCPro, XDCam, BetaSX (even if Sony pulled the plug on it), IMX and now HDV cropping in, it's starting to get annoying when your landed with a format your suite can't play.
Then there's that Panasonic P2 thing where about half an hour of storage at DVCPro 25 is about £1000 a card.
Thankfully Sony are on the ball with their machines that play almost all Beta type cassettes even if they did confuse everyone by moving the eject button lol
I've heard a rumour TV3 could be going to this format for news but not sure on how true that one is.
Digibeta is widely used as a delivery format but many places for acquisition use different formats, which is often a pain in the bum. With DVCam, DVCPro, XDCam, BetaSX (even if Sony pulled the plug on it), IMX and now HDV cropping in, it's starting to get annoying when your landed with a format your suite can't play.
Then there's that Panasonic P2 thing where about half an hour of storage at DVCPro 25 is about £1000 a card.
Thankfully Sony are on the ball with their machines that play almost all Beta type cassettes even if they did confuse everyone by moving the eject button lol
NG
DVD is long-GOP MPEG2 at a low data rate. It is comparable to other MPEG2 4:2:0 delivery systems ( DTT,DSat and DCab for example) - but with a max bit rate of 10Mbs and a GOP of around 15 frames it is not suitable for editing, and suffers after more than one encode/decode process. Standard def video starts at around 270Mbs (180Mbs if you ditch blanking) - and DVD maxes out at 9.9Mbs - averaging less than this...
Most broadcast formats used for editing and recording use between 25Mbs and 180Mbs for recording - and short or no GOPs to allow editing and multi-generation stuff.
No way is DVD anywhere near broadcast quality, though it approaches the often exceeds the quality of broadcasts... (They aren't the same thing)
What is the resolution/dimensions of broadcast material that is non-HD? Does this stay constant when the data actually reaches TV sets?
Standard Def production is pretty much universally 720x576 or 720x480 (depends if you are in 50Hz or 60Hz areas).
720x576 is slightly wider than 4:3 or 16:9 (neither use square pixels), with 702x576 being the 4:3 or 16:9 dimensions. MPEG2 uses either 720x576 or 704x576 for broadcast (704 being the nearest 16x multiple to 702)
Many DTT and DSat broadcasts are lower res than this - at 544x576. Some broadcasters, like the BBC, treat 4:3 material as 12P16 - i.e. 4:3 within a 16:9 frame - encoding the black bars to the left and right as active video. This means some 4:3 stuff is also reduced to around 540x576 resolution even on 720x576 channels.
Rule of thumb is that the BBC usually always broadcast 720x576 on all platforms (though with the 4:3 caveat above).
ITV1 and C4 on DTT is also 720x576 or 704x576.
ITV1 and C4 on DSat, along with ITV2,3,4, E4 and More4 on DTT and DSat, are I believe, all 544x576.
(* Please remember that in none of these instances are the samples/pixels square...)
noggin
Founding member
Paul Clark posted:
Is DVD generally not accepted because of the bitrate, the resolution, or both?
DVD is long-GOP MPEG2 at a low data rate. It is comparable to other MPEG2 4:2:0 delivery systems ( DTT,DSat and DCab for example) - but with a max bit rate of 10Mbs and a GOP of around 15 frames it is not suitable for editing, and suffers after more than one encode/decode process. Standard def video starts at around 270Mbs (180Mbs if you ditch blanking) - and DVD maxes out at 9.9Mbs - averaging less than this...
Most broadcast formats used for editing and recording use between 25Mbs and 180Mbs for recording - and short or no GOPs to allow editing and multi-generation stuff.
No way is DVD anywhere near broadcast quality, though it approaches the often exceeds the quality of broadcasts... (They aren't the same thing)
Quote:
What is the resolution/dimensions of broadcast material that is non-HD? Does this stay constant when the data actually reaches TV sets?
Standard Def production is pretty much universally 720x576 or 720x480 (depends if you are in 50Hz or 60Hz areas).
720x576 is slightly wider than 4:3 or 16:9 (neither use square pixels), with 702x576 being the 4:3 or 16:9 dimensions. MPEG2 uses either 720x576 or 704x576 for broadcast (704 being the nearest 16x multiple to 702)
Many DTT and DSat broadcasts are lower res than this - at 544x576. Some broadcasters, like the BBC, treat 4:3 material as 12P16 - i.e. 4:3 within a 16:9 frame - encoding the black bars to the left and right as active video. This means some 4:3 stuff is also reduced to around 540x576 resolution even on 720x576 channels.
Rule of thumb is that the BBC usually always broadcast 720x576 on all platforms (though with the 4:3 caveat above).
ITV1 and C4 on DTT is also 720x576 or 704x576.
ITV1 and C4 on DSat, along with ITV2,3,4, E4 and More4 on DTT and DSat, are I believe, all 544x576.
(* Please remember that in none of these instances are the samples/pixels square...)
IS
Surely the main advantage is that aquisition onto server/editing machine is faster than real-time. A disc based system for field-recording is the one hurdle between having a totally tape-free newsroom
Glad it's not just me then. At my previous employers, everyone used to twiddle their fingers round and round the control panel of our brand new machine trying to find Eject!
That's the great thing about Sony formats - tape sizes all the same and even the most up to date HDCAM or MPEG IMX machines will still play SP. And despite not being able to get SP recorders these days it's still very much the standard... although what will all the TV companies will do with all those millions of Beta SP cassettes once they all get rid of their old SP machines?
peterrocket posted:
On the subject of tape formats, i'm noticing more and more using XDCam, which is a disc recording method. It's main advantage apart from cost and quality is that it can feed files straight through into an NLE without the need for digitisation and people can now shotlist with a laptop and appropriate software and be able to e-mail lower quality versions.
I've heard a rumour TV3 could be going to this format for news but not sure on how true that one is.
I've heard a rumour TV3 could be going to this format for news but not sure on how true that one is.
Surely the main advantage is that aquisition onto server/editing machine is faster than real-time. A disc based system for field-recording is the one hurdle between having a totally tape-free newsroom
Quote:
Thankfully Sony are on the ball with their machines that play almost all Beta type cassettes even if they did confuse everyone by moving the eject button lol
Glad it's not just me then. At my previous employers, everyone used to twiddle their fingers round and round the control panel of our brand new machine trying to find Eject!
That's the great thing about Sony formats - tape sizes all the same and even the most up to date HDCAM or MPEG IMX machines will still play SP. And despite not being able to get SP recorders these days it's still very much the standard... although what will all the TV companies will do with all those millions of Beta SP cassettes once they all get rid of their old SP machines?
PE
Surely the main advantage is that aquisition onto server/editing machine is faster than real-time. A disc based system for field-recording is the one hurdle between having a totally tape-free newsroom .
It is, and a very good one it is. Problem is as i've seen when a researcher is told to edit a piece, they often edit from the lower quality version for previewing. Fair enough, but when they don't reconform it and it goes out as to the lower quality version that's when you start banging your head off the wall!
Glad it's not just me then. At my previous employers, everyone used to twiddle their fingers round and round the control panel of our brand new machine trying to find Eject!
I can't remember the exact model, but they stupidly put it where the record button used to be, so if your acustomed to pressing the button on the front panel without thinking you set the machine into standby record!
That's the great thing about Sony formats - tape sizes all the same and even the most up to date HDCAM or MPEG IMX machines will still play SP. And despite not being able to get SP recorders these days it's still very much the standard... although what will all the TV companies will do with all those millions of Beta SP cassettes once they all get rid of their old SP machines?
Chances are if they're not already digitalising them they'll just keep them thanks to backwards compatibility. A standard digibeta machine is around a few £1000 more for backwards compatibility playback meaning they can play more formats so would be worth the extra investment.
peterrocket
Founding member
Inspector Sands posted:
peterrocket posted:
On the subject of tape formats, i'm noticing more and more using XDCam, which is a disc recording method. It's main advantage apart from cost and quality is that it can feed files straight through into an NLE without the need for digitisation and people can now shotlist with a laptop and appropriate software and be able to e-mail lower quality versions.
I've heard a rumour TV3 could be going to this format for news but not sure on how true that one is.
I've heard a rumour TV3 could be going to this format for news but not sure on how true that one is.
Surely the main advantage is that aquisition onto server/editing machine is faster than real-time. A disc based system for field-recording is the one hurdle between having a totally tape-free newsroom .
It is, and a very good one it is. Problem is as i've seen when a researcher is told to edit a piece, they often edit from the lower quality version for previewing. Fair enough, but when they don't reconform it and it goes out as to the lower quality version that's when you start banging your head off the wall!
Quote:
Thankfully Sony are on the ball with their machines that play almost all Beta type cassettes even if they did confuse everyone by moving the eject button lol
Quote:
Glad it's not just me then. At my previous employers, everyone used to twiddle their fingers round and round the control panel of our brand new machine trying to find Eject!
I can't remember the exact model, but they stupidly put it where the record button used to be, so if your acustomed to pressing the button on the front panel without thinking you set the machine into standby record!
Quote:
That's the great thing about Sony formats - tape sizes all the same and even the most up to date HDCAM or MPEG IMX machines will still play SP. And despite not being able to get SP recorders these days it's still very much the standard... although what will all the TV companies will do with all those millions of Beta SP cassettes once they all get rid of their old SP machines?
Chances are if they're not already digitalising them they'll just keep them thanks to backwards compatibility. A standard digibeta machine is around a few £1000 more for backwards compatibility playback meaning they can play more formats so would be worth the extra investment.
SP
Someone did that at work (I work at a uni) - put a VHS tape into a new machine and hadn't realised that record was where play was on the model he was used to and he managed to blank the first minute or so of the recording
peterrocket posted:
I can't remember the exact model, but they stupidly put it where the record button used to be, so if your acustomed to pressing the button on the front panel without thinking you set the machine into standby record!
Someone did that at work (I work at a uni) - put a VHS tape into a new machine and hadn't realised that record was where play was on the model he was used to and he managed to blank the first minute or so of the recording
JA
I've seen quite a few of trhese TV clip shows where several of the clips clearly come from low quality- often barely any better than VHS- and often it looks in the wrong aspect ratio (a 16:9 sourced clip, cropped to 4:3 or 14:9, then zoomed back up to 16:9). It makes you wonder how these people can't get it right.
james2001
Founding member
peterrocket posted:
Problem is as i've seen when a researcher is told to edit a piece, they often edit from the lower quality version for previewing. Fair enough, but when they don't reconform it and it goes out as to the lower quality version that's when you start banging your head off the wall!
I've seen quite a few of trhese TV clip shows where several of the clips clearly come from low quality- often barely any better than VHS- and often it looks in the wrong aspect ratio (a 16:9 sourced clip, cropped to 4:3 or 14:9, then zoomed back up to 16:9). It makes you wonder how these people can't get it right.
MA
I've seen quite a few of trhese TV clip shows where several of the clips clearly come from low quality- often barely any better than VHS- and often it looks in the wrong aspect ratio (a 16:9 sourced clip, cropped to 4:3 or 14:9, then zoomed back up to 16:9). It makes you wonder how these people can't get it right.
Why are you assuming it HASN'T come off an analogue off air VHS recording?
james2001 posted:
peterrocket posted:
Problem is as i've seen when a researcher is told to edit a piece, they often edit from the lower quality version for previewing. Fair enough, but when they don't reconform it and it goes out as to the lower quality version that's when you start banging your head off the wall!
I've seen quite a few of trhese TV clip shows where several of the clips clearly come from low quality- often barely any better than VHS- and often it looks in the wrong aspect ratio (a 16:9 sourced clip, cropped to 4:3 or 14:9, then zoomed back up to 16:9). It makes you wonder how these people can't get it right.
Why are you assuming it HASN'T come off an analogue off air VHS recording?