DPS/charge for output.
50 messages in this thread
I was wondering what people are charged/charging for output. If this is by an
hourly figure, let me know, and then how much it is for a common logo type
animation. (ballpark figures) Thanks. I'm just trying to figure out how much
work I would have to do to have a PAR pay for itself.
Also, I am interested in what you would be charged/charge for one to bring in
his system, and dump to BetaSP for a little while, (say it takes 15 munutes for
hookup and recording.)
Animator's rates seem to be varied greatly in different geographic areas. Here
in California the rates seem pretty high, whereas someone from Alabama was
pointing out that animators make quite a bit less, around $24-35,000 per year
salary. I think most independant animators charge by the hour, but temper it
with project type, their own level of experience (I'd probably charge less per
hour than Cyrus Lum or Stever Scherer), etc… . Main thing is don't sell
yourself short.
I don't know of any service bureau's that have a standard rate for "bringing
in" your own equipment, but if you found one they'd probably charge hourly Beta
suite rental (in SF it's anywhere from $150- $300 per hour).
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Thanks. Hopefully, the charges would be less, since it would be only
1 deck, and for a short time.
What would you suggest for the most cost efficient way to output, for
a beginning animator? I see the PAR as very good for the money, but
still steep compared to the amount of work I do now. (very little) Is
a exabyte setup a better value in the short term, and long? I have a
250 tape backup now, but even that takes a long time to restore.
(which is billable time)
Also, what would you suggest as an ideal place to get into the
business? Thanks for your time. JNJ
You could get a PAR and disk for about the same price as an Exabyte
and drivers. After that, all your output is free. If you go the
Exabyte route, you still need to pay for someone to layoff every
animation you do, and still don't have the capability to see what you
have created until it comes back!
Greg, PMJI, but what the heck is a PAR? JL
Janes:
Check your e-mail for a ZIP spec sheet!
Greg Pyros
Thanks Greg 😉
Gee, you must be selling PARs! What's the price these days?
John:
Check your e-mail for the ZIP.
Greg
Thanks for the text. Can I use this with my Toaster as well as 3D
Studio as well as a Mac? (Sorry, I'm a multi-platform guy.)
There is a different version of the PAR for the Amiga, and nothing for the Mac.
But since you _are_ the multi-platform translating guy, you shouldn't have any
trouble translating the files to use on the PC! <g>
like Greg said, the PAR would be your best bet. Without a good way of
previewing your animation, the exabyte would be a waste of money and
you'd waste more moneys when you found problems in your output and
needed to redo the animation. The PAR would give you an excellent way
of previewing your material in the fastest possible way. You could
check motion and colour accurately and even do final output for many
clients. If you got a job that required higher quality you should be
charging more than enough to cover the cost of an exabyte to
accomplish the task.
In conclusion, get a PAR first and an Exabyte later, when work demands
it. Additinally the PAR will be far more fun alone than an Exabyte
would be <g>.
Greg's point is very good. When you get the Exabyte you'll still
have to pay to get stuff to video. With the PAR you've got unlimited
(theoretically) taping. The choice, however, is not that simple. If
your market demands BetaSP quality then the PAR won't do except as
preview device, you'll still need a way of getting to high end tape,
and the Exabyte is the most cost effective I've found. But it sounds
like you would do best with a PAR and inexpensive S-VHS deck.
I'm really not sure what the best place is to get into this buisness
as all seem to have drawbacks/advantages. I'd say the SF Bay Area is
the capital of multimedia and has a LOT of higher end production
facilities as well as video and film production, plus tons of
computer related stuff. On the other hand that means there's lots of
competition and that can make job finding tough. My only
recommendation is to stay away from rural areas at first. Once
you've established a career and client base then you can move to east
bumble you-know-what Oregon like Gus Grubba <g>.
>> If your market demands BetaSP quality then the PAR won't do except
as preview device,
When discussing market requirements, John, it is best not to state
such a restriction, Your market will determine what level of beta SP
quality is acceptable. Used to be the only quality was BVW beta then
came the slightly reduced specs of the PVW, now the UVW. If the
market accepts your work on PAR to beta SP and is willing to pay for
it then you have given them beta SP market acceptable quality. This
is not a technical issue it is a matter of what sells. I just don't
think "John Tissavary" can dictate what the market requirements are.
I find what people on this forum have told me what will and what
won't sell has nothing to do with reality. Maybe what you and
others here are really saying is "I hope the market won't accept the
output of the PAR to beta SP because I just spent all that $ on
yesterdays technology and haven't yet recovered my investment." All
I can say is this PAR thing must really be good because it has a lot
of traditionalists making alot of unsubstantiated negative claims
without the basis of experience or fact. I don't mean to be picking
on you, John. It's just that I haven't heard such a rumbling of
misinformation about anything in a long time as this PAR. It's as bad
as the toaster in broadcast. Everybody says it won't do broadcast
quality, however more and more are using it for same.
I think your getting extremely defensive for no reason, Don. First of
all, I have $3000 dollars invested in frame by frame, and $3000 in
Exabyte, which is really peanuts, and I've got more to invest in
future techology. I've decided against Betacam purchase for exactly
the reason you state: I cannot afford to be limited to UVW quality
when so far half my clients will not accept this. I have had to
invest in what will give me the HIGHEST output quality for the $$$,
and I've been successful so far. I have recovered my VTR and Exabyte
investment in 3 months!
I have NEVER purported to dictate anyone's market to anyone. I'm not
even sure of my market<g>. I do believe, however, that the PAR will
not go over well with some of my current clients, and therefore have
no regrets as to my investment. If I go with any current crop
playback device it'll be the MAX, and I don't even want to start
arguing about the MAX vs. the PAR. I cannot use a device that will
not support the current 720×486 standard.
We obviously have different clients, markets, and targets for our
respective buisnesses, and I think there is room in the world (and in
broadcast, though I'm really no expert there) for the PAR, MAX, UVW,
BVW, D1, MII, S-VHS, etc… . I just have to be absolutely certain
that I'm not limiting myself by investing in something just because I
can afford it easier than something else. Most of my clients have,
so far, asked for minimum PVW quality, and I'm currently bidding for
a job that will go D1.
From what you describe about your clients/market, you're doing very
well, staying busy, and pruchasing appropriate equipment. I commend
you for that, and hope I have the same success in my new, 6 month old
company. I don't really remember slagging the PAR, just stating it's
not capable of Beta SP quality, and I've never seen UVW output, so
I'm not talking about that. But Alan and Greg (who is slightly
biased since he sells the things) both are raving about the quality,
and I'm sure it's excellent, and blows my Targa+, S-VHS right out of
the water at a fraction of the price.
>> I do believe, however, that the PAR will not go over well with
some of my current clients,
The key word here is "my". I'm glad you clarified this, because
before your statement appeared that the PAR won't have a beta sp
output market, period. What I disagree with is the many who are
currently committed to the older more established technology are
attempting to put down this new approach to animation recording. Most
of these including yourself are making claims of quality and
marketability without any basis. >> I don't really remember slagging
the PAR, just stating it's not capable of Beta SP quality<< Again
without any experience or supportive facts you can't make this claim
unless just "slagging" the board. A statement like that is the same
as if DPS would say "John Tissavary is not capable of doing quality
animation." They probably have never seen your work either.
You just stated that if you go with any animation recorder it will be
the MAX. What is the basis of this? Why not the Bandit? Haven't
the manufacturers have made great claims for it too? And, it is in
the budget of equipment that you want to associate yourself with. As
far as being defensive, I agree with that. I'm defending the real
time recording technology vs. single frame approach as a viable, cost
competitive, alternative. I made a prediction that this technology
will someday replace the single frame approach. I don't believe I
ever said that the DPS- PAR is a replacement for this at this time.
I certainly don't plan to get rid of single frame here before testing
the waters with the current DPS PAR state of the art. In fact, I
have in my budget to buy the soft VTR for single frame control of the
betacam. One curiosity I have is whether the PAR output with betacam
component is comparable to the targa+ Y/C out single frame to the
betacam. This test interests me because it would be the best of each
technology here at Scuba Tech. It may not be of interest to anybody
else.
There is one thing you said that does make me nervous regarding
marketing.{>> Most of my clients have, so far, asked for minimum PVW
quality,} I adamantly refuse to discuss the model, brand name,
software version, software types, number of hours I work, race,
religion, political influence, names of subcontractors, brands of
monitors, etc etc. with the client or market. I only will discuss
the delivered format of the work. How I get to that format with the
video information he is buying, I consider none of the client's
business and a breach of my confidential trade secrets. I believe it
was James Murphy that asked this some time ago and I told him I just
say I use all the tools and knowledge I have to give you the best
product within your budget and time frame. I have never run into any
clients that have tried to dictate the brand name or model number of
my editor or the version of my software. But, I have been refused a
job because of the color of my skin, but that's life in modern
America. It's difficult enough to cope with all these format wars let
alone have to cope with the likes of model numbers and brand names.
And there are just too many clients that don't try to work you like a
puppet to have to deal with those that do. I ran into this in the
chemical industry bidding and it always showed up when the bidder was
trying to favor a particular customer so he wrote a spec that would
attempt to exclude the required competitive bidders. I'm sure Paul
has seen this in all his experience in bidding.
I agree that Greg is biased because he sells the product but I also respect his
judgement. That is precisely why I have to see for myself and why I have a
trial period to eval the PAR system for 30 days. Please understand that I am
not defending my decision to use the PAR for output to you because I know that
you realize it will work for my market if performs as claimed. I am defending
DPS in that people should not dictate the potential maket of a product to
others when they have no basis or experience to do so. On the other hand, if
what you said is just your opinion then I will accept that but please explain
that it is just your opinion in the future.
I absolutely respect Greg's judgment, and he is my primary Adesk dealer.
I have been asked up front by clients what format I will deliver, and
been told that if it's not BetaSP don't bother. What am I supposed
to do? Lie and give them something else? I'm honest with myself and
my cleints and do everything I can to provide what they ask for. Not
only that, but I'm proud of the video quality I'm able to achieve,
and not shy in using it as part of my marketing tactic. It's worked
so far, but the company is young and I'll of course have to see if it
causes trouble in the future. I'll take your experience into
account.
I will defend non frame by frame completely (I use the A66 far more
than single frame), and am as excited as you by its emergence on the
affordable market. While I didn't see the latest PAR, I can tell you
that I've never seen a JPEG image with compression greater than 10
that looks as perfect as its targa original. While this may not be
noticeable on the PAR in many cases, I'll bet there are plenty where
it won't work. I have $3750 invested in single frame technology, and
use it ONLY for previews right now. I've yet to get a client who
will accept S-VHS, but there are a couple on the horizon. I bought
the VTR with previews in mind, and figured any final output would be
gravy.
I am considering the MAX for myself for several reasons:
1) I have seen its output and think it's incredible.
2) With a SCSI array the compression level of the JPG's will be minimal (less
than 10) and BetaSP quality.
3) It has 720×486, which is what I need for previews 99% of the time.
) I have had good experiences with Matrox and wish to continue doing buisness
with them.
I will, of course, evaluate the PAR before making any decision and
would be happy to spend less than $5k for what I need. The biggest
problem I've got with the PAR is that it can't do full screen
720×486, and, thus, won't be useful to me as a preview device.
I've seen the Bandit, it's not as good as what I've seen of the MAX,
and I think the PAR will be better, too.
Of course all of this and just about everything else I say is my
opinion. I always consider what anyone says to be opinion, unless
it's backed up by numbers and testing, and even then I'm not so
sure…<g>.
>> The biggest problem I've got with the PAR is that it can't do full
>> screen 720×486, and, thus, won't be useful to me as a preview device.
I don't get that. The PAR resolution is 752×480. Will the 6 lines make that
much difference?
>>I have been asked up front by clients what format I will deliver, and been
told that if it's not BetaSP don't bother. What am I supposed to do? Lie and
give them something else?
OK, now I'll go along with that because that's not what you said
earlier. Earlier you said the client was dictating what brand and
model# of deck you should use to do the recording as a measurement of
video quality and I said I felt this was just a ploy to disqualify
you as a bidder rather than based on actual facts of quality. You
use minimum beta SP to be the same as minimum PVW. I would only
agree in a contract to beta SP which means the format not the brand
machine. Have you ever heard of BTS?
Your logic, based on your current knowledge, of the MAX is good. I
too am concerned somewhat of the single resolution restriction in the
PAR. But, I won't pay 3X the price to have a slightly lower
resolution capability. I can do a lot of double renderings for those
$. I might be inclined to pay 3X more for double the horizontal
pixels so that I could attain full broadcast 700 line res. standard.
Even the ATVISA doesn't achieve this output res. The consideration
for me was did it meet the minimum threshhold in output quality and
after viewing the three brands I was convinced that the PAR was equal
to the MAX in output visual quality on the animation. The Bandit had
mucho technical problems. The PAR was demonstrating longer sustained
runs of PAR output than the MAX. Both technologies were very good. I
will also say that if I had an illuminator pro installed and just had
to buy the software and the Studio Xpress my decision might be for
the MAX. However, having said that, I would like to add that the MAX
is a far more complex a process, integrating different manufacturer's
products to get the package and this alone makes me nervous. I count
4 different makes of equipment and software in the total MAX package
not including the harddrive. In case you don't have the specs on the
MAX, its package includes products from Matrox, Miranda Technologies,
Rapid Technology, and Adaptec. With the reputation this industry has
for pointing the finger at others when problems arise it has to be a
consideration as well. It was for me.
Regarding compression ratio, artifacts and video quality. I have a
thought on this that you and others might consider. It has been my
experience from the demo of these technologies that the artifacts
being discused within these compression ratios are very suttle. Maybe
only detectable on a still image but not for me in a moving image. It
would be an interesting test to perform the same animation to a
matched set of BVM type monitors side by side to a panel that wasn't
told what equipment they were looking at and then do the same for a
still image. My bets would be that the MAX vs. PAR would be 50:50 on
the animation. meaning the picture quality would be so close the
respondents would be guessing randomly. With the still image, I'm
not so sure it would be a draw.
SVHS customers? I'm not surprised. If the client can use your
material to edit in a higher format such as 1" and distribution is
VHS then this format might work but if editing in SVHS and
distribution is VHS then the final chroma res. will be so low that
all colors will just look like a glow on the screen. Graphics just
doesn't hold up with color under recording and duplication. I use
3/4 here and while much better than SVHS for the editing it still is
nothing to brag about with graphics. BTW I have SVHS here too.
Don >> I might be inclined to pay 3X more for double the horizontal pixels so
that I could attain full broadcast 700 line res. standard. <<
Greg was talking about this too saying that D1 has less horizontal
lines of resolution than SVHS even. Where does this idea come from? I
followed Greg's reasoning but neither Quantel or Textronix would
substantiate the claim that a line of resolution had double the
pixels. This perception suggests that somehow you're loosing lines of
resolution because of the spacing between lines. If you've got
documentation for this claim I'd be really interested. The Matrox Ill
Pro meets CCIR 601 specification with 720×486 pixels and the
specification calls for 720×486 so where does this "double the
horizontal pixels" stuff come from?
Seriously, this is madness.<g>
In recent messages I did notice a tendency for you to mix the numbers
up regarding this resolution issue. Specifically you had recently
confused the vertical scan line NTSC limitation with vertical
division lines that determine the increment of horizontal information
(hor. res.) I get the idea that you are rather well read in the
technologies but somehow seem to be missing something very important
here to relate the whole picture. Maybe it was the lateness of the
hour or whatever but I'll start from the top with my understanding of
the issue for other's benefit as well. This will be lengthy so I
hope it doesn't get chopped by CIS.
IN VIDEO, resolution is actually measured at the output monitor using
a chart that is divided into alternating converging black and white
lines. The test is: frame up the chart with an input device, usually
a camera, and display and measure on the monitor visually. At the
point where the lines are no longer separate you take a reading and
this becomes the particular resolution in "lines" The chart has
several locations where one can measure this usually at each corner
and at center. There is a separate scale for horizontal and vertical
resolution. This process tests the system rather than any particular
piece of the system. Using a pattern generator the camera may be
replaced.
The RS-170A specification decrees a horizontal scan rate of
15,734 Hz and 525 lines vertical. It also specifies interlaced
vertical lines which is 525/2=262.5. If we divide the horizontal by
the vertical rate per field we get 15734/262.5= 59.94 Hz. or vertical
scan rate commonly rounded to 60Hz. The vertical resolution is
therefore limited to the number of vertical lines in the display.
Further limiting this resolution is the number of lines that are
actually used for picture display. The number is 486 or 248 per
field. Therefore , the maximum vertical resolution obtainable is 486
lines for each picture. Horizontal resolution on the otherhand is
not limited by a precise on – off of the phosphors of the display
device but instead by the ability for the signal to represent a
visual change as the scan lights up phosphors as it travels from left
to right across the screen continuously. This changs is limited by
many other factors as well but mostly by the the horizontal bandwidth
of the video signal. With color luminance and chrominance must be
addressed separately. For simplicity I'll use the higher figure of
luminance which is 4.7 Mhz. (1.5 Mhz for chrominance). The number
of lines may be approximated, assuming all else in the circuitry is
"perfect" with the formula N=BW*2T [ BW= bandwidth, N=#of hor.
lines, T= time of hor. trace. 63.5 us (us=micro seconds) less
blanking or 53 us] This gives us a maximum picture resolution
horizontally of 498.2 lines, or 500 lines which is theoretical.
Note: you can calculate the horz. scan trace with 1/15734Hz. For
recording, the horizontal luminance is boosted to accomodate even
higher resolution. In order to produce a line on a video screen the
trace has to alternate between black and white and back to white
again. To produce this effect on a picture element basis (pixels) we
would need a minimum of two pixels per line when adjacently placed.
This equates to video lines of resolution = pixels/2 or 1000 pixels
to generate 500 lines which is broadcast spec for NTSC as far as
continuous image is concerned.
Another issue at play is the measurement of resolution called rise
time. This is generally used in character generators and graphics
where by the measurement is determined for the time it takes the
trace to rise from black to white as in graphics. The lower the
figure the faster the rise the sharper the graphic. The figure of
0.035 us or better is considered to be "broadcast minimum standard"
as for character generated graphics. The maximum number of
increments of rise and fall ( two picture elements ) would be
calculated at pixels= 53us/.035 or 1514 pixels. Using this
relationship it can be mathematically shown that the horizontal
resolution (for character generators) is approx. 1500 pixels to
satisfy or equal specifications for broadcast character generators
at 35 nano seconds rise time.
In summary it must be understood that it is impossible to produce a
line in video without rise and fall of the trace and to show a series
of differences in the video detail it requires a minimum of two
pixels for every line of detail. Otherwise the differences (detail)
would be nonexistent.
Greg is correct in his supposition that the formula is 2*pixels per
line of detail but his relating 1008 to broadcast standard is
somewhat inaccurate. Back calculating the ATVISTA 1008 pixels figure
equates to a CG with a rise time of 52.5 nano seconds. FYI some
Chyrons produce graphics in the 15 nano second range. I can only
say that while the ATVista at 1008 pixels is probably state of the
art in output it is not equal to a 35 nanosecond CG. for resolution.
In addition one must be cautious in using specifications for cameras
and VTRs when defining a standard in graphics. Of course, as the CG
world changes, there is more and more blending of graphics and texture
video maps to blend the two entities. But basically, 2 pixels for
each resolution line of video is the rule on horizontal res.
In conclusion, a 720 line specification VTR should receive graphics
created with a minimum of 1440 pixels to max its resolution
capability. In my opinion, your comments suggest that you do need to
review the differences between pixels and video resolution as it
relates to normal pictures and graphics. I thought the 720 D1 spec
relates to resolution not pixels. I hope the above helps you to
understand this relationship and is a start in your reading. BTW Greg
did not suggest that svhs is higher res than D1. If he did then I
missed it and I think he stands corrected.
My sources for the above are various articles, and in particular an
article on determining resolution by Cecil Smith.
I agree with most of your points. I am not so sure the single resolution of
the PAR will be a huge problem, but since I do everything in 720×486 it won't
be "perfect". I use a Targa+ right now, and that's even worse, so I'm not one
to talk<g>. Part of the benefit the MAX would hold for me is the Illuminator
Pro that comes with it. I will be able to see 720×486 images on my monitor and
get a MUCH better idea of how beautiful my images REALLY are <g>. The PAR
would give me a good resolution, but I don't know if you can just view a single
frame while working on the mesh, like with a frame buffer. If it does, please
let me know, as this would be another point in its favor.
My clients have never dictated brand names, but have dropped strong hints about
the quality, and Sony equipment is what I have access to, so that's what it
ended up being. I've heard good things about BTC, but never used the
equipment. I don't really have that much hands on experience with video
broadcast equipment since I came from film. I can talk Panaflex, Arri, and
Mole all day long, but in video my experience is pretty much limited to Sony,
for better or worse.
I agree that for 3x the money the MAX can't be 3x as good, but the Illuminator
Pro will have lots of value, so I have to deduct that from the cost, since I
was planning on buying one anyway.
I also agree that in many cases the difference between the MAX and PAR would
not be noticeable to the human eye, but under some circumstances I think the
MAX will outshine the PAR. It is these few reasons that I am considering that
MAX even though it is not as good a $$$ for $$$ value as the PAR. But then we
don't know what the shipping/street price on the MAX will be, yet, either.
regards,
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Looks like we come down to the same conclusions. [ Go with format, not brand
names as far as output.]
I agree that the MAX looks better $ wise if you are planning to get the
Illuminator pro anyway.
Greg could answer your question about FB replacement but for now I plan to
continue to use the targa+ for modeling test rendering at 512×486 and when time
to render to the PAR just switch to that resolution . Of course after I have
one here I may find the plan changes. You didn't comment on the MAX requiring
all those manufacturers' products cooperating to complete the system. I guess
this is really a double edged sword but it was an issue with me.
PMJI, Engraved above my Sony Monitor: "Sell the talent you have to
communicate effectively through graphics…We use a variety of tools
best suited to accomplish the Job." "Don Landis" It's still there
Don! Murph'
John,
Currently, what are you finding that people are charging to output and
Exatbyte'ed animation on an Abacus(sp?)?
Andrew
I'm not 100% clear on your quesion, but I'll go for it anyway<g>.
I have found @ $.16 per frame, or $200 per hour (= @ 40 seconds finshed
animation) to be an average good deal. Frames can be had for less, but there
is usually an insert edit surcharge involved, so the price goes up a tad.
I hope I got the gist of your question,
regards,
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Yes, I think you answered it.
I was just trying to deside if it would be worth looking at an Exabyte
solution, and having someone else actually do the output to D1 or just get an
Abacus in-house. At first glance, it seems that the cost of an Abacus would be
about the same as a good BetaSP deck (less than $20,000).
The PAR sounds interesting for the cost, but I am limited now, and don't want
to get another peice of equipment that still limits my clients.
Andrew McClary
Graphic Alchemy
O.K. , I give up, musta missed something here….what is a"PAR" and "MAX" ? -g-
They are new products that allow the user to play back 24bit hi-res animations
in real time using JPEG streaming. JPEG is a compression scheme that can
reduce image files greatly, but will cause artifacting with greater
compression. I believe both products are striving to reduce the necessity of
JPEG compression to a minimum, and therefore artifacting is barely, if at all,
noticeable.
The PAR is made by DPS, and the MAX is from Matrox.
Greg Pyros, on this forum, is a dealer for the PAR, and will be glad to E-mail
you further info if you ask him.
I think Angelo Guarino is a Matrox dealer, and seems to be well informed about
the MAX. If he can't answer your questions, Alain Legault, product manager at
Matrox, pops in on this forum from time to time.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
John:
>> I'd say the SF Bay Area is the capital of multimedia
If I was in an argumentative mood, I'd say I have to disagree, but I'm not, so
I won't.
Greg Pyros
Greg,
Pardon my video ignorance here, but what is "PAR"?
Michael B.
Michael:
Check your e-mail for a full spec sheet.
Greg Pyros [Pyros Partnership, Inc] gpyros@pyros.com 13-Jan-94 at 1:15p PST
Thanks, I got the file.
MB
Greg, could you e-mail me a spec sheet too? Is it available now? Thanks.
Greg:
>> Greg, could you e-mail me a spec sheet too? Is it available now?
Check your e-mail. The spec sheet is available, the PAR will be by the end of
the month! <g>
Greg Pyros [Pyros Partnership, Inc] gpyros@pyros.com 14-Jan-94 at 7:12a PST
Greg- is there a file about the PAR up here somewhere?
Rachel:
The DPS PAR file is in your e-mail. (Zipped)
Greg Pyros
Thanks, got the e-mail. Going to have to approach my budget consultant (aka my
wife) on this one.
>>If I was in an argumentative mood, I'd say I have to disagree, but
I'm not, so I won't.
Didn't you just do it? <G,D&R>
John,
I've been away for a while so I have missed much of the chatter about the PAR,
though I have a copy of its specs which state that it outputs Beta-SP
component. Right now my studio is outputing to S-VHS and I am looking for a way
to output Beta-SP quality. We are looking at the PAR for doing this. (I would
rather not put an expensive Beta-SP deck through the abuse I am putting my
S-VHS decks.) You just said in your letter to John Jordan that it wouldn't do
for output to Beta-SP? Is this the case in reallity then?
Andrew McClary
Graphic Alchemy Productions
Andrew:
The signal quality of the PAR is BetaSP, but the video image is a bit below
that because of the JPEG compression. It has composite, Y/C, and BetaSP/M-II
component outputs.
Alan Iglesias and I recorded a laserdisc directly on the PAR through it's TBC,
and it was hard to tell the difference by A/B ing it on a 19" monitor!
I think most people will find it the perfect alternative for previews and work
in progress, and final output for all but the most demanding clients, such as
network broadcast.
Greg Pyros [Pyros Partnership, Inc] gpyros@pyros.com 13-Jan-94 at 9:02a PST
Greg,
>> I think most people will find it the perfect alternative for previews and
work in progress, and final output for all but the most demanding clients, such
as network broadcast. <<
How do you think it will hold up in a Beta SP edit environment after a couple
of passes?
(This is not a setup, this is a straight question. And I promise I will keep
moot! <G>)
-JE
John:
Since it is digital, the quality will always be the same, you only have to
contend with the BetaSP degradation.
Like anything else, the fewer passes, the better! (except football)
Greg Pyros
Greg – I think you got the drift of what I was saying without coming out and
saying it. You're good, I'll give you that <g>. BTW when it that book coming
out? Hmmmm. I'm hungry for some new 3DS reading material. Brain starved
actually. <G>
-JE
I'm not going to say absolutely yes or no, because I'm sure in some
cases the PAR would be fine, but JPEG images generally won't stand up
to CLOSE scrutiny compared to BetaSP. I have also not seen a recent
version of the PAR, so I'm really going on an older beta version and
what Greg, some magazines, and Paul Lind have had to say about the
card, which is that it makes a GREAT preview device, and a good
recording tool for clients who are not expecting ultra-high-end
broadcast quality a la BVW, 1", or D1..
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
We don't really want to spend the money on a "Preview" device. We
trying to bring more commercial work into the studio such as local
commercials. Currently most of our work is industrial of geared
toward computer playback. The guys I have spoken to so far in the
broadcast commercial production are all asking for BetaSP. The
question, is the quality of a first generation PAR dump (IE Digital)
going to be better quality than a second generation BetaSP tape?
I definitely can't answer that, because I haven't seen the shipping
version of the PAR, and one would probably want to do some tests on a
scope, etc… before a definitive answer can be had. I don't think
JPEG images with compression greater than 10 can be lossless,
therefore I don't think it will be so, but don't know for sure.
PMJI, IMHO the PAR would be AOK for your clients.
That would be my gut feeling, but if his clients are expecting primarily Beta
SP quality, I don't know if it would always fit the bill, nor the MAX for that
matter. As I understand it, JPEG stream stuff still doesn't stand up to single
frame BetaSP, or Abekas/BetaSP or ^.
I just don't know Andrew's clients, so I hate to say "yes" for sure.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
John,
the reason I felt it was appropriate for his application was that he mentioned
flic recording, I believe. If he was thinking about that then I'm sure the PAR
would fit the bill.