Jump to content

Possible ENG Models NBC Was Using?


Max Field

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

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.

I don't believe NBC had a contract with Sony. I've been to rockefeller center for training and they were all Panasonic and Ikagami cameras. They were the only broadcaster I knew who used them exclusively.

 

I have been successful in re-creating the look of old analog broadcast television through the methods I mention. It's not a guess, it's a proven tactic.

 

Getting a beautiful HD signal from a RED cinema camera to match that of an HL59, is not hard. A quick sample of a color chart recorded directly from each camera and ONE BUTTON on DaVinci, instantly matches the colors, DONE.

 

Again, if you want an old school look, you have to take into account the entire broadcast signal path, not just the camera. Since you can't duplicate the signal path, then all you're capturing is beautiful 525i signal that's rock steady from a camera head. That looks NOTHING like the signal broadcast, which is what the audience would normally see. These are the things you need to think about when re-creating a look. It's why some filmmakers still shoot and finish on film, it's to create the entire workflow the way the format was designed. Even if the net result is a digital scan of the finished product, the ANALOG nature of the image will still be retained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 additional questions;

 

Are there any B4 recommendations with minimum focus distance under a foot?

I feel like the Canon J9x5,2 would be capable of that as it's wide, but just trying to make certain.

 

Do any PL lens to B4 body converters exist? Having trouble finding them. I thought Robin's would be that however it was the reversal.

 

Thank you, to all.

Edited by Macks Fiiod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah I see you want to go the other way.. PL lens to B4 body.. never heard of one.. but maybe they exist..

 

AFAIK,or used.. all or most of the high end wide angle ENG zooms had a pretty good minimum focus.. they all had macro adjustment too.. almost to the front element ..

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

Century Optics once made a relay lens for mounting Nikon primes on B4 cameras. It compressed the image circle and must have been an APO design (to correct for different FFDs of red vs green vs blue), but was very slow - you lost some 3 stops on it.

There was also some (I guess German-made) relay lens which adapted FD primes to B4/B3. Only worked on telephoto lenses with rear element deep inside the lens.

All this stuff is extremely rare and rarely cheap.

 

DOF adapters like Pro35 actually converted PL to B4 while maintaining the FOV, but they've got they own issues - they add diffusion, lower contrast and so on.

 

Canon J9x5,2 can be focused on a filter in the mattebox with the macro ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOF adapters like Pro35 actually converted PL to B4 while maintaining the FOV, but they've got they own issues - they add diffusion, lower contrast and so on.

 

I remember hearing about those in a "life before DSLR" documentary. Going so retro to the point of using DOF adapters is like romanticizing the 1950's and intentionally getting Polio.

Edited by Macks Fiiod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe NBC had a contract with Sony. I've been to rockefeller center for training and they were all Panasonic and Ikagami cameras.

Good to know. Means the cameras were chosen by shaders and photographers, not producers.

 


I have been successful in re-creating the look of old analog broadcast television through the methods I mention. It's not a guess, it's a proven tactic.

Getting a beautiful HD signal from a RED cinema camera to match that of an HL59, is not hard. A quick sample of a color chart recorded directly from each camera and ONE BUTTON on DaVinci, instantly matches the colors, DONE.

If it were that easy, you could reproduce anything with Red using a 3D LUT.

 

I know of Ukrainian guys who tried it, namely recreating a Soviet tube camera (KT132) image with Red. Didn't look "real".

You can't 100% match an HL59 - it distinguishes more colors than Red MX does.

 

And it's not only colors - highlights play a big role. To reproduce how HL59 analog knee works, you need to shoot with a lot of highlight "headroom" (to apply a knee-like curve in post) and still have enough exposure for shadows to look clean. It can be the moment you realize Red doesn't have enough latitude for that!

It's likely cheaper to buy an actual Ikegami broadcast camera than simulate it.

Edited by Michael Rodin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If it were that easy, you could reproduce anything with Red using a 3D LUT.

Umm, I edit and color for a living, when it comes to taking a RAW CMOS 4k imager file and matching it to DIGITAL SOURCE 525i NTSC CCD? Yea, it's not a problem. I've done it numerous times and it works pretty good, IF you shoot the same chart. This is how they made the film LUTS for digital cameras like the Alexa, which make it look indistinguishable from film.

 

I know of Ukrainian guys who tried it, namely recreating a Soviet tube camera (KT132) image with Red.

Its impossible to recreate the look of a tube camera digitally. This is why people who want that look, generally shoot with tube cameras. Again, Analog sources are harder to match. Digital sources are A LOT easier.

 

You can't 100% match an HL59 - it distinguishes more colors than Red MX does.

HA! No sir, nowhere even close. First off, when you crop the RED imager, you can get full 444 RGB color space without the bayer pattern mucking up the amount of blue and red pixels. Second, the HL59 is limited to 10 bit NTSC color, the RED is 16 bit RAW. The Dragon has 16 stops of latitude. NTSC as a format is around 8 stops. CCD imagers inherently have far less latitude then CMOS. It's one of the many reasons everyone has moved away from CCD for the "cinema" market where latitude and "look" is so critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, I edit and color for a living, when it comes to taking a RAW CMOS 4k imager file and matching it to DIGITAL SOURCE 525i NTSC CCD? Yea, it's not a problem. I've done it numerous times and it works pretty good, IF you shoot the same chart.

It starts to get annoying. I've written it: matching a couple dozen color vectors doesn't cut it. Once you have a human face in frame, it doesn't look remotely like HL59.

 

This is how they made the film LUTS for digital cameras like the Alexa, which make it look indistinguishable from film.

It's off topic, but… Do you actually believe Alexa looks "indistinguishable from film" after grading?

 

Its impossible to recreate the look of a tube camera digitally. This is why people who want that look, generally shoot with tube cameras. Again, Analog sources are harder to match. Digital sources are A LOT easier.

CCDs are completely analog like any plumbicon, saticon, HARP or whatever tube. Pre-knee circuits (which are responsible for highlight handling) on CCD cameras are analog too. So are the pre- and gain-up amplifiers.

Then there are A/Ds, DSP, D/A of course, but the output is analog again, and it goes to a deck/triax which are mostly analog, too.

 

HA! No sir, nowhere even close. First off, when you crop the RED imager, you can get full 444 RGB color space without the bayer pattern mucking up the amount of blue and red pixels. Second, the HL59 is limited to 10 bit NTSC color, the RED is 16 bit RAW. The Dragon has 16 stops of latitude. NTSC as a format is around 8 stops.

 

1) It's not when you crop, it's when you downscale the image. This basically makes Red work like an old Sony F35, but with worse colorimetery.

 

2) We aren't on RedUser, why spread Jannard's fantasy tech specs here? It has never had 16 stops. These bullshitters even claimed 20 stops once, should we believe that?

 

CCD imagers inherently have far less latitude then CMOS.

For your information, it was very hard to reach the S/N ratios of CCD on CMOS. CMOS is inherently weaker in DR/noise parameters. It's easier to make one or four very linear, low-noise external preamps for a CCD than millions of internal ones in a CMOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It starts to get annoying. I've written it: matching a couple dozen color vectors doesn't cut it. Once you have a human face in frame, it doesn't look remotely like HL59.

Your example is spot on and the phenomena you describe is actually a complex one with many variables. The biggest one in my book is the standard def format's ability to carry defined color information. So the camera companies focused more on color science, the actual look of the image, rather then trying to represent all of the colors.

 

It's off topic, but… Do you actually believe Alexa looks "indistinguishable from film" after grading?

Download the high res file and present it on anything you want.

 

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/#

 

I'm the biggest film advocate you've met and a HUGE digital skeptic. I have been working with digital though since the very beginning, even before the F900 and Viper.

 

Until Steven Yedlin's test linked above, I didn't think it was possible to get digital to look anything like film, but he's done it. Yes, there are SOME instances (night scene for instance) where the digital shot is clearly digital. Yet, everything else, even going from indoors to outdoors, is pretty amazingly close.

 

I do think the Alexa 65 is the best digital camera on the market today. Where I haven't shot with it yet, I have been in color sessions and been able to sit down and work the imager to see it's limitations. It's the first digital cinema where I say to myself, finally digital acquisition is acceptable. When Arri finally makes a 6k S35mm sized imager camera, with the LUT's Yedlin's made, the grand experiment will be over.

 

CCDs are completely analog like any plumbicon, saticon, HARP or whatever tube. Pre-knee circuits (which are responsible for highlight handling) on CCD cameras are analog too. So are the pre- and gain-up amplifiers.

Then there are A/Ds, DSP, D/A of course, but the output is analog again, and it goes to a deck/triax which are mostly analog, too.

I know the pre-amps are analog, but after that, it goes through a DA and pretty much everything else in the chain is digital. I'll say one thing, modern analog to digital converters have come A LONG WAY since the HL59 was manufactured. This is why I still prefer an all analog camera and workflow when it comes to re-creating an analog look. Just imagine how different the HL59 would look if it had full chroma RGB analog output, instead of a compressed color space serial digital connector.

 

1) It's not when you crop, it's when you downscale the image.

Yes, I mentioned "cropping" because I thought you would bring up field of view.

 

2) We aren't on RedUser, why spread Jannard's fantasy tech specs here? It has never had 16 stops. These bullshitters even claimed 20 stops once, should we believe that?

I've shot quite a lot with RED's over the years, they're pretty darn close to 16 stops. Where I haven't actually put a chart in front of one, (other people have so I don't feel it's necessary) I do use other cameras all the time and so far, the Dragon has held up very well to the high dynamic range shots I've attempted to re-create. The URSA 4.6k does a better job in some areas, but the RED still does exceptionally well. I have access to all these cameras, so hopefully in the near future I will do a test. :)

 

For your information, it was very hard to reach the S/N ratios of CCD on CMOS. CMOS is inherently weaker in DR/noise parameters. It's easier to make one or four very linear, low-noise external preamps for a CCD than millions of internal ones in a CMOS.

Umm, I don't know of a single CCD camera that holds a candle to CMOS imagers in terms of signal to noise ratio. My pocket camera blows the doors off any ENG camera I've ever used and I've used A LOT of them, not just in dynamic range, not just in latitude, but in signal to noise. This is because as you pointed out above, CCD's use analog preamp's, which means when you need to boost the signal (low light conditions) you are basically increasing the noise floor by huge margins.

 

Not saying a single CMOS imager is superior, far from it. I do think each format has it's pro's and con's. I'm just saying there is a reason nobody uses CCD's outside of broadcast. There have been a dozen CCD cinema cameras made, but nobody uses them. There is a very good reason and it's not physical size of the imager block, it's not field of view which is restricted thanks to flange distance with a 3CCD system, it's not cost either as CMOS cinema cameras are VERY expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"it's not cost either as CMOS cinema cameras are VERY expensive."

 

​Sorry couldn't let this go.. CMOS sensors are much cheaper to mass produce than CCD,s.. and this is exactly why manufactures went with them.. and the good news.. also why CMOS camera,s are alot cheaper than CCD,s were.. even if its an inferior system..

 

"I'm just saying there is a reason nobody uses CCD's outside of broadcast."

 

The sole reason is cost..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/question362.htm

 

Tyler please read this article.. CMOS sensors are also actually alot more prone to noise than CCD,s.. you just have google this stuff before you post.. its the exact opposite of what you claim in all respects ..

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

  • Premium Member

Tyler please read this article.. CMOS sensors are also actually alot more prone to noise than CCD,s.. you just have google this stuff before you post.. its the exact opposite of what you claim in all respects ..

I know all about the imagers and how they work. When I discuss them, I'm discussing them in reference to conversation, not out of context. I was discussing the HL59 and cameras like it, rather then focusing on the theoretical characteristics of a given technology.

 

I understand there are special application CCD imagers and electronics which work far better then CMOS, but they don't exist in any standard camera on the market. They are for special medical and scientific markets.

 

Now, I don't like CMOS at all, never have. I think the bayer pattern is a bad design. I think the preamp's should be separate and not included on the silicon. I think a better scan system needs to be developed (IE rolling shutter issues) I think CMOS's lack of near infrared capture is also an issue. So I'm not bullying CCD's for any reason. I only made the comments based on experience using a wide-range of CCD and CMOS cameras over the years. Today, on our modern cameras, CMOS delivers a superior image for the resolution, speed (refresh), dynamic range and sensitivity necessary for modern productions.

 

I mean, when have you seen a CCD imaging camera shoot 4k @ 60fps, with no-noise @ 5000 ISO... or the equivalent of around 50db of gain, 10 - 12 stops of latitude (in slog capture) in a box the size of a pack of cigarettes with an internal battery that runs for 2 hours and has a built-in screen? Umm. Sony S7SMKII just one of many cameras that make CCD look obsolete in every way imaginable.

 

Put it to you another way, no digital camera can capture the skin tones of a properly made photochemical image. Heck, our computer screens and the electronics that drive them, are not even close to being up to the challenge. Yet you don't hear people making any changes to fix these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry don't quite understand your answer.. but yes pretty moot point as CCD camera,s are on the way out.. CMOS has its advantages too.. like much faster data reading.. my point was that CMOS sensors are actually alot cheaper to make.. so cost is a big aspect..and more prone to noise .. rather than the other way round.. and CMOS cine camera,s are actually way cheaper than CCD camera,s were..

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

What camera did you get.. yes the BW EVF was pretty standard.. Sony came out with some color ones for the F900 and even earlier for Digibeta,s.. .. very expensive and not a great picture.. would fry your eye ball.. mostly everyone turned them back to BW.. which luckily was a switch on the side of the finder.. nothing like the lovely LCD,OLED one now..

 

The thing to watch out for.. esp if you are used.. to a color VF.. is white balance..(shooting without a monitor) you,d shoot all morning and then realize you were on the wrong balance !.. also be careful.. some camera you can actually change the native base color balance in the menu.. or a switch on the camera body.. between 3200 and 5600.. then if its a camera with actual color WB filters.. next to the ND,s.. things can go pear shaped fast if your WB is totally off.. eg add an 85 to a tungsten balanced camera you think is set for daylight..

 

If its in the menu,s I,d put the WB set to show in the VF.. and always try to give that a quick check before you shoot..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the Ikegami HL-59, since it seemed like a steal on that eBay link. And this didn't immediately occur to me, but yeah white balance seems like it'd be a total pain when my only in camera reference shows no hues.

 

Things on my list to get right now are:

-A B4 Lens

-Something that can convert the signal coming from that SDI port to an Atomos Ninja

-A Battery and charger

 

For the last 2, what is the general battery life for these cameras? Can the battery get charged while the DC power is in the camera? Any battery brands to avoid?

 

And lastly, does anyone have a recommended set of gear to go about converting the camera's output to digital on the fly?

 

Thanks a ton for all your help. I'm nearing the end of this equipment journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry.. personally I only used that camera a few times.. NBC had one.. but when I was using it,it was already an old design.. luckily my move from film to video coincided with the release of the more ergonomic ,all in one Sony 300/400 betasp cams....

 

But good point re the batteries.. we used Ni CAD batts in those days.. either PAG or Sony BP90,s.. I guess in the US it was pretty much 100% Anton Bauer.. Ni CAD,s were heavier but cheaper than Lithium Ion ..Im not sure they are even made anymore for pro video camera,s.. they lose their charge alot faster too.. I guess if there is any adaptor go for V mount..pretty universal now.. lithium ion... brands well everyone has their fav I think.. obviously anything really cheap off eBay.. you are rolling the dice.. and probably going to lose.. I have stuck with iDX for many years now... as they pretty much only make batteries and chargers .. and I have their wireless video system.. not cheap.. but you do seem to get a reliable and importantly ..safe product.. but there are many very good bands around these days.. and even some of the cheaper Chinese ones.. that used to be well avoided.. are almost as good as the established expensive ones...

 

I would imagine there are alot of good B4 lenses on the market these days.. as everyone and their dog are rushing to buy Fs7,s and C300,s and ditch their ENG cam,s... over 2 years ago I really had trouble selling a very high end B4 zoom.. some of the sellers now dont want to accept the lens they paid $35,000 for, is now worth about $8,000.. at the most.. and are asking nutty prices.. its a absolutely buyers market..

 

You cant charge the camera battery on the camera with DC in.. the Ni CADs will have a longer life.. I used to change them about 5/6 years.. but the lithium ions now .. about every 3 years if you want them in really good shape..

 

Sorry no idea about SDI out to Atomos... all over my head..

  • Upvote 1
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...