Jump to content

Possible ENG Models NBC Was Using?


Max Field

Recommended Posts

Haha I love how filthy half of these look. That last link you posted there is amazing if that head really was the pinnacle industry standard back in the day. Very tempted with it.

 

Would that final link be able to SD-SDI out to an Atomos? I'm wishful because is says "digital" on the side.

 

Thanks much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, these Ikegamis are quite beat up. You won't find as many beat up Sonys as they too shitty and fragile not to fall apart after some rough use. :)

The HL59 actually was the industry's top camera. Try it. If you haven't shot with an Ikegami before, you'll be impressed with how natural the color is. Much better than F23 or Viper, it's more like Alexa colorimetery. By the way, Alexa electronics were likely co-developed with Ikegami, as Ikegami are ARRI partners and are manufacturing a studio/OB version of Alexa.

 

HL59 is a digital processing camera, not digital in-to-out, so SDI out only on triax base station.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's B4 on that camera. As you've just got the best SD camera, it makes sense to buy a nice lens. Canon YJ series are crap, low-end Fujinons aren't much better. I'd recommend:

Fuji A16x9,5 - high resolution, quite warm, doesn't flare much, but breathes a lot.

Canon J9x5,2 - ultimate wide angle lens, on the cold side. Better than most HD glass. Evolved into a cine version. Breathes moderately. Extremely sharp for such a wide lens. Some slight CA. Used it a lot on HD cameras - didn't look too bad compared to Digiprimes.

Fuji A8,5x5,5 - sharp, contrasty, little CA.

Nikon 20x8 - sharp, very little CA.

Canon J15x8 - the workhorse, sharp, contrasty.

and generally all the hi-end Fujinon AT2 aspheric zooms.

Edited by Michael Rodin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They go up to F1,6, but since they're very complicated (just imagine: APO retrofocus zooms, 65mm FFD) designs they're T2 at best, and most are around T2/2.8 as David said. Prisms themselves (inside the camera) are rated around T1.9.

Edited by Michael Rodin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also B4 primes, but you'll never see them on ENG cameras. These get as fast as T1,5.

What film DoPs used to love about 2/3" format (mostly they hated it though, for many reasons) is the ability to shoot wide open on zooms without really compromising the image. Most B4 lenses are aspherical and APO, so even at max aperture you don't get a very soft image with a lot of color fringing.

Edited by Michael Rodin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's silly to assemble a whole BetaSP chain and then get a camera no TV station was using. Get the real thing, it's just as cheap.

I shot with the BVW-300A for years. It was widely used by local broadcasters as a replacement for their aging much heavier dockable cameras of the past. It fit very nicely with the PVW (all analog audio) machines we used for off-line editing at the studio.

 

We had some HL55's that nobody used because they were A LOT heavier and setup for portable shoots with the truck. I actually never worked anywhere with the HL59's, Hitachi wasn't nearly as popular here in the states as it was in other places. The HL59 was also an early digital camera and if you're going to shoot digital, why bother? The whole point is the analog look eh?

 

In terms of the terminology... in the US we refer to drop-out as "hits". We call them "tape hits" because the slang "hit" is easier to say when you're talking to another person.

 

Sony has done a great job making Betacam SP a workable format, but it still has more limited color space then many cameras and the distortion element as well. If you turn undersan on and switch between deck and live feed, you will see the issue I'm talking about.

 

So my point is, if you want an old-school analog look, that's the best way to go. If you want a digital look, what's the point? You can buy a modern HD camera and scale it down in post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shot with the BVW-300A for years. It was widely used by local broadcasters as a replacement for their aging much heavier dockable cameras of the past.

If BVW300 actually replaced something from the past, it was tube cameras or some old crap like Sony BVP5s. BVW300 is almost 30 years old, it predates HL55 and pretty much any dockable camera used in 2000s.

 

We had some HL55's that nobody used because they were A LOT heavier and setup for portable shoots with the truck. I actually never worked anywhere with the HL59's, Hitachi wasn't nearly as popular here in the states as it was in other places. The HL59 was also an early digital camera and if you're going to shoot digital, why bother? The whole point is the analog look eh?

HL cameras weren't made by Hitachi, they're Ikegami.

HL59 is not an in-to-out digital camera. It's digital-processing. All hi-end Betacams used by major networks in 2000s were digital processing.

HL59 doesn't look "analog" or "digital", whatever it means, it looks like an HL59, nothing more.

 

I've directly compared an all-analog HL43 to a digital-processing HL59. There was no distinct "look" difference. Sure, HL59 was sharper and less noisy, with better colorimetery, but you couldn't say one looked "digital" and the other "analog".

 

Sony has done a great job making Betacam SP a workable format, but it still has more limited color space then many cameras and the distortion element as well. If you turn undersan on and switch between deck and live feed, you will see the issue I'm talking about.

Only thing I can remember seeing on Beta SP with underscan engaged on the monitor were white dots from drum heads switching on playback. Switching happens between lines/fields and doesn't affect the image.

Edited by Michael Rodin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Beta SP was almost absent from the UK by the time I was getting properly involved. Almost everything here went to DVCAM very quickly. My memory of SP, though, is that it looks very good indeed when properly lined up and with fresh heads and tape, but it can look very shabby if those criteria aren't met.

 

Re lenses, I'm looking at doing some writing about B4 zooms for modern cameras. I shall investigate those mentioned above as being particularly sharp, thanks!

 

On the other hand, 9x5.5 only gets us out to 49.5mm, which isn't that huge.

 

Wait, what? Nikon made a B4 TV zoom?

 

s-l1600.jpg

 

I had no idea! Good grief, that seems like a nice idea given an Ursa Mini, or something, with B4 mount adapter.

 

 

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Embarrassed sigh. I know. I spent most of my formative years on a Fuji 20x6.4, which acclimatised me to both massive breathing and the massive convenience factor. I mean, it's a whole extra case of stuff I don't need. Yes, it turned into mush beyond 80mm and about f/4, and yes, it was never really f/1.3 at 128mm, but - you know.

 

And yes, this puts me in the dunce's corner of camerawork, but as I may have mentioned recently it is now something that really winds me up. I hate having to wait around for lens changes and taping out focus because we can't zoom in to get sharps (eyelid twitch, mutter under breath, glance at watch).

 

What I would say in my defence is that most of the shows which would be forced down this sort of low-budget route would be those for whom a bit of corner softness and a bit of breathing are the least of their problems.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If BVW300 actually replaced something from the past, it was tube cameras or some old crap like Sony BVP5s. BVW300 is almost 30 years old, it predates HL55 and pretty much any dockable camera used in 2000s.

Prior to the all-in-one form factor of the BVW300/400, ENG cameras were two separate pieces, with a dockable connector. One component was the camera, one component was the deck. This all changed in the early 90's to a far smaller form factor.

 

A 30 year old camera is great when you're after an analog old-school television look.

 

HL cameras weren't made by Hitachi, they're Ikegami.

Sorry, they were the two odd-ball brands at the time.

 

HL59 is not an in-to-out digital camera. It's digital-processing. All hi-end Betacams used by major networks in 2000s were digital processing.

HL59 doesn't look "analog" or "digital", whatever it means, it looks like an HL59, nothing more.

Looking for superior quality cameras like the HL59, you are defeating the purpose. If you want quality of any kind, go shoot it on a modern camera. It's very easy with a plugin to get the color to look like a 3 chip CCD camera, that's a piece of cake. But nobody watched that signal outside of the person in the truck during a remote live shoot with a 26 pin or triax cable plugged into a decent color monitor. The signal people watched, went through a switcher, then a transmitter which in some cases was the conversion to composite. It was then sent via microwave to a receiver which went through another switcher and then down an analog satellite dish (or even coax cable sometimes) to a broadcast transmitter. The whole kit degraded the signal substantially, to the point of it resembling the original camera only in content, not in technical quality. If you take "live" broadcasts out of the picture and focus on tape only. The same story is true. Linear editing was at a minimal, two generations before broadcast, most times three or four. Then when broadcast, the signal was degraded even more, to the point where yet again, only resembling the content not the technical aspects. It wasn't until the full adoption of SDI and a complete digital workflow that things change AND!!! Not everyone switched over right away. Only the big central hubs were digital, almost all of the local broadcasters were still analog until the last day they could be, long after the switch had been made to HD. In fact, my home-town station (Boston WCVB) was still shooting Betacam SP until 2010!

 

Now it's true satellites went digital in the late 90's, so big productions like NBC's Thanksgiving day parade, would have been a 100% digital show coming from NBC in New York. The affiliates would be receiving that signal digitally and with a digital switcher, send the signal to the local broadcast transmitter, all digital until it hit the analog airwaves. That was a vast improvement over the complete analog world from prior to around 98' when the big switch happened. So you're accurate in thinking in the year 2000, a live broadcast from a national network hub, would have been digital. However, there are literally thousands of affiliates around the nation and very few of those, had the kind of money to upgrade their internal systems to digital. So where they were forced to use digital switchers for the satellite feeds, they were mostly analog for their own internal broadcasts.

 

Worst off, I've done several rather large facility updates for broadcasters over the years, including building the truck HBO used for "Jim Rome is Burning" a multi-million dollar traveling road show. In 2008 I believe (don't quite remember the exact date), we used an all-digital workflow, but it was the first time that show was digital. Prior it was an all-analog show... in 2009!!!! WTF!?!

 

So yea, my recommendations were based on getting a more "standard" run of the mill image, rather then the worst (VHS) or the best (all digital). Hit it smack in the middle, all-in-one Betacam SP, not a great camera, not a great deck, but perfect for someone trying to get the look of the era, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Embarrassed sigh. I know. I spent most of my formative years on a Fuji 20x6.4, which acclimatised me to both massive breathing and the massive convenience factor. I mean, it's a whole extra case of stuff I don't need. Yes, it turned into mush beyond 80mm and about f/4, and yes, it was never really f/1.3 at 128mm, but - you know.

 

And yes, this puts me in the dunce's corner of camerawork, but as I may have mentioned recently it is now something that really winds me up. I hate having to wait around for lens changes and taping out focus because we can't zoom in to get sharps (eyelid twitch, mutter under breath, glance at watch).

 

What I would say in my defence is that most of the shows which would be forced down this sort of low-budget route would be those for whom a bit of corner softness and a bit of breathing are the least of their problems.

 

P

 

 

Phil I have an Abakus ... PL to B4 lens adapter I used about twice,gathering dust.. its the one that works on centre crop mode.. only 2/3 stop eaten up.. if your interested.. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah had a lovely Fujinon HA 14X4.5 BERM HD wide angle..(I was using on a PMW500) was actually quite hard to sell it..! used it on the F5 when I first got it..

 

Then luckily Canon answered my prayers with the CN7.. well the prayer would have been a 15mm-110.. but close enough..

 

But if you know anyone who whats an Abakus cheap..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the all-in-one form factor of the BVW300/400, ENG cameras were two separate pieces, with a dockable connector. One component was the camera, one component was the deck. This all changed in the early 90's to a far smaller form factor.

Actually the first one-piece was the BVW200, if you feel like giving a history insight. Dockables weren't replaced by camcorders, they co-existed

A 30 year old camera is great when you're after an analog old-school television look.

2000s major network news did NOT have the fuzzy "analog" look. VHS recordings of them did. But if you want to replicate what was broadcast, you don't want to shoot with a BVW300. You'd have a camera they used. And they used BVW-D600s. HL57s, etc - not 80s tech.

 

Sorry, they were the two odd-ball brands at the time.

Hitachi was quite rare, but Ikegami was an industry standard.

 

Looking for superior quality cameras like the HL59, you are defeating the purpose.

In what way? HL59s were the workhorse cameras in 2000s. A lot from that period was shot on them, so it's accurate to use them for a 2000s news reconstruction.

 

It's very easy with a plugin to get the color to look like a 3 chip CCD camera, that's a piece of cake.

Have you tried? OK, maybe it's easier to get a "misadjusted BVP5" look, but try replicating Ikegami colors. Sony hasn't managed yet.

 

But nobody watched that signal outside of the person in the truck during a remote live shoot with a 26 pin or triax cable plugged into a decent color monitor. The signal people watched, went through a switcher, then a transmitter which in some cases was the conversion to composite. It was then sent via microwave to a receiver which went through another switcher and then down an analog satellite dish (or even coax cable sometimes) to a broadcast transmitter. The whole kit degraded the signal substantially, to the point of it resembling the original camera only in content, not in technical quality.

I've written it here already… Color, shadow/highlight properties were still there, since color coding and gamma correction in broadcast were standardized. And they're what constitutes a "look"

 

In fact, my home-town station (Boston WCVB) was still shooting Betacam SP until 2010!

Latvian networks are still shooting Beta SP in 2016. It actually looks better than digital shot on cheap cameras.

 

Hit it smack in the middle, all-in-one Betacam SP, not a great camera, not a great deck, but perfect for someone trying to get the look of the era, in my opinion.

Tyler, what OP is trying to replicate is late pre-HD NBC. There were no old one-piece camcorders like BVW300 there. Neither there were low-end cameras like DXC637. Yet there was a lot of HL59s in use.

Edited by Michael Rodin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

And that's the other thing. 14x4.5 is sadly not nearly enough when you're shooting, cough cough, for "cinematic" results. It's really quite the opposite of the ENG situation, where everyone seems to want both the cameraman's ears to be in shot. You live on the long end, with your back up against the wall and either the subject's chin or forehead in shot but rarely both.

 

But to drag the conversation back on track, none of what Robin and I are discussing has much to do with 1990s American news procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Phil I have an Abakus ... PL to B4 lens adapter I used about twice,gathering dust.. its the one that works on centre crop mode.. only 2/3 stop eaten up.. if your interested.. ?

What're you ditching that for? I might be looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Macks

 

I bought it a couple of years ago when I got my F5.. and still had my ENG 2/3 inch zoom.. I had some s35 primes,but some shoots where I couldn't change lenses time wise.. I would use the zoom,with the f5 in centre crop.. Its an Abakus 132.. made in the UK.. you can look it up on B&H.. has all the details.. I would sell mine alot cheaper .. I used it only a couple of times..

In answer to your question.. after renting the Cabrio,s.. mostly the 19-90.. I didnt want to buy one.. but then the canon CN7 came out.. I snapped one up asap.. and then no need for the Abakus.. I sold the ENG Fujinon zoom too..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...