DVCProHD not accepted by network . . .

[Izoneguy]

I guess “American Choppers” on Discovery Channel will have to stop
taping with VariCam and go fold the tent?

[Izoneguy]

PM at dvd.pro@verizon.net for
a link to many other “DVCPRO HD”
projects on air or coming up.

[Christopher Wright]

I know PBS won’t accept any HDV material for an HD broadcast, and will only accept a certain amount of B-roll from the HDV format cut into true HD shows, but there is no issue with the HVX-200 as it is not mpeg-2 encoded. Here PBS accepts it as true HD for broadcast.

[Dean Sensui]

[Chris Oben] “Any truth to the rumour?”

It’s a rumor.

Discovery considers DVCProHD to be one of the standard HD formats, and their standards are as high as anyone else’s.

HDV is a different story, however, and according to Discovery’s published information no more than 15% of a program can consist of HDV. There’s a list of other technical requirements as well.

http://www.discoverychannel.ca/_includes/disclaimer/producers_guide/docs/HDSpec.logo.doc

I wish I were in a situation where I had to adhere to these rules… 🙂

Dean Sensui — http://www.HawaiiGoesFishing.com

[Christopher S. johnson]

Hey guys, that Discovery HD document specifically includes HVX-200 footage WITH the HDV limitations. Only 15% allowed.

-Christopher

[Shane Ross]

[b]DVCProHD was not being accepted as a mastering (on-line) format[/b]

Not as a MASTERING format…you can still shoot it.

I dunno, I know of another network that is considering taking DVCPRO HD as master tapes due to the AJ-HD1400 Master deck was released. ONLY considering.

They did, however, accept our HVX footage on the stipulation that only 25% of the footage consist of that format. They be hard pressed to tell the difference, though…as a majority of our recreations were shot with the HVX, and they want to eliminate most of the B-roll, shot on Varicam, that we have and stick with the reinactments.

But HDV is another beast and easily spotted compared to Varicam footage.

Shane

Littlefrog Post
http://www.lfhd.net

[Harryd]

I have a friend with a display case full of Emmies and one Oscar. We talked about this situation with cable requirments years ago, concerning DV footage and submissions to cable. At the time, he said he just dubs it off to 1″ or Beta SP and that was that. They accepted all of his work, which was mixed format – Beta SP and DV. But he is a very good shooter.

From what I’ve seen, with a little care in post to be sure the “look” matches, we’re talking about the differences in acquisition formats, which aren’t sent to the cable networks. I’ve seen some smoking – good HDV, which to my eye held up quite well in the HD realm. Mixing HD (any format) and SDDV is another matter, entirely.

Still, I’ve seen lots of things on PBS over-the-air HDTV that is clearly mixed format – the uprezzed SD can be seen a mile away. It’ll be interesting to see how the bazillion minutes of SD that we have now will be archived and presented.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of HD. Digital SD done right with a good display is really good looking. The displays that exist now for HD all have problems – just like SD. (I really can’t stand the windowscreen effect on flat-panel displays.) Does HD look better? Yes. But frankly I think it reveals so much detail in many actor’s faces that it’s distracting. I hate seeing the makeup and such – which can even be seen on old films transferred to SD-DVD. Messes with my suspension of disbelief. And I guess I want to think that the actresses are as good looking as they also think they are.

But that’s just me. I don’t mean to stir things up. YMMV.

[Steve Connor]

People said the same things when colour television first arrived!

[Harryd]

Oh, so now I’m an old curmudgeon! 🙂

Yep, this is probably true. And I do really like black and white. Still, how much do we need to see *every* blemish on someone’s face with vivid detail? I was just looking at something shot in HD on cable. I swear I could see the detail on the speaker’s tongue. So how many soft focus filters are we going to use to tone down the actress’s unexpected pimple, or turn down the detail/sharpness levels because the actor drank too much the night before, on HD equipment to diminish the sharpness? Is Tiffen going to replace the ProMist with a special “de-HD Mist” filter for this? Seems nutty to me. So here is More’s law in play: If more’s good, then too much is just right.

Sorry, I’m not swimming upstream here; HD is a good thing from a video vs film standpoint, probably from a film-out standpoint, too. But from a Television perspective I just don’t think it was all that necessary except to the manufacturers of HD equipment and their stockholders. I know the broadcasters were moaning for a long while. But heaven knows, HD sure is good eye candy.

And it’ll be interesting to see what happens when the 4K stuff arrives and we chuck all the HD gear out the window.

But for now, I’ve got my HVX200 and am riding the wave…

HarryD

[Rennie Klymyk]

[HarryD] “But frankly I think it reveals so much detail in many actor’s faces that it’s distracting..”

This is true in close ups but how about epic scenes where there is a ton of fine detail over a vast expansive setting? Those fine areas now contain tangible info instead of mush. Nature and wilderness programing truely benifit. Of coarse this has led to other problems in set dec where details in backgrounds become more discernable and distrackting. Sets need to be finished in greater detail and DOF needs to be more accurately adjusted.

[HarryD] ” I hate seeing the makeup and such – which can even be seen on old films transferred to SD-DVD. Messes with my suspension of disbelief. And I guess I want to think that the actresses are as good looking as they also think they are.”

Even more apaulling to me was the first wave of digital broadcasting (about the same time camera manufacturers added the flesh detail circuits to their camera offerings), was seeing my favorite newscaster and noticing the line in his hairline where the color dropped off radically. When you realized that nice tanned appearance was makeup and the flat light skin tone into the hairline was real. I think a lot of this was the over use of the flesh detail circuit and there being no time to fix it in post before going to air.

Perhaps there will be a greater move toward CG actors and stars would no longer require face lifts, tummy tucks, breast & lip augumentation, lippo sucktion, cosmetic surgery & tattooing, or steroids, we could just use their voices. Humour aside, the makeup issue needs to be addressed. Makeup provides depth to a character’s face while allowing us to light an entire scene more flatly to conform to the contrast ratio of the film or media. Maybe we will have to shoot the wide shots first and the close ups after with different make up.

“everything is broken”