#PAR purchase?
32 messages in this thread
I am considering purchasing the DPS PAR to layoff animation from 3DS. I know
practically nothing about the Personal Animation Recorder. Where can I get
info on this system.. are they on compuserve? How much does it cost? What is
the format, 3/4? Can I layoff to a 1/2 inch directly? Thanks for any
information.
James Franssen
James,
download or read PAR_FA.txt in library 6 (hardware/op sys/video). It contains
answers to frequently asked questions about the PAR.
Simply put, The PAR uses a dedicated IDE hard drive and an ISA board that will
make your computer output full broadcast quality video from your tga files just
like a camera would. It outputs component betacam, Y/C (S-video) and composite
at 752X480 resolution. The bigger and faster your HD the higher the quality.
Additional options are a TBC board for live video frame grabbing and sound sync
(soon to come). It does not require a frame accurate deck. Cost is $1995 for
the board and what ever you can get a Micropolis drive 2210A for. This drive
holds about 6-7 minutes of video, more with lower quality.
Don,
>> and an ISA board that will make your computer output full broadcast quality
video… <<
The framebuffer is capable of "full broadcast" output, but its very
questionable whether the image quality of compressed ANI is up to "full
broadcast quality". There _is_ a difference. <g>
-JE
JohnE:
>> The framebuffer is capable of "full broadcast" output, but its very >>
questionable whether the image quality of compressed ANI is up to "full >>
broadcast quality".
Interesting point you raise – I wasn't aware of a spec on the quality of an
image, just on the quality of the output. Animator Pro 256 color images can be
output at "full broadcast quality", but would not be considered by many to be
of high _image_ quality.
I can render something really ugly (and do, once in a while <g>) that meets all
the specs, but the "quality police" wouldn't let it onto the airwaves!
Greg (keeping ya honest!) Pyros
Greg,
>> Keeping ya honest… <<
Keeping me honest!? <g> What about the people running around claiming the PAR
is "full Broadcast quality"? <BG>
I can dub a VHS from BlockBusters to Beta SP. Do you think NBC might play on
the Monday Night movie? 🙂
BTW why do you think they named it Personal Animation Recorder instead of say
Broadcast Animation Recorder? <g>
-JE
P.S. Are you back for good or just passing through. 🙂
Okay, you've hit the heart of my curiosity. Is the PAR something I would want
to use for quality output? I have a budget that will allow for something like
the Sony UVW-1800 which goes for about $9,800 brand new, and I have seen the
quality it outputs which is quite nice. Of course I would need software to
control it and I assume that would tack on about another $1,000. What I want
to know, is it worth spending $8,000 more for a single-frame recorder, or is
the PAR sufficient for quality standards the big money companies require?
Thanks for your comments.
James Franssen
James,
>> is the PAR sufficient for quality standards the big money companies require?
<<
What do you consider big money companies? This really gets a lot more
complicated than it might appear. What's your market, skill level, not to
mention opportunity to contract this type of work?
-JE
James, you'll also likely need an NTSC framebuffer, a single-frame controller,
a sync generator, color bar generator, a few monitors, a time code
reader/generator, etc.. Plan on spending many thousands in addition to the VTR.
BILL
John:
I'm back for good – I hope! <g>
I never said that you or I would use it for our broadcast output, but that some
people have done so, and 'legally' to spec. The quality of the image depends
on the animation itself and the way it is done.
I just wanted to make sure that people realized that there are two issues here,
the output quality and the image quality!
Greg Pyros
Greg,
>> I just wanted to make sure that people realized that thre are two issues
here, the output quality and the image quality! <<
That was my intent also.
Gee doesn't this all seem like Deja Vu? <g> Six months ago we were talking
about the PAR and the CRV. You'd think that nothing every changes here, but
alot has. Apparently we've come full circle. <G>
Glad you're back to keep it honest. 🙂 And for a few other reasons… like the
tone around here really changed in your absence. 🙁
CIAO
-JE
WRT the theme of the messages in this thread, I wanted to make a few points:
When people use the term "broadcast quality", I believe there are 2 completely
different things they mean:
1) Referring to the signal quality.
2) Referring to content.
Let me make another statement of opinion:
Usually, wrt signal quality, most any recorded signal mastered NOT
INCORPORATING color-under technology can be construed as "broadcast quality".
(not considering content in this case)
Having said that:
1) You can use only the highest-end broadcast equipment, and still manage to
record a sub-standard and illegal signal, and not be able to broadcast it.
2) You can use sub-standard, XXX-generation, color under technology with the
right content, and someone out there will pay for it AND broadcast it.
3) You can scan the multitude of channels out there, and find an amazing range
of "broadcast" signals and content.
Does that clear things up a bit ? <BG>
BILL
Bill,
I don't know what to respond to. This certainly isn't a justification for using
the PAR in broadcast, but some people will.
-JE
John, I just (accidentally) used your message as a hook into this thread. As I
explained to James, although containing truths – my message was just joking
around. No one is supposed to take me seriously here <g>.
BILL
You have your opinion and my broadcast customers have theirs. John, I've
decided not to question my clients when they choose to purchase my animation
and put it on the air. But, since the definition of "full broadcast quality"
is inconsistent in the industry we're probably both correct. MY definition of
broadcast quality is any signal that can be legally transmitted. The rest is
arbitrary and generally based on aesthetics, personal politics, and, the snob
factor. <BG> Seriously, though, I do find this preoccupation with what is
broadcast quality and not broadcast quality by some on this forum not only
pointless, but also exasperating at times. While some choose to sit around and
debate the issue others are just doing it and getting on with life bypassing
the master-debators in the process.
>> MY definition of broadcast quality is any signal that can be legally
transmitted. <<
By your definition you could output SVGA through an NTSC encoder and that would
be full broadcast quality. Maybe so.
>> but also exasperating at times. <<
Tell me about it, everytime I read "full broadcast quality" I cringe. So some
guy goes out based on your recommendation and buys a PAR thinking he's going to
be able to do with it what people who are spending $16000 on a DDR can do and
finds out the reality of "true broadcast quality".
Why should I care… because I thought the idea was to help people, and to
spare them some of the grief we've all been through buying equipment. But
obviously I'm out of sync with the majority view.
CIAO
-JE
>>everytime I read "full broadcast quality" I cringe.
>>But obviously I'm out of sync with the majority view.
Well, we do agree on these points you made! To tell you the truth, I added the
word "full" after hearing it on the DPS-PAR demo tape and knew it would get a
rise out of you.
We also could match stories on this topic. For every job you have seen go down
the toilet due to something like "only having 54 db S/N and the producer
requires 56 db S/N to qualify for minimum broadcast quality (not measured, just
speced)" I could tell a story on the otherhand where a nationally recognized
popular network TV show has purchased VHS Video for inclusion in their show,
and, I'm not talking about America's Home Videos either.
As a matter of fact, I did compete with two bidders for a job last April who
submitted work using the Abekas DDR and Alias on an SGI. I used the PAR. The
spec was beta SP recorded component. While the "experts" here on the forum
were saying the PAR/UVW1800 would never make it in the real world. I quietly
won the bid and, I found out the $ was not an issue as the bidding was quite
close. Point is we're here to make recommendations as you stated but it would
be totally wrong to mislead someone into thinking that the industry is as cut
and dried as you seem to think. The low end technology is very low end and
doesn't stand much of a chance ( VGA converter cards) in making it to broadcast
due primarily technical reasons but the PAR system is indeed capable of passing
the technical requirements for broadcast and in my opinion the only remaining
rules are those imposed by snobs.
A suggestion for DPS: Why not come out with a new Broadcast snob version of
the PAR called the BAR? Of course it would have to be repackaged in a plain
box of basic black, tan, or battleship blue/gray. There would be no supplied
connecting cables, you have to purchase them extra for big bucks because they
are all using non standard connectors. It would have an interface that only
runs on an SGI. It would only be capable of 60 seconds of recording time. The
cost would have to be $16000 or more. It would not have composite or Y/C
output but only YIQ with CCIR601 option for $5000. The resolution would have to
be less, ie 720 lines horizontal. All the rest of the specs would be the same
as the original PAR. For another $10000 it could hook up to a remote control
panel that has the appearance of an ADO panel. <BG> <Hi Dave!> <BG>
John, here's one for you: While two of the 6 local TV stations were upgrading
their beta SP decks with UVW's a third was all set to make the move too when
they scraped their decision and went again with the PVW's Guess what the
reason was? The UVW is not capable of RECORDING with betacam oxide. It plays
fine but won't record. The station only uses oxide and has scrapped SP tape
due to cost differences. I guess the FCC will be taking their broadcast
license now, right? <G>
I recently took some 2D animation to a bid done on the PAR (standard cartoon
stuff) and it was rejected because of the way that the artifacts really trash
line art (like small grids, etc.). We eneded up using direct 24 bit out put to
laser. On the other hand, I recently won another project which was 3DS stuff
output to Beta SP via PAR. The trick is to send your first tape in VHS format
via par, then send a BetaSP version. They client will think you completely
changed your act! All the dB measurements in the world are pointless if the
images doesn't look good. We have heard the "broadcast quality" buzz for years
now and the bottom line is, does the stuff look good or not? PAR is still a
great tool for prototyping and even production work, but a full-service studio
MUST offer single frame as an alternative, just in case.
– Doug Wolfgram/GRAFX, Written 01-Aug-1994 @ 12:05:14
Using: Windows NavCIS PRO 1.21
I think you're right on the mark, and along with frame by frame, you can
achieve comparable results with an Abekas DDR or Exabtye/ASDG transfers. The
end result being a standard of quality the industry expects. I'm glad to see
I'm not the only one who faces the pressures and realities of this market. I
think its great for Don but I don't think his is a typical market.
-JE
>>I think its great for Don but I don't think his is a typical market.
Very accurate! Actually what "I" am attempting to do is create a new market in
this area. My approach since the day I bought Autodesk Animator was to bring
low cost animation to the customers (primarily industrial and cable
advertisers) who otherwise would not consider it due to the cost. When I
graduated to the diaquest FBF I also continued the same marketing but bringing
these customers 3D and frame accuracy in the process. Now I could supply the
cable TV market with "low cost 3D animation" When I got the PAR and betacam SP
I found no trouble at all in graduating these customers to broadcast TV. At
each level of change my customers experienced a small increase in costs as well
but I was no where near the cost/ budget I have heard referenced by the big
boys using SGI's and D-1 recording equipment. I also picked up new customers
for the higher end industrials that my old 3/4-targa+ quality would never
qualify. Many of these clients were convinced they NEEDED this high end and
high cost to have their products broadcast on local TV. As I get discovered by
the community I find some of my competitors reducing their pricing as well and
switching to lower cost equipment too!. Remember what I said last winter,
John? The low end of the technology is developing faster pace than the high
end and seems to always be biting the high end technology in the rear. The
high end seems to take big jumps once in awhile to stay ahead. I think the
next big jump will be HDTV and then we will have a new definition of broadcast
quality. Meanwhile, I will enjoy the making of a new market in this area. At
this point in time, however, I consider my artistic talent with 3DS a bigger
leash on my marketing than my equipment and technical talent for broadcast
quality output.
Don,
I totally appreciate what you're doing, and I find it interesting that it is
working. California is an intense video market. I'm not even sure the MAX will
fair well here. We shall see. I'm sure it will work well for Industrial which
is typically posted Beta SP as that is the norm rather than the exception.
I agree that its product like 3DS and the PAR which are driving the market, and
in all likelihood will continue to do so, just for some of the reasons you've
mentioned. Its going to be really interesting to see what Microsoft's
acquisition of Softimage is going to do to the equation. (The buggers. <g>)
-JE
I think the MS-SI issue won't have much direct impact in the video world, just
in the PC "video" world.
Have you seen the DPS-PAR demo tape? If not you should get a copy, you will
find what is on the tape most interesting, especially if you also have a copy
of the SIGGRAPH '94 3DS demo tape too.
PMJI,
but how can I get a copy of the DSP-PAR demo tape?
Zac (AZ-TECH)
Berkeley
call them and request one… according to their ads in the mags.
You talk a good talk Don but it really doesn't change anything. Stack a DDR
with its lower resolution <g> up against a PAR and anybody would choose the
former. Not for snob appeal but for quality. Its the same old argument.
Enjoy your PAR Don. Caveat Emptor.
-JE
>> Stack a DDR with its lower resolution <g> up against a PAR <<
This reminds of those taste-test commercials for beer. I can see it now: "We
asked ten blindfolded people to view an animation from three sources:
frame-by-frame, DDR, and a PAR . . . " <BG>
— James — MAP —
>> "We asked ten blindfolded people to view an animation from three sources:"
<<
That works pretty well for a taste test but not very well for animation. <g>
-JE
> >> "We asked ten blindfolded people < <<
Yea. I added the "blindfolded" part as an afterthought, just to add a few
smiles. 🙂
— James — MAP —
James,
>> I added the "blindfolded" part as an afterthought, just to add a few smiles.
<<
That reminds me. I was joking around at Siggraph with AlanI and GaryY saying I
had a new, big "money-making" idea ….. I was going to start a 3d Studio Radio
Program! <G>. Much cheaper than a TV broadcast and no messy print to get in the
way. Popular with the blind, for sure <g>.
BAR?! That's a good one Don. I enjoyed talking with you again last week.
JKJ
>> snob version of the PAR called the BAR? <<
I think DPS would be interested in your idea. <g> GMYAS. (Great meeting you at
SIG)