XDCAM EX format not accepted by BBC as HD

I've just been slapped by a DP who so unkindly chastised me that XDCAM EX 35mbps files are accepted as Silver level for Discovery HD, along with XDCAM HD. Silver means main capture (100%) format.

As for Nat Geo Channel, they apparently have also accepted the XDCAM HD 35mbps for unrestricted capture. In defiance, I still say it depends on program to program basis. Some producers just want better quality.

I still have not heard back from the Beeb.

So it is accepted... Yeah... I'll buy mine this week...

Refurbed MBP tomorrow (maybe)... £300 Cheaper and 1yr warranty...

New life in the fast lane here we come !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dive safe

DeanB

I'm not going to be held accountable for this info. I'm just repeating what an industry guy says is gospel. I do think while the format 'may' be accepted, it's really the producers who have the final say. If they don't have the budget or expertise to squeeze the quality out of XDCAM HD, they may want to go with HDCAM SR for eg. Caveat Emptor.

It has been confirmed for now that Beeb HD is not accepting XDCAM HD in any form as principle capture format. However they are about to test the EX1 soon so this info might change.

The official word is that any imager with smaller than 1/2" sensors are pushed to the up convert class (HDV, HVX etc).

It has been confirmed for now that Beeb HD is not accepting XDCAM HD in any form as principle capture format. However they are about to test the EX1 soon so this info might change.

The official word is that any imager with smaller than 1/2" sensors are pushed to the up convert class (HDV, HVX etc).

?

The Ex1 has 1/2 sensor, hasn't it?

Yup but it still is GOP MPEG2 at 35 mbps. I would assume the post guys are worried about how the image holds up after 4-5 compression versions. Aliasing is there even in the EX1 clips. I think the Beeb want to play it safe. Funny thing is they haven't even tested the EX1 but discounted the entire format already based on 35mbps.

Yup but it still is GOP MPEG2 at 35 mbps. I would assume the post guys are worried about how the image holds up after 4-5 compression versions. Aliasing is there even in the EX1 clips. I think the Beeb want to play it safe. Funny thing is they haven't even tested the EX1 but discounted the entire format already based on 35mbps.

Where can I get a clear pictures about these 4-5 compression versions - I mean its meaning. I am a little bit confused. When I render my timeline after editing does it mean compression? Re-calculating the GOP pattern, making new frames etc.? If I re-edit it later and later again the quality of the footage will decrease?

Let's suppose I shot in HDV but deliver it in DV-PAL. There is one compression only. Shot and edit in HDV and then export to DV. Or not?

Capture to editing to coloring to other post work to HDCAM to broadcast compression to broadcast transmission.

Even in uncompressed, aliasing, noise etc all get progressively compressed in the end. That's why they want 50mbps minimum from a 1/2" sensor.

I should clarify that once the program is handed in in HDCAM format, the broadcasts do mess with it to conform to broadcast standards and then recompress it for broadcast on the fly as it is being broadcasted.

I suppose Auntie Beeb has a higher standard than Discovery and Natgeo. Seeing how Discovery allows American Choppers and other dismal HD programs on, I'd say I like Auntie Beeb's standards more... although the Beeb have a few awful HD programs as well.

HDV & HD-DVD - remember those formats? Seems like only yesterday people couldn't tell the difference between VHS and Beta, but the networks saw that difference and set the broadcast standards.

This review was written 15 Oct 2007 when the camera came out. http://hd2o.tv/flog/hd-underwater/sony-pmw-ex1-video-camera/

I posted in here what I Flogged as an editor and underwater shooter, about the perils of HDV and 4:2:ZERO color. First problem mentioned was the network acceptable color sample. Nothing network will have a Zero in it. Second issue was compression, there is no reason on Earth or Sea to crush HD down to 35Mbps and sacrifice the audio too. Third, the MPEG I-frame codec is____bleeeeeeeep____ in postproduction. fill in the blank, difficult? No network is going to take a MiniDV tape seriously. Even with flash cards, CineAlta logo, calling it XDCAM, and all that jazz... I used it and warned against jumping on the Sony Bandwagon or for underwater shooters, don't test the water with both big toes. I called HDV either a pro-sumer or con-fessional format because the other problems. Is it good? Darn good. Does it meet the network standard? No. That was the last camera I reviewed.

Fast forward: Read the WetPixel blog: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...=23399&st=0 It appears the BBC does not accept HDV content. Maybe the content's kick-ash wow factor will get them? Yes. Maybe they'll buy you new camera gear, new housing, train and send you back to reshoot it? Maybe. Now That would be wow factor.

My head was nearly ripped off in a couple video forums for knocking the HDV format. In my tests DVCPRO-HD was a clear winner. However if you follow the link from my site to the Sony forum where they graciously posted my review for their potential customers to consider. There is a place for HDV, it's just not on DiscoveryHD or PBS, and now add the BBC to the list.

I regret to say... this is NO April fools joke.

###

Paul

I do think you have to be a bit more patient since they HAVEN'T evaluated XDCAM EX as of yet. If major broadcast networks like CBS, NBC, NatGeo and Discovery accept it, I think the BBC would be the odd one out, no? There are other circumstances including the fact that manufacturers may not be offering them enough kickbacks to use a certain format. The battle between Panasonic's P2 and XDCAM has been on for a while.

More importantly this thread is NOT about HDV but XDCAM EX as a main capture format. HDV cameras are used often as B and C cameras. A lot of the BBC objection is the size of the capture sensor and bitrate of the codec.

Every program has individual needs. Talk to the producers who are selling the program to the networks.

Well stuff the BBC and their archaic licence fee. I'm pleased to announce that Bubble Vision Networks International is accepting all formats from Nokia 3gp up.

(but I do enjoy BBC 6 music)

But but but... I have Sony Ericsson 3gp?

my phone doesn't do video..

After a year or two around this board, I've noticed that there's a general feeling that getting your footage/program onto the BBC and Discovery Channel Canada seems to be the top of the mountain for underwater shooters. I just simply do not agree.

There are so. many. channels. out there, guys. So many avenues to get your great footage seen and - way more importantly - to get your story heard. I have two pilots in production this September and not a single producer I have talked to at any of the channels/networks I have held meetings with who are excited to see the finished products have given me any indication that the initial idea I'm pitching needs to be in any particular format. They simply keep drilling the idea that an engaging story is far more crucial than the mb per second rate. Rather than obsessing over acceptable cameras we have spent tireless hours scripting and rehashing the treatments.

There are about a dozen programmes shot by Ron & Valerie Taylor in the 70's and 80's that wouldn't stand up to any current broadcast requirements that in my opinion are far more engaging than any of the stuff I see on the Beeb or Discovery. What bothers me way more than the BBC's technical requirements? The fact that I still am chasing down the Taylor's work across the Google landscape to no avail.

We need to focus more on artistry and less on definition. The bottom line is that our viewers could care less how many individual denticles are visible on the side of a white shark. They will, however, really care about the urchin and abalone divers who screw their solid brass balls on tighter than any of us could imagine when they dive into cold, murky water and risk their lives every day after a shitty commute out to the Farallons.

Do NOT allow these faceless folks at the Holy Grail Networks to dupe you into thinking footage you shot and a story you've told isn't worth getting to broadcast because you wouldn't sell your kidneys to shoot it on a camera that will no doubt be unacceptable in 5 years. jeezus, people.

Just my 2 cents. But hey - maybe this is from dealing with more L.A.-types than London-types this year.

So many avenues to get your great footage seen ............................

Yep there sure is

I just sold some more useless HDV to another mob overseas.

Going to be playing on TV sets in shops in CHINA....hey the more we make the regime open up to the west the harder it will be for them to run the country like they do.

From the clips I have seen the EX is much better even on pans.

If you have the best story in the world that sheds new light on something major that will change peoples perceptions for the better...present it to the BBC they will turn it down flat because its on -50mbps ...Not !!! its usually the bitter "damn i should have waited" panny users trying to stir it...

As said there's more channels out there... no brainer... if BBC / Discovery / Nat geo.. doesn't want your stuff... Channel 102 ???? may... o.k the pay day isn't as good.. but thats not we are here for.... IS IT !!!!

Dive safe

Dean(on simons lappy)B

Dean(on simons lappy)B

Is that Laptop or just Lap???????

Lap...

Dive safe

Dean(I'm no dummy)B

Here is the guidelines for BBC HD: Summary of Delivery Formats. This is for HD programs, which can contain up to 25% SD. The EX1 footage is considered SD by their standards, but you could probably bump up the video into another codec and they would never know anyway.

BTW. Some of my FX1 HDV stock footage is currently playing on NGCHD National Geographic Explorer: "Shark Superhighway".

Dan