Manxprods ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Broadcast Format Newsgroups: rec.video.production Date: 2001-01-02 03:42:59 PST View this article only Gentlemen--
Don't forget about D-9. Many, many Fox affiliates and some of the Fox networks use it. I know NBC Sports also uses it (they bought all the D-9 tapes in LA one morning). It has exactly the quality of DVPro50 as both use the same DV50 codec. Although the DV50's 3.3:1 compression is nominally higher in comparison to Digibeta's 2:1 (I've also heard 2.6 to 1), the DV50 codec is superior to Digibeta's older MJPEG setup, and consquently quality is essentially equivalent. Also note that MJPEG's actual compression varies with the complexity of the data (anyone with Matrox Digisuite's noticed this) so 2:1 or 2.6:1 or whatever is just a rough approximation and your mileage may vary.
But back to the subject. D-9 is cheaper and more robust than DVPro50, and the JVC DY-90 and KY-D29 cameras are rated by many as the best you can buy for pure image quality. For example, it's become a virtual truism among the 35mm transfer industry that D-9 is the best tape medium for transfer to film. This is not just because it's a great tape format, but because the cameras are so damn good with their 14-bit DSP systems vs. 12-bit for Sony gear. The CCDs in the 4:3 JVC stuff are also awesome, although based on IT technology. They have 980 of so rows of pixels, essentially double the usual number. Although how this works has never been clear to me, this enables some kind of anti-aliasing effect in the vertical resolution allowing it to be kicked up by 10% and even 20% if you accept a hit on light sensitivity.
Also the D-9 systems have great sound--the newer stuff has four 16-bit PCM tracks, and the A/D converters are very good. I've noticed that they compress the louder ranges of the analog signals prior to digitizing a bit more than other A/D systems I've used which provides a little more insurance against the dreaded digital peaking crunchies.
I don't doubt that a Panasonic DVPro50 setup would compare very well, but many people have had problems with DVCAM, DVPro and in fact all the "little" tapes. In Hollywood, some of the people at Lightning Dubs dread even seeing those little tapes for fear they will be blamed for the common technical problems associated with the fragile tapes and over-stressed transports (9,000 rpm heads). The thought of doubling the speed of that little tape is intuitively disturbing to me, although I'm sure many people will offer anecdotal evidence about the perfection of the DVPro tape transports.
D-9 would be the only truly rational choice on technical and economic grounds if you could overlook compatibility issues. For shops that are primarily concerned with in-house work, it remains the best choice by far.
Tip McPartland Mike Kujbida ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Suggestions for spending $70,000 Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop Date: 2001-06-05 21:49:29 PST Complete Thread (17 articles) | Original Format Excellent recommendations Doug. Your suggestion are almost identical to the upgrade I had proposed for my office suite last fall (still waiting for the budget news). I'm sure Doug's prices are fairly close (mine were Canadian so there's no comparison). If you want to check US list prices on the JVC stuff as well as the GSA schedule price (not sure if they're applicable here), go to http://www.jvc.com/prof/. I highly recommend the JVC D-9 line. The picture quality is comparable to Digital BetaCam (confirmed by SMPTE/EBU testing - http://www.adamwilt.com/EBU-DV.html if you need technical support to back you up). For specific model recommendations, I'd go with the DY-70U for the camera ($12K list) or, if you really want to go for broke, the DY-90WU which is the 16:9/4:3 model ($22K list). Spring for the high-res B&W viewfinder too. Your eyes will thank you. Either way, try & get something over and above the stock lens. They're OK but they can't do justice to the image quality the camcorder is capable of. Expect to pay an extra $5K or more. A wide-angle zoom lens (say a 6 - 12 mm. with a 2X extender) would be a really sweet lens. If that's too much (and it probably will be), get the Century 0.7 wide angle adapter. I've got one and, surprisingly, it gets used a lot.
Since the camcorder can record up to 4 audio channels, you're restricted to the BR-D52U player/recorder ($17K list) to take advantage of this feature. I'd definitely get the optional SDI input/output board (far superior to even a component transfer).
Having said that , I'd go with the fully loaded DPS Velocity (as opposed to the Toaster - personal preference), c/w the optional SDI board. You can get a turnkey Velocity for $18K list (according to the DPS site, www.dps.com) . Your actual purchase price should be much less.
Sachtler makes an excellent tripod. Just to make sure to get one that's rated for at least 50 lb. When I bought my Miller years ago, I only bought it rated for 25 lb. Now I can't mount a teleprompter even if I wanted to - and I do!!
Lectrosonics wireless are an excellent choice. I have 2 and they have yet to fail me. Make sure you get the UHF series, though. Get at least one plug-on model. That way, you can plug it into any mic you have (like a shotgun) and turn it into a wireless. Consider getting something other than the Lectrosonic mics with the lav model though as they're only so-so performance-wise. I'd look at Sony, Tram, or Sennheiser. All make excellent small models of lavaliers.
Doug left off, IMO, a few important items. One is a good colour field monitor. Both Sony & JVC make excellent 9" models. Another is some equipment bags. Porta-Brace and Kata are a couple of names that come to mind. You can never have enough grip bags. Add a shotgun mic to the list as well. The Sennheiser ME-66 is highly recommended. You can get different heads to go with the K-6 capsule as well (eg. - omni, cardiod, short & long shotgun).
Lastly, add a couple of C-stands to your lighting list. Don't forget the sandbags while you're at it.
I know there's lots of stuff that we're forgetting to add, but this is all stuff that generally falls under the year-to-year list (gaffer tape, lighting gels, more lighting equipment, more audio gear, etc.). BTW, is now a good time to ask your boss for that Explorer/Suburban to haul all this stuff around in - along with an assistant? Nah, put that in next year's budget:-) Good luck.
Mike Kujbida
"Doug Graham"
AVI/VMI Systems 210 West Century Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 USA Phone: 701-258-6360 Fax: 701-258-2015 [email protected] Send lit. and price list to Glenn Bosah Removed Studio Dealer web flag 3-19-01 PS Return to Post Index View Parent Post
Name: Scott McClure Date: 06-07-2001 02:05:11 gmt Subject: CineLine and "progressive scan"
I had a discussion with Doug Mullin of JVC (Ken's West coast counterpart) about this last week.
The GY-DV700WCL and DY-90WCL both will have a modified DSP that supports selections that will emulate the look of several popular film stocks.
The "sequential progessive scan of the CCD" is basically the same thing some prosumer camcorders do. The actual video output obviously has to be interlaced, or it wouldn't NTSC compatible. The only benefit is higher vertical resolution, and "film- like" motion judder. You can induce this same effect on a GY-DV500 or DY-90 by selecting "V.MAX" in the DSP settings.
True progressive scan requires HDTV (480p, 720p, etc.) or Panasonic's little science project (DV50 Progressive). It is modified NTSC at 480p, but the only real use for it is direct transfer to film. Panasonic doesn't have an editing system that supports it, so it is of little practical use for most people.
My $0.02.
Scott Posts responding to this message:
Re: CineLine and by Ron Grandia at 06-07-2001 20:54:24 gmt Re: CineLine and by Tyler A. Hawes at 06-07-2001 03:48:19 gmt
Other posts in this thread:
Name: Ken Freed JVC Date: 06-07-2001 22:33:14 gmt Subject: I've explained this before
Previous camera operated their CCDs in the way you probably think now. At a tick of a 60 per second clock we charge the even lines. At the next tick of that clock (one field later) we read (scan) those even rows of pixels (the even field) and begin charging the odd rows. One more tick of the clock we scan the odd rows (the odd field) and then begin the process over with the even rows again.
Notice that this ignores half of the pixels all of the time.
So we had an idea. Use all of the pixels all of the time. At the first tick of the clock we start charging all rows. Next tick of the clock we scan out row 0 and row 1 and add them together for row 0, row 2 and row 3 added together for row 2, and so on for the even rows (the even field). At the next tick of the 60 per second clock we scan rows 1 and 2 and add them for row 1, scan row 3 and 4 added as row 3. This is the odd field.
Notice that this gives increased low light performance as two pixels are vertically paired for each pixel. This decreases the vertical resolution but not as much as you think. Not 480 to 240, but really 480 to about 380 or so. But a real boost in light gathering. This is what we do normally. It is the normal default of our cameras.
Really V-Max is a switch to go back to the original way of operating which doesn't use half the pixels (or all the pixels half of the time). That is why there is a decrease in light sensitivity.
Now sequential progressive is neither. What if we let the CCDs charge for more than a sixtieth of a second. Remember this isn't 480 60p but 480 30p. They charge longer (a 30th of a second) and they integrate longer so they gather more light (CCDs aren't voltage photo cells like you think but they are conductive cells which carry more current with longer exposure to light or exposure to more light). If we charge them longer, the motion of moving items in the camera image is integrated over a longer time. It begins to take on the character of a 30p image. Even though we don't actually read all 480 lines at the same tick of a 30 per second clock, we have the integration of motion in the pixels while still carrying the NTSC format of two fields with separate data.
This is a simplified version, the actual operation of the CCD is more complex since the construction of a CCD is more complex with line and frame buffering and column readout. And we have to do some math in the DSP.