#VESA Driver for Ani Pro?
20 messages in this thread
I read it to mean that you were recording FLC file playback through an NTSC
converter like the Magni. Correct? If this is so, I don't know of any tv
station that would put it on the air. The signal is too low quality. I am not
saying that your animation is anything but awesome, but the NTSC signal coming
out of the MAGNI or any other NTSC converter is certainly not broadcast
quality, no matter what they say…
Doug- Define Broadcast quality.
The signal quality from the Magni is certainly acceptable for broadcast
purposes. In fact, in a pinch, I've used the Magni to produce house sync for on
line production of a TV commercial.
Although 8 bit color and non frame accuracy animation has its technical
problems for broadcast, this has nothing to do with the Magni signal output.
What specific test methods have you performed to evaluate the signal purity
from the Magni and what were those results? I'm sure that Magni engineers
would be most curious about your conclusions. I had reported a slight chroma
burst rise distortion in one of their earlier cards and they promptly RMA
repaired it.
Remember the GIGO rule "Garbage In -Garbage Out" If you feed a FLC file to the
Magni its output will not meet RS-170(A) standards. However, feed it a still
640X480 8 bit signal and the video output will pass for broadcast at most TV
stations. I've never had a complaint with my stuff.
My definition of Broadcast Quality is minimum to be FCC legal. But then my
discipline is broadcast engineering not advertising and marketing where buzz
words are used to impress others.
I know you were specifically refering to animation, and with that I agree the
Magni can not output an FCC legal video signal but you made it sound like the
Magni has too low of a signal quality to be used in broadcast which is just not
true!
I am NOT an expert, but since the original Jovian, US Video, Willow and even
the higher quality Magni, ALL claim to be 'broadcast' quality. But I have also
heard several stusions say they would never put it on the air…
That is the extent of my knowledge. Yes, the sync in fine. But the quality of
the images (color, etc) leaves much to be desired. I don't want to have a
debate here. I would just put ANY of Greg Pyros' single frame to laser videos
against ANY Magni playback of a FLC. I really didn't want to cause a problem.
Sorry if anyone was offended. In my limited experience, I wish all my
competitors walked into prospective client's offices with VHS tapes from a
Magni to compare against a professional 3/4 or BetaSP master. Contracts would
be much easier to get…
Doug,
I certainly don't think that an honest exchange of ideas and opinions is
offensive. Personally I'm very pleased that you, and a number of others have
taken the time to respond. We are going to go ahead with the Magni and output
it to SVHS and see what the end result is. The truth is that we're just a
couple of relatively creative and mildly talented guys making a local spot.
Certainly if we had the means to do it the best way, we would. Perhaps a few
jobs down the road.
Best,
Chuck
Hey Don,
Is your telephone number for sale? I'd like to call and ask you some stupid
video questions.
JKJ
Doug,
If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, what other options
do I have for getting this animation onto broadcast quality video tape? Are
there ways to get this done for a reasonable price?
Best,
Chuck
Ahhh therein lies the rub. I hear this request all the time from my clients.
They say things like, "have you seen the Listerine commercials? We want that
quality and our budget is $5000. Bottom line is, it can't be done in high
quality for low budget. The most you should spend for a finished BetaSP tape is
about $1.10 per frame. (That is just the mastering costs…). As I said in my
previous message, yes, you can videotape NTSC output from a FLC file going
through a Magni. But it will always be far lower in quality than a competitor
who is single framing…
Ya see? we really do agree that very expensive equipment is better than low
cost equipment but that is not to say that just because one has spent 15,000for
a PVW-2800 and 5-6000for an ATvista and encoder that the Magni is not Broadcast
"technical" standard. Feeding the Magni an improper signal can shift it out of
this standard but through careful planning and realizing the limitations of the
Magni it can output within FCC guidelines.
FWIW- I mentioned this thread to a real traditionalist Broadcast Engineer
today and his response surprised me. He told me that people rendering
animation to the Betacam lite or PVW-2800 were really not up to specs with
network standards and should be using the BVW-75 if they want to consider their
beta tape "Broadcast" He said that Sony intended the Betacam Lite for the
upper end of the Industrial market not as a low cost replacement for broadcast
work. Also he went on to say that any encoder under $10,000 was a piece of
junk and really a waste of money if your target is true broadcast. He also
didn't consider any PC type animation system out today worthy of broadcast.
His attitude is that broadcast is and should continue to strive for the top
quality in signal purity and this"low end" animation stuff is just muddying up
the industry.
Now I don't say I agree with all his ideas but I do respect him greatly for his
technical knowledge. He has many years in the industry and is highly respected
among his peers.
As far as pricing goes I think that is where it really shows. When I do a
simple color cycle animation in deluxe Paint and output it with the Magni
genlocked to house sync or keyed over Video it would sell for much less than if
I moved that colorcycled graphic across the screen in 3D and rendered to "my in
house" 3/4 frame accurate system. When I go to betacam in the near future my
target will be the ad agencies and TV commercials and my pricing will reflect
that format. That is not to say that I haven't sold work to ad agencies and TV
commercials using the Magni and 3/4 inch in the past but they came to me, I
didn't solicit them. In my credits I've done a whole 4 minute segment for PM
Magazine edited on 3/4, a 50 second piece for Good Morning America, and shot
the underwater stuff for the Kim Alexis Story on VHS. I did a 30 minute
infomercial on a new bass lure and shot it with Hi8 and betacam mixed and the
ad agency didn't know the difference. These were all network broadcasts. I've
done dozens of local and state wide pieces on 3/4 editing and this never seemed
to be a problem to the client. The only problems I have ever encountered were
from other small video production companies who probably were just sour grapes
over not getting those magical 1500/rendered sec jobs they thought would come
begging just because they were in the business with alot of expensive stuff. I
get excited when I hear others starting out with humble beginnings and offer
encouragement so I say GO FOR IT! If th
Don,
I had to jump in here, because we have used a BVW-75 for a while although we
ususally use the PVW-2800, we've used both. Before going with the PVW-2800's we
rigorously tested both units for signal strength,purity,quality,etc.
We were amazed to find that the PVW-2800 came out on top! The BVW is without a
doubt, a stronger deck designed for the production, post production
environment, but the PVW unit is more along the lines of the BVW-50. The 50 is
the top of the line portable unit that is THE choice for all SP field work. The
price of the BVW-50 is a few hundred below the PVW.(There is no higher priced
field unit)
This being said, the BVW-75 has some nice features such as it's Variable
memory for DT editing, and the deck will stand up to the rigors of 24/7 post
work, whereas the PVW would probably fail quicker. (The BVW also has nice led's
instead of the peg needle units.) 🙂
But having had a number of "Broadcast Engineers" thoroughly check the units, I
can say without a doubt that the SIgnal purity, etc. has no difference between
the two decks.If there was a difference the PVW was cleaner. Some time when you
have time, if you'd like to make a trip to Va. I'll be glad to set the two
units up at a local studio and run some tests for you.
Now in the realm of encoders, The high end models are without a doubt WAY above
the low end units. Like I said in a previous message, I can't stand the "built
in units". The CV22 runs around $2000 and provides a nice middle of the road
solution. I don't know of a $10,000 unit that simply does RGB to Betacam
component. We have a CV22,CV21,CV23,CV20 unit that runs around $4200. All this
unit does is allow us to go RGB to Beta Component, Beta Compnent to RGB (for
rotoscoping), and generates color bars.
This setup provides us with phenomenal quality, both in picture and signal
quality. and I'm 100% convinced that the BVW-75 couldn't do a better job in
[>> Continued in next msg]
[>> Continued from previous msg]
the animation world. I can say without a doubt that if I had found the BVW-75
to be a better solution I would have bought that unit to run with our PC's.
Paul
.
Thanks for the excellent response, Paul. It's good you had the opportunity to
check these out for your self. I know my friend told me that when I'm ready to
buy he'll bring both machines over and show me what he was talking about. We
did the same for TBC's a couple years ago.
You didn't say exactly what methods you used to do the evaluation. I'd guess
the differences were suttle. I know the tests I participated in were conducted
blind as to what deck was on which monitor at the moment. Right now the PVW IS
the deck of my choice so I'm looking for supportive comments for its use in the
intended market I want to tap.
Don,
When the two units were tested, they were run through a relatively standard
battery of evals. S/N, Y/C, DG & DP, K factor, etc.
I must admit that the actual testing wasn't blind, but it's difficult to fudge
test equipment. It's not like we're looking at the images and deriving an
opinion. My feelings about the two units are fairly simple. A) The PVW costs
more than any of their transportable units, virtually all aquisition is done on
their portable units, therefore the PVW is fine for dumping animation to. After
all, if you've got a clean stable animation environment, you're working with a
heck of alot better signal environment than they are in the field.
The BVW units are more expensive, have extra abilities, but produce the same
signal strengths and offer no advantage whatsoever to an animation environment.
(Especially not to a PC based environment) D2 is an advantage and before I'd
set up numerous BVW's I'd fork out a little extra and pick up DVR-20's.
In the end, if I thought the BVW offered ANY advantages over the PVW that would
be useful to me in my current environment, I'd have one! The money isn't that
large of a factor.
Thanks for the thread,
Paul
.
Believe it or not, our local post house (PVR in SF) bought a BTS Dynamic Noise
Reducer this year (for $55,000) that makes 3/4" and SVHS material look as good
as BetacamSP. It's probably the most impressive piece of hardware that I've
ever seen.
– G
Gary,
PMJI
If you're talking about a BTS MNR 9, that is indeed a REALLY neat piece of
equipment. The first time I saw one, a tech told me that they used it to remove
all noise from tapes. I was interested enough to get some specs from BTS and
their literature says it removes tape dropouts, random dust and scratches
during transfers, and RF glitches in transmission.
The item incorporates some type of three dimensional median filter that removes
almost all artifacts while leaving both the horizontal and vertical bandwiths
intact. Alot of television stations use them to improve remote pickups from
microwave transmisssions because by removing artifacts across a microwave
transmission, they can achieve phenomenal quality from field locations.
BTS really has alot of nice equipment.
Paul
Spending $55,000 to make a $3,000and $7000 dollar format look like a $16,000
format.????
What were the accountants at PVR smoking?
They have clients who bring documentary work in on all sorts of formats. It
_was_ a hard sell for the engineers, but it was worth it. The unit is amazing
(and they charge for it).
– G
Gary:
I could see a great application for it when the only size rig that will fit the
shoot is a Hi8 camcorder. Like 5000 feet back in an underwater cave past
several tanks off push and squeeze restrictions. If the footage needs to be
like Betacam SP I guess that unit would do it.
Don,
PMJI
>> Like 5000 feet back in an underwater cave past several tanks off push and
squeeze restrictions <<
You gotta be kidding! You actually do this for money! <BG>
James M. Murphy
Speculative money, no less. That's why they call us crazy cave divers.
In my book, all cave divers are crazy… What? Me immortal? Nawww…
– G