Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

HD Cameras for Local News Broadcasts

Expand Messages
  • Link Perry
    I m curious as to why more HD video cameras haven t made it into local news coverage yet. I usually watch the KTVU (Fox) Ten O clock News and the studio
    Message 1 of 21 , May 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm curious as to why more HD video cameras haven't made it into local news coverage yet. I usually watch the KTVU (Fox) Ten O'clock News and the studio footage is in superb HD. But it seems like at least half of the on-location news bits are still in SD, which can look really bad on an HD set.

      I assumed that the answer has to do with cost, professional HD cameras being expensive. But then I saw an news item that the final episode of Fox's House TV show is being filmed entirely with a Canon 5D Mk II camera (the show airs on May 17 if you're interested). This is a digital SLR with HD video capability and costs about $2500 without lenses.

      http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/

      Anyone care to venture how long until local news is all HD?

      Link
    • Don Hackler
      It s one thing to shoot a TV show with consumer gear in carefully controlled conditions as a gimmick. It s a whole nother thing to hand any gear to a news
      Message 2 of 21 , May 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        It's one thing to shoot a TV show with consumer gear in carefully controlled conditions as a gimmick.
        It's a whole 'nother thing to hand any gear to a news crew and expect it come back intact.

        A decent pro field camera that can shoot (and record) broadcast worthy HD video in the field is $50K and up, depending on lenses, options, and accessories.
        Another problem is getting HD video on live shots back over microwave.
        There's still a lot of infrastructure to upgrade, and broadcasters are not in a position to be spending money on anything that's not absolutely essential right now.


        On May 1, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Link Perry wrote:



        I'm curious as to why more HD video cameras haven't made it into local news coverage yet. I usually watch the KTVU (Fox) Ten O'clock News and the studio footage is in superb HD. But it seems like at least half of the on-location news bits are still in SD, which can look really bad on an HD set. 

        I assumed that the answer has to do with cost, professional HD cameras being expensive. But then I saw an news item that the final episode of Fox's House TV show is being filmed entirely with a Canon 5D Mk II camera (the show airs on May 17 if you're interested). This is a digital SLR with HD video capability and costs about $2500 without lenses. 

        http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/

        Anyone care to venture how long until local news is all HD?

        Link



      • Neutrino78x
        The only reason that camera wouldn t be used more often is that it can only record 12 minutes of HD video at a time. In contrast, the Panasonic HDC-TM300 can
        Message 3 of 21 , May 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          The only reason that camera wouldn't be used more often is that it can only record 12 minutes of HD video at a time.

          In contrast, the Panasonic HDC-TM300 can record 12 hours of video on its internal memory. It costs five thousand dollars (not 50).

          C|Net review with specs:

          http://tinyurl.com/263ovcz

          Fifty thousand dollars is more like a movie (motion picture) camera, which, in my opinion, is not necessary for video that is intended to be seen on a 720p or 1080p display, but whatever.

          The Red One camera, which can be used to shoot a movie like Iron Man 2, only costs $17,500. So I don't know where that other guy is getting 50 thousand. That's quite a bit.

          http://www.red.com/store

          (some cameras, like the Panavision Genesis, are not bought, you rent them, for like $4000/day.)

          The reason it is more expensive than the Panasonic is that it has a larger sensor, more memory, etc.

          The CBS Evening News shows most of their video, when Katie Couric is not on screen (she is hot btw, and I am 32), in what appears to be SD. :-(

          I don't know, I have the same question as the OP, I think they are just being cheap. Oh well, the economy is bad right now, everybody's broke. I know I am...

          --Brian
        • Don Hackler
          The House episode using the Canon SLR had the advantage of being a studio shoot, where the lighting is carefully controlled and the video was cabled out of the
          Message 4 of 21 , May 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            The House episode using the Canon SLR had the advantage of being a studio shoot, where the lighting is carefully controlled and the video was cabled out of the camera and sent directly to the production truck. It didn't need to be recorded in the camera where it would have been heavily compressed.
            This is nothing like a typical news ENG shoot.


            On May 1, 2010, at 7:23 PM, Neutrino78x wrote:

            > The only reason that camera wouldn't be used more often is that it can only record 12 minutes of HD video at a time.
            >
            > In contrast, the Panasonic HDC-TM300 can record 12 hours of video on its internal memory. It costs five thousand dollars (not 50).
            >
            > C|Net review with specs:
            >
            > http://tinyurl.com/263ovcz
            >

            That camera compresses the video a lot to get the bitrates down to what the local disk can record. It also uses 1/4" CMOS image sensors, which are great for home movies, but don't compare to professional cameras with three 2/3" CCD imagers.

            A broadcast quality camcorder records at 50 Megabits. The video has to be edited where it'll get transcoded a couple of times, and then, finally, compressed substantially when going to air. If the camera is compressing the video up front, the video will fall apart in the process long before it hits the transmitter.

            Here is a selection of typical Sony HD capable broadcast cameras.
            http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-xdcam/
            I was a little high on the prices... looks like a decent XDcam field package is more like $25 - 30K. (you can spend $50 easily with accessories..)

            Here's another broadcast capable option from Ikegami (no prices, though...)
            http://www.ikegami.com/br/products/hdtv/gf_frame1.html

            > Fifty thousand dollars is more like a movie (motion picture) camera, which, in my opinion, is not necessary for video that is intended to be seen on a 720p or 1080p display, but whatever.
            >
            > The Red One camera, which can be used to shoot a movie like Iron Man 2, only costs $17,500. So I don't know where that other guy is getting 50 thousand. That's quite a bit.
            >
            > http://www.red.com/store

            The Red camera body is $15k, but when you add enough accessories to actually be able to use the camera like lenses, handles, batteries, drives, mounting plates, cables, viewfinder, and the hat, you are well over $50k. And this system is too fragile to used by a news crew. High end productions like national commercial shoots and music videos use the Red system regularly. It is occasionally being used in feature films.


            >
            > (some cameras, like the Panavision Genesis, are not bought, you rent them, for like $4000/day.)
            >
            > The reason it is more expensive than the Panasonic is that it has a larger sensor, more memory, etc.
            >
            > The CBS Evening News shows most of their video, when Katie Couric is not on screen (she is hot btw, and I am 32), in what appears to be SD. :-(
            >

            HD has not been kind to TV personalities, no matter how old they are.


            > I don't know, I have the same question as the OP, I think they are just being cheap. Oh well, the economy is bad right now, everybody's broke. I know I am...
            >
            > --Brian
            >
          • bob_lopaka
            ... just being cheap. Oh well, the economy is bad right now, everybody s broke. I know I am... It s not just the cost of the cameras, as Don wrote in a
            Message 5 of 21 , May 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Neutrino78x" <neutrino78x@...> wrote:

              >
              > I don't know, I have the same question as the OP, I think they are just being cheap. Oh well, the economy is bad right now, everybody's broke. I know I am...

              It's not just the cost of the cameras, as Don wrote in a previous post: "Another problem is getting HD video on live shots back over microwave.  There's still a lot of infrastructure to upgrade."

              The infrastructure, the microwave links, to send the video back to the studio is huge, TV stations have 8 or more mountaintops they use to relay ENG signals from various locations.  The cost of upgrading all the microwave links to HD, from the truck to the mountain top and from the mountain top to the studio, is a lot more than just the cost of the cameras.  Although the cost of HD cameras for 18 news vans is not insignificant either.

            • Steve Lee
              Maybe they should just upload it to YouTube and send it best effort over the internet... for free of course! LOL... ________________________________ From:
              Message 6 of 21 , May 2, 2010
              • 0 Attachment


                Maybe they should just upload it to YouTube and
                send it best effort over the internet... for free
                of course! LOL...




                From: bob_lopaka <Lopakabob@...>
                To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 11:55:18 AM
                Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: HD Cameras for Local News Broadcasts

                 

                --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@ yahoogroups. com, "Neutrino78x" <neutrino78x@ ...> wrote:
                >
                > I don't know, I have the same question as the OP, I think they are just being cheap. Oh well, the economy is bad right now, everybody's broke. I know I am...

                It's not just the cost of the cameras, as Don wrote in a previous post: "Another problem is getting HD video on live shots back over microwave.  There's still a lot of infrastructure to upgrade."

                The infrastructure, the microwave links, to send the video back to the studio is huge, TV stations have 8 or more mountaintops they use to relay ENG signals from various locations.  The cost of upgrading all the microwave links to HD, from the truck to the mountain top and from the mountain top to the studio, is a lot more than just the cost of the cameras.  Although the cost of HD cameras for 18 news vans is not insignificant either.


              • Don Hackler
                The original question was why isn t there more HD in the non-studio segments in the newscasts.. If they put the video on youtube, it ll take a few hours for
                Message 7 of 21 , May 2, 2010
                • 0 Attachment

                  The original question was why isn't there more HD in the non-studio segments in the newscasts.. 

                  If they put the video on youtube, it'll take a few hours for Youtube to process it, it'll be a tiny picture, and it'll be compressed to the point where it doesn't matter if it's HD anymore.   


                  On May 2, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Steve Lee wrote:





                  Maybe they should just upload it to YouTube and
                  send it best effort over the internet... for free
                  of course! LOL...




                  From: bob_lopaka <Lopakabob@...>
                  To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 11:55:18 AM
                  Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: HD Cameras for Local News Broadcasts


                  --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@ yahoogroups. com, "Neutrino78x" <neutrino78x@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I don't know, I have the same question as the OP, I think they are just being cheap. Oh well, the economy is bad right now, everybody's broke. I know I am...

                  It's not just the cost of the cameras, as Don wrote in a previous post: "Another problem is getting HD video on live shots back over microwave.  There's still a lot of infrastructure to upgrade."

                  The infrastructure, the microwave links, to send the video back to the studio is huge, TV stations have 8 or more mountaintops they use to relay ENG signals from various locations.  The cost of upgrading all the microwave links to HD, from the truck to the mountain top and from the mountain top to the studio, is a lot more than just the cost of the cameras.  Although the cost of HD cameras for 18 news vans is not insignificant either.




                • Link Perry
                  Thanks to Don and Bob for enlightening me on the special requirements for field-shot TV video. I hadn t really considered all the infrastructure that it would
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 2, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks to Don and Bob for enlightening me on the special requirements for field-shot TV video. I hadn't really considered all the infrastructure that it would have to work with, or the Live factor either. I guess that Canon 5D wouldn't be much good for the snow report from Blue Canyon.

                    Link

                    On 5/2/10, bob_lopaka <Lopakabob@...> wrote:


                    --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Neutrino78x" <neutrino78x@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I don't know, I have the same question as the OP, I think they are just being cheap. Oh well, the economy is bad right now, everybody's broke. I know I am...

                    It's not just the cost of the cameras, as Don wrote in a previous post: "Another problem is getting HD video on live shots back over microwave.  There's still a lot of infrastructure to upgrade."

                    The infrastructure, the microwave links, to send the video back to the studio is huge, TV stations have 8 or more mountaintops they use to relay ENG signals from various locations.  The cost of upgrading all the microwave links to HD, from the truck to the mountain top and from the mountain top to the studio, is a lot more than just the cost of the cameras.  Although the cost of HD cameras for 18 news vans is not insignificant either.




                  • Neutrino78x
                    ... That is the very near future, 5-10 years. There are already 1080p camcorders, and people post to YouTube, for free, videos they shot in 1080p with a
                    Message 9 of 21 , May 2, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Steve Lee <stelee1969@...> wrote:

                      > Maybe they should just upload it to YouTube and
                      > send it best effort over the internet... for free
                      > of course! LOL...

                      That is the very near future, 5-10 years. There are already 1080p camcorders, and people post to YouTube, for free, videos they shot in 1080p with a camcorder. Go look, if you don't believe me.

                      Some of you guys are so used to doing things in a certain way, at Comcast or whatever, that you can't conceive there might be a better way to do it. My dad still buys a printed newspaper on sundays, but no one under 30 reads them.

                      Rickover faced a lot of resistance when he sought to introduce the nuclear powered submarine, since people were used to diesel-electric boats. Yet, today, all but one of the US submarine fleet is nuclear powered (the USS Dolphin is disel-electric and is used for military research, although a while back, she had a fire).

                      --Brian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Dolphin_%28AGSS-555%29
                    • Neutrino78x
                      ... No doubt, but why not just use WiMAX (40+ Mbps), LTE (50+ Mbps) or a similar technology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4g I guess it comes back to that
                      Message 10 of 21 , May 2, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "bob_lopaka" <Lopakabob@...> wrote:

                        >The cost of upgrading all the microwave links to HD, from the truck >to the mountain top and from the
                        > mountain top to the studio, is a lot more than just the cost of the
                        > cameras.

                        No doubt, but why not just use WiMAX (40+ Mbps), LTE (50+ Mbps) or a similar technology?

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4g

                        I guess it comes back to that famous Silicon Valley maxim, "elephants can't dance." :-O

                        >Although the cost of HD cameras for 18 news vans is not
                        > insignificant either.

                        Like I said, everybody's broke.

                        --Brian
                      • Don Hackler
                        ... A: WiMax and LTE (i.e. 4G) hasn t been rolled out in this area. B: When they do, it ll be a long time before the actual upload rates could handle live HD
                        Message 11 of 21 , May 2, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On May 2, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Neutrino78x wrote:

                          > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "bob_lopaka" <Lopakabob@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >> The cost of upgrading all the microwave links to HD, from the truck >to the mountain top and from the
                          >> mountain top to the studio, is a lot more than just the cost of the
                          >> cameras.
                          >
                          > No doubt, but why not just use WiMAX (40+ Mbps), LTE (50+ Mbps) or a similar technology?
                          >
                          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4g
                          >

                          A: WiMax and LTE (i.e. 4G) hasn't been rolled out in this area.

                          B: When they do, it'll be a long time before the actual upload rates could handle live HD video.
                          (AT&T can't handle all the iPhones, let alone something that needs real bandwidth...)

                          C: If the current terms of service for 3G are any indication, Verizon won't allow this use of it's network.
                          (Sprint is usually more willing to allow streaming services, but this would be a fairly extreme use... they will be a long time coming.)
                          (AT&T is a lost cause.)

                          D: Coverage.
                          The 3G networks don't have reliable coverage now, and they've been doing it for a few years. How is 4G going to be better?
                          Can you imagine an ENG crew wandering around looking at a cellular modem trying to find enough bars to connect?
                          With ENG microwave, you know where you can work in advance, and in a pinch, you can relay the signal through a helicopter, satellite
                          or even another TV station's microwave links. (Yes, the station news and engineering crews cooperate with each other occasionally; just don't tell the bosses...)

                          E: Reliability. During any real emergency, the cellular infrastructure rolls over and dies.
                          What cellular service survives is mostly reserved for public safety. You are lucky to get SMS texts delivered.
                          This is when the remote news shots are the most critical, and the stations are on their own to make things work.

                          I'm sure there are other good reasons, but most of these are deal killers.

                          - Don
                        • Neutrino78x
                          ... I was saying, why don t they use a private network based on WiMax or a similar technology (not a cellular network, although they should have that
                          Message 12 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:
                            > A: WiMax and LTE (i.e. 4G) hasn't been rolled out in this area.

                            I was saying, why don't they use a private network based on WiMax or a similar technology (not a cellular network, although they should have that capability also)? In other words, that way they wouldn't need the huge antenna coming out of the top of the truck, etc. I know the reason -- money and bureaucracy -- but I was just saying it for rhetorical purposes.

                            The meaning of "elephants can't dance", as it was applied to IBM, is that a large organization like that has inertia, and has difficulty adapting to new technologies. You need someone to come in and cause a paradigm shift. Otherwise, a smaller competitor will use the new technology. That's why you have guys on here who work at cable companies saying "IPTV will never replace cable tv", when, in fact, it will, and is in the process of doing so right now. TVs are already coming out with Ethernet input. Comcast has difficulty adapting to that, but they'll come out fine in the end. Their core competency is being an internet service provider, and that will continue in the internet era.

                            > B: When they do, it'll be a long time before the actual upload >rates could handle live HD video.

                            WiMAX should be able to handle it right now, just fine. I can do live HD video on WiFi, and it has less bandwidth than WiMax. 802.11b does 11 Mbps (it drops down in interference, etc.). You probably wouldn't use that for news trucks, though, because it doesn't work well in motion. But WiMAX should work just fine. We had this conversation before, didn't we? And I told you guys that I have viewed HD video over wifi? With WiMax it is even easier.

                            btw H.264/MPEG4 is intended to look better than MPEG2 at the same bitrate, and usually does. HDTV broadcasts use MPEG2, but MPEG4 is smaller file size/less bandwidth requirement.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
                            http://www.tpg.com.au/iptv/

                            --Brian
                          • Don Hackler
                            ... It isn t legal (FCC-wise) to run WiMax or LTE gear in the frequency bands that TV broadcasters are allowed to use for news feeds and inter-city relays.
                            Message 13 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment

                              On May 3, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Neutrino78x wrote:

                              --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:
                              A: WiMax and LTE (i.e. 4G)  hasn't been rolled out in this area.

                              I was saying, why don't they use a private network based on WiMax or a similar technology (not a cellular network, although they should have that capability also)? In other words, that way they wouldn't need the huge antenna coming out of the top of the truck, etc. I know the reason -- money and bureaucracy -- but I was just saying it for rhetorical purposes.

                              It isn't legal (FCC-wise) to run WiMax or LTE gear in the frequency bands that TV broadcasters are allowed to use for news feeds and inter-city relays. 

                              Even it was legal, the news trucks would still need the antenna on the truck to connect to the WiMax repeaters, since the private network would only be installed at a few key locations, like mountain tops.


                              The meaning of "elephants can't dance", as it was applied to IBM, is that a large organization like that has inertia, and has difficulty adapting to new technologies. You need someone to come in and cause a paradigm shift. Otherwise, a smaller competitor will use the new technology. That's why you have guys on here who work at cable companies saying "IPTV will never replace cable tv", when, in fact, it will, and is in the process of doing so right now. TVs are already coming out with Ethernet input. Comcast has difficulty adapting to that, but they'll come out fine in the end. Their core competency is being an internet service provider, and that will continue in the internet era.


                              The original question, that I answered, was asking why there isn't more HD video from the news crews during the local newscasts.

                              IPTV, cable companies, IBM, and dancing elephants are another topic completely...



                              B: When they do, it'll be a long time before the actual upload >rates could handle live HD video.

                              WiMAX should be able to handle it right now, just fine. I can do live HD video on WiFi, and it has less bandwidth than WiMax. 802.11b does 11 Mbps (it drops down in interference, etc.). You probably wouldn't use that for news trucks, though, because it doesn't work well in motion. But WiMAX should work just fine. We had this conversation before, didn't we? And I told you guys that I have viewed HD video over wifi? With WiMax it is even easier.

                              btw H.264/MPEG4 is intended to look better than MPEG2 at the same bitrate, and usually does. HDTV broadcasts use MPEG2, but MPEG4 is smaller file size/less bandwidth requirement.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
                              http://www.tpg.com.au/iptv/



                              I'm sure you have viewed highly compressed HD video over WiFi.  I have too.  
                              The stuff you download of the internet is a couple of Mbps.
                              DVD's are compressed down to 4-6 Mbps.
                              You have not viewed 50 Mbps HD video over WiFi.
                              50 Mpbs is about as low as you can go and end up with usable HD video in a broadcast workflow.

                              check out XDCAM HD or DVCPRO HD 



                              Remember that raw HD video starts at  3 GBps...



                            • Link Perry
                              ... Wow, that s really surprising, considering that the final product is transmitted to viewers at 12-17 Mbps. Is that much headroom really required for
                              Message 14 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 5/3/10, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:

                                50 Mpbs is about as low as you can go and end up with usable HD video in a broadcast workflow.



                                Wow, that's really surprising, considering that the final product is transmitted to viewers at 12-17 Mbps. Is that much headroom really required for editing, cropping, etc? I'm sure that some is needed to avoid degradation from multiple decompression/recompression  cycles, but 4X to 5X seems like an awful lot. Using all I-frame format (Mpeg IMX) consumes a lot of bandwidth to make editing equipment simpler.

                                Link
                              • Don Hackler
                                ... (For standard def production, we use 25 Mbps.) Mostly you need to avoid the decompression/recompression cycles while converting from one digital format in
                                Message 15 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  On May 3, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Link Perry wrote:





                                  On 5/3/10, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:

                                  50 Mpbs is about as low as you can go and end up with usable HD video in a broadcast workflow.



                                  Wow, that's really surprising, considering that the final product is transmitted to viewers at 12-17 Mbps. Is that much headroom really required for editing, cropping, etc? I'm sure that some is needed to avoid degradation from multiple decompression/recompression  cycles, but 4X to 5X seems like an awful lot. Using all I-frame format (Mpeg IMX) consumes a lot of bandwidth to make editing equipment simpler.



                                  (For standard def production, we use 25 Mbps.)

                                  Mostly you need to avoid the decompression/recompression cycles while converting from one digital format in editing to another digital format for storage/air...  (we call it transcoding...)  You can only do the really extreme final compression required for ATSC HD over the air one time.    If you did it twice the result would look like Youtube video.  

                                • Steve Lee
                                  Really helpful responses Don with good info. Thank you... ________________________________ From: Don Hackler To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
                                  Message 16 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment



                                    Really helpful responses Don with good info.

                                    Thank you...


                                    From: Don Hackler <donh@...>
                                    To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Mon, May 3, 2010 1:35:13 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: HD Cameras for Local News Broadcasts

                                     


                                    On May 3, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Link Perry wrote:





                                    On 5/3/10, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:

                                    50 Mpbs is about as low as you can go and end up with usable HD video in a broadcast workflow.



                                    Wow, that's really surprising, considering that the final product is transmitted to viewers at 12-17 Mbps. Is that much headroom really required for editing, cropping, etc? I'm sure that some is needed to avoid degradation from multiple decompression/ recompression  cycles, but 4X to 5X seems like an awful lot. Using all I-frame format (Mpeg IMX) consumes a lot of bandwidth to make editing equipment simpler.



                                    (For standard def production, we use 25 Mbps.)

                                    Mostly you need to avoid the decompression/ recompression cycles while converting from one digital format in editing to another digital format for storage/air. ..  (we call it transcoding. ..)  You can only do the really extreme final compression required for ATSC HD over the air one time.    If you did it twice the result would look like Youtube video.  


                                  • Neutrino78x
                                    ... Obviously you would use the normal WiMAX unlicensed frequencies (or, if you don t mind having to stop to transmit, wifi), that s the whole point.
                                    Message 17 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > It isn't legal (FCC-wise) to run WiMax or LTE gear in the frequency >bands that TV broadcasters are allowed to use for news feeds and >inter-city relays.

                                      Obviously you would use the normal WiMAX unlicensed frequencies (or, if you don't mind having to stop to transmit, wifi), that's the whole point.

                                      Regardless, I think the existing links used for Electronic News Gathering are quite capable of transmitting HD video. I don't know if this link will work, but I'll try, it is from a JVC newsletter:

                                      http://tinyurl.com/2fcqbhd

                                      from that document (you have to type "bitrate" in the search on the right to find this, unfortunately):

                                      "ProHD offers pixel-for-pixel ATSC compliancy [sic] from acquisition to home viewer HD set, because the GY-HS250U includes full count 3xCCD pixel matrix according to the ATSC table, without bandwidth pre-filtering before or within the camcorder's built-in encoder, resulting in a full bandwidth compressed HD at only 20 Mbps, a bitrate very advantageous for HD ENG."

                                      Also, under "How do you get the 20Mbps TS from the ProHD camcorder to the ENG van?" it has a diagram implying that the camcorder is designed to produce video that can be sent back to base using the existing mobile microwave link on the van.

                                      And that newsletter is really old, from 2007 or something. Three years is a long time in computer technology.

                                      So, I think the reason they don't do it is, like I said, they are broke, and don't want to spend the money to equip all the vans with HD camcorders. I can relate, I'm broke, too.

                                      *If* the existing links can't handle HD, which would surprise me, then they should definitely upgrade them to WiMAX or a similar technology.

                                      > IPTV, cable companies, IBM, and dancing elephants are another topic >completely...

                                      It is very much the same topic, look at how your responses above are based on the idea that the existing equipment has to be what is used in the future. I'm sure that when movable type was invented, people said, "why would we need this? we can copy scrolls by hand just fine!" lol...there is always resistance to a paradigm shift in technology, especially in large organizations.

                                      I remember when a 130 watt AC to DC power supply, functionally equivalent to a 130 watt PSU on a home computer, broke in SES on the submarine, and they were saying the replacements cost $100,000. My reaction was "WHAT THE F***???" and a fellow sonar tech replied that I was a guy who wasn't willing to spend what is necessary to protect our nation, or whatever. I told him, "I am willing, but I'm saying that a power supply should NOT cost one hundred thousand dollars!!!! That is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money!!!" I used more four letter words than that, but you get the idea. That other guy was not very familiar with Personal Computers, or programming, and did not realize that most of those machines, designed in the late 70s/early 80s, could be replaced with software.

                                      The good news is, the Navy is finally seeing the light, as younger guys come into power, and all the equipment in that SES room is being replaced with a Commercial Off the Shelf system, basically PCs that use classified software. It just took them 20 years to do it.

                                      Elephants can't dance.

                                      Non-classified Lockheed site about sonar COTS:

                                      http://tinyurl.com/34qgotq

                                      > You have not viewed 50 Mbps HD video over WiFi.

                                      Uh, that's because you don't need 50 Mbps to view 1080p HD video. I can view 11 Mbps HD video over Wi-Fi. I guess, by your logic, what is coming from OTA broadcasts isn't HD either, because it is compressed!!! Even Blu-Ray video is compressed.

                                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Video

                                      "For video, all players are required to support MPEG-2 Part 2, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and SMPTE VC-1.[64] BD-ROM titles with video must store video using one of the three mandatory codecs; multiple codecs on a single title are allowed."

                                      --Brian
                                    • Neutrino78x
                                      ... Ah! He finally admits that broadcast video is compressed! After I said it 10 times! ... I guess you haven t viewed HD on YouTube. looks great. Make sure
                                      Message 18 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Mostly you need to avoid the decompression/recompression cycles

                                        Ah! He finally admits that broadcast video is compressed! After I said it 10 times!

                                        >If you did it twice the result would look like Youtube video.

                                        I guess you haven't viewed HD on YouTube. looks great. Make sure you're selecting HD in the format selector.

                                        --Brian
                                      • Don Hackler
                                        ... Of course, broadcast video is compressed. Neither I, nor anybody else in the industry would ever tell you otherwise. HD video straight out of the camera
                                        Message 19 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Neutrino78x wrote:
                                          > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >> Mostly you need to avoid the decompression/recompression cycles
                                          >>
                                          >
                                          > Ah! He finally admits that broadcast video is compressed! After I said it 10 times!
                                          >
                                          >
                                          Of course, broadcast video is compressed. Neither I, nor anybody else
                                          in the industry would ever tell you otherwise.
                                          HD video straight out of the camera is 3,000 Mbps.
                                          By the time it can be recorded or transported on pro gear, it it
                                          compressed to 50 Mbps.

                                          Then when it runs on air it gets compressed again, down to the 10-15
                                          Mbps range.


                                          >> If you did it twice the result would look like Youtube video.
                                          >>
                                          >
                                          > I guess you haven't viewed HD on YouTube. looks great. Make sure you're selecting HD in the format selector.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          I watch Youtube (in HD mode) all the time. It's fair.
                                          Most of the HD has been compressed through AVV
                                          That video is compressed well under 5 Mpbs.
                                          Youtube has the advantage of being able to compress the video in
                                          non-real time, like DVD and BlueRay.
                                          They can apply all the computing power in the world and give it all the
                                          time required to compress the video to very low bit rates.
                                          Broadcasters have to do the compression (both in the camera, and over
                                          the air) in real time.






                                          > --Brian
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • bobby6048
                                          As much as you try to teach him, Don, he keeps on hanging on to some pie in the sky thought. I am now just deleting anything he posts because it s all
                                          Message 20 of 21 , May 3, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            As much as you try to teach him, Don, he keeps on hanging on to some pie in the sky thought. I am now just deleting anything he posts because it's all drivel....

                                            --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Neutrino78x wrote:
                                            > > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > >> Mostly you need to avoid the decompression/recompression cycles
                                            > >>
                                            > >
                                            > > Ah! He finally admits that broadcast video is compressed! After I said it 10 times!
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > Of course, broadcast video is compressed. Neither I, nor anybody else
                                            > in the industry would ever tell you otherwise.
                                            > HD video straight out of the camera is 3,000 Mbps.
                                            > By the time it can be recorded or transported on pro gear, it it
                                            > compressed to 50 Mbps.
                                            >
                                            > Then when it runs on air it gets compressed again, down to the 10-15
                                            > Mbps range.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > >> If you did it twice the result would look like Youtube video.
                                            > >>
                                            > >
                                            > > I guess you haven't viewed HD on YouTube. looks great. Make sure you're selecting HD in the format selector.
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > I watch Youtube (in HD mode) all the time. It's fair.
                                            > Most of the HD has been compressed through AVV
                                            > That video is compressed well under 5 Mpbs.
                                            > Youtube has the advantage of being able to compress the video in
                                            > non-real time, like DVD and BlueRay.
                                            > They can apply all the computing power in the world and give it all the
                                            > time required to compress the video to very low bit rates.
                                            > Broadcasters have to do the compression (both in the camera, and over
                                            > the air) in real time.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > > --Brian
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          • Neutrino78x
                                            ... Uh, excuse me, several people on here, I don t keep a list, but several people have claimed that YouTube compresses the video and the OTA and cable
                                            Message 21 of 21 , May 4, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:
                                              > Of course, broadcast video is compressed. Neither I, nor anybody >else
                                              > in the industry would ever tell you otherwise.

                                              Uh, excuse me, several people on here, I don't keep a list, but several people have claimed that YouTube compresses the video and the OTA and cable broadcasts are somehow not compressed, in a lame attempt to portray OTA and cable as being better than the clearly superior HD IPTV, using the client-server model.

                                              To be blunt, it is also a very condescending attitude being taken by some on this list.

                                              Furthermore, the truth is not changed by what someone does or does not say. I would be able to find the truth independently of what anyone did or did not say on the list. There is nothing classified about your profession, that of civilian entertainment broadcast.

                                              > By the time it can be recorded or transported on pro gear, it it
                                              > compressed to 50 Mbps.

                                              How many times have I said that myself? Several times!!!!

                                              It is extremely frustrating to have people on here claim that one did not know something because one did not mention it. This is the 3rd time I have had to point that out.

                                              Now, having said that, is 50 Mbps required for HD???

                                              NO.

                                              With H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, for example, it is quite possible to have a HDTV stream that looks GREAT in 5 Mbps. This is not by losing more data than MPEG2, but being more efficient at that process of lossy compression.

                                              If you have ever watched HD on DirecTV or Dish Network, and thought it looked great, guess what, you were watching H.264, compressed HD. Of course, you will never admit on here that it looked great, but we both know it did.

                                              > Broadcasters have to do the compression (both in the camera,

                                              The camera compresses it whether it is for OTA HD or YouTube HD. *******regardless, the camera compresses in real time.********

                                              If the camera compresses data, that is occurring in real time, but you see, I assumed you knew that, even though you did not mention it. Imagine how frustrating it would be had I assumed you did not realize that consumer HD camcorders compress data in real time.

                                              I suppose you can be silly and condescending and claim that because the broadcaster is compressing just before putting it out on OTA, that this somehow makes it superior to IPTV technology, but that would be incorrect. So I will assume that this is not what you meant.

                                              IPTV is inherently more efficient because (among many other reasons), instead of sending all channels to all clients at all times, as OTA and cable do, it sends a given channel only to the client devices that requested it. So, while the computers at KNTV have to work equally hard whether there are 1 million people tuned in or 1 thousand, an IPTV server farm would be doing one thousand times less work in the latter case. The benefits of this in terms of energy use, cost, etc., should be obvious.

                                              --Brian
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.