http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ Videomaker Community Forums » Tag: Broadcast - Recent Posts en Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:39:35 +0000 http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-long-cables-for-live-broadcast#post-71725 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:41:09 +0000 Kenkyusha 71725@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Unfortunately, the Canon HV series won't do HD component out, though you can use HDMI for a run that long.</p> <p>(Take this with a grain of salt, I've never done this with my HV) a rough guess is that long HDMI cables (with a repeater/booster partway down the chain- most are rated by length) will stand you in the best stead.  Once that part is dealt with, the Intensity's HDMI in should do the trick. </p> <p>One more thing- you'll be able to get the full 1920 x 1080 sample off the chip with HDMI (as opposed to the 1440 x 1080 through firewire).</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-long-cables-for-live-broadcast#post-71664 Sun, 16 Oct 2011 07:46:57 +0000 sneal88 71664@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> UPDATE: I visited markertek. They helped big time and I am happy with my 75' component cable. Eventually I plan to make my own as suggested by grinner.</p> <p>Two new questions:</p> <p>1. Will 100' feet of component cable hurt me? (Doing 1080 video out of Canon HV30.)</p> <p>2. Can I even mix 75' and 100' cables without there being some delay between the two?</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-long-cables-for-live-broadcast#post-70888 Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:48:21 +0000 sneal88 70888@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Thanks EarlC,</p> <p>That helps alot. I will check out Markertek. </p> <p>Hopefully this RG59 will give me good-enough quality to work with. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-long-cables-for-live-broadcast#post-70844 Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:31:11 +0000 EarlC 70844@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>The cable Grinner refers to is your typical RG59 assembly that often comes with BNC connectors and is readily available at places such as Markertek, etc. Canare is a popular, top-quality cable, and rather than using crimp tools to create your own, as over-simplified by Grinner, I suggest spending the extra money to acquire them already made ... sturdier construct.</p> <p>The cable is more robust than your standard cabling that comes with RCA plugs. I use the RG59 cable for runs of up to 200 feet but still use RCA-to-BNC adapters to connect to various cameras. This type cable holds up better to more-than-average use, daily, even weekly, and isn't as quick to get weird kinks and twists, with wires breaking internally, and is better insulated for better quality signal transfer.</p> <p>It will NOT match up to digital connections or HDMI et al, and I don't use it very often for recording signals, mostly for long runs for feed/input or satellite export from live feed to a player or projector in other rooms.</p> <p>I also have used with good results standard issue RCA analog cable and connectors, but for runs of more than 75-100 feet I use a distribution amp to keep the signals strong.</p> <p>There are a LOT of options, and it would take a course and accompanying book to go into it all, but you can pick up a lot visiting the MarkerTek people or Google searches for various things like video connections, signals, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Hope this info helps a bit.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-long-cables-for-live-broadcast#post-70843 Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:00:27 +0000 sneal88 70843@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Okay, I did my homework. Ignore my questions. Thanks for your help!</p> <p>I would like to ask...could I just use RCA ends instead of BNC, or is there a reason you suggest using BNC connectors.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-long-cables-for-live-broadcast#post-70841 Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:31:57 +0000 sneal88 70841@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>really? so use standard cable wire that is used for tv? that makes sence for long distances.</p> <p>now, how would i connect that to my camera? my camera has "rgb component". please dont tell me i would need some expensive converter or something.</p> <p>i kno these are prob amateur questions...sry</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-long-cables-for-live-broadcast#post-70840 Fri, 09 Sep 2011 06:56:53 +0000 grinner 70840@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Making your own componant cables is the norm. Easy enough... just crimping bnc ends to cut spools.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-long-cables-for-live-broadcast#post-70837 Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:05:57 +0000 sneal88 70837@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Hello,</p> <p>I'm a first time post(er). I wanted to ask for alittle advice before I upgrade.</p> <p>I broadcast live games, and events with 4 Canon HV30s. Their connected to my PC via firewire. Firewire gives me excellent quality, but its short! My longest cable it 25'</p> <p>What should I use for long distances? My camera outputs composite, component, and HDMI.</p> <p>Is anyone using 100' component cable? HDMI? Am I overlooking a better way? I will need to buy capture cards as well (possibly Intensity Pro) but I want to figure out what cable I should go with while keeping my great quality. HELP! lol</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/multicamera-shoot-basic-help-needed#post-70470 Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:33:50 +0000 james5498 70470@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hi All, </p> <p>I am really embarrassed to even post this, but I'll give it a shot (no pun intended).  </p> <p>For my business, I want to do a multicamera shoot.  Here is my hardware set up...I have 2 Panasonic HPX170's, each connected via SDI to a Panasonic HMX100 Video Mixer.  I have a regular LCD computer monitor connected to the HMX100 via DVI-D in addition to a AJA KI Proto connected to the HMX100 to serve as the recording device for the single video shot.  </p> <p>Now here is the dumb question (ready for it?):</p> <p>I cannot get the camera output for each camera to appear on the reference monitor.  It shows nothing.  Now I don't have P2 cards in the camera, b/c I don't think I will need them given I am recording the "mixed" video shot from the video mixer to the AJA Ki Pro.  But nothing appears and when I hit the record button on the camera, nothing happens.  I believe I have set up the mixer appropriately,  because the reference monitor does show 2 mini windows for the two cameras, but they are white and nothing shows up.</p> <p>Please help!  And please be kind!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/how-to-setup-a-video-mixer-edirol-lvs-800-to-a-audio-mixer-and-broadcast-it-live#post-63709 Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:52:26 +0000 huckinout 63709@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>hello guys,</p> <p>i have a big question here, im so confuse regarding how im going to sync or broadcast and tepe my event or show having mg EDIROL LVS-800 video mixer and a generic audio mixer with a 4inputs. </p> <p>this is the situation, my Video mixer has 4camera and i have my 2 host with a lapel mic input on my audio mixer, how can i broadcast it? as sync? and tape it... i have a deck recorder dv recorder.</p> <p> </p> <p>Thanks so much guys.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-63471 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:33:23 +0000 XTR-91 63471@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>60i or 60p.</p> <p> </p> <p>24p is for convenient uploading online.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-63459 Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:28:47 +0000 bbi bogdao 63459@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>30 fps is not too much? 24 is the usual no?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24pn-for-broadcast#post-63402 Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:34:04 +0000 greencouchsessions 63402@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I want to give a more film like look to a music show I'm producing by shooting in 24pn on HVX200 cams.  It will be broadcast in SD for some stations and HD for others.  We're trying to figure out the best method for exporting the show from Premiere CS4 for broadcast so it will still retain the film look of 24pn.  </p> <p>Just wondering if anyone else has shared this same work-flow and has some quick and easy steps to help us get the best, most trouble-free results.  Thanks. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/avchd-versus-mpeg2-long-gop#post-62348 Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:09:02 +0000 Rohlux 62348@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Which recording format produces the better quality video - AVCHD or MPEG2 long GoP ? </p> <p>I came accross a statement somewhere that the quality of video shot at 50Mbps MPEG2 long GoP is roughly equal to 24Mbps AVCHD. If this is so, why then is MPEG2 long GoP considered to be broadcast quality but not AVCHD ? For me to have a better understanding of this, will help me to decide on which camcorder to buy - i.e  the Sony HXR-NX5 or the Canon XF300 or Sony EX1R.</p> <p>Any thoughts on this anybody ?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/online-live-broadcasts#post-59959 Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:06:27 +0000 Akrotiri 59959@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hi,</p> <p>I use a web-based application called Elluminate to hold meetings online. This software allows for six simultaneous audio and video feeds so participants use webcams and headsets to see and talk to each other.</p> <p>I'm interested in using this software to hold live online coferences/presentations as well but would like to use a camcorder at the back of the room to provide the video feed rather than a webcam.</p> <p>My question is what do I need in terms of camcorder to do this?</p> <p>I've been looking at the Panasonic HDC-TM700 and the Sony CX116 HD cameras and wondering whether these would do. Do HD cameras live stream over USB 2.0 connections? Is a IEEE1394(Firewire) connection needed? Would my camera need an audio in or is the on-board mic good enough to pick up someone presenting at the front of a small room from the back?</p> <p>Any help is much appreciated. Best wishes. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/help-connecting-camera-wirelessly#post-58506 Wed, 12 May 2010 07:01:22 +0000 Andrew-C-Greer 58506@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Thanks mate, appreciate your help, I'll have a look around, the walls wouldn't be a problem as the transceiver would be wired to a laptop with clear sight, and the walls wouldn't be a problem as i was at the venue today and there was no walls that i would have to contend with : thankfully...If I was to revert to the wired system how would you recommend doing it?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/help-connecting-camera-wirelessly#post-58495 Tue, 11 May 2010 14:33:40 +0000 bobcypheruk 58495@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Hi Andrew, I just spent the last 20 minutes searching this forum for a post I saw recently (during the last couple of weeks) on just this subject but I can't find it. I know there are issues with the distance between the camera and the wireless receiver and also that you would need to have the wireless transmitter hard wired which might be difficult out in the field but I know there is advice from some of the more prominent and experienced regs like EarlC, Composite1 and grinner so maybe you could check out their posts and see if anything emerges. There appeared to be some issue with the signal not coping with walls as well. I guess my post doesn't help a lot. Suggest you try searching as well. I've keyed in phrases like "300 feet" (I seem to remember that was stated to be the optimum distance) but nothing came up. </p> <p>Good luck</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/help-connecting-camera-wirelessly#post-58484 Tue, 11 May 2010 10:25:51 +0000 Andrew-C-Greer 58484@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Surely there has to be a way, broadcasters do it somehow or another</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/help-connecting-camera-wirelessly#post-58482 Tue, 11 May 2010 10:16:08 +0000 robGRAUERT 58482@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>"Firstly does anyone know how to wirelessly stream video from camera to a computer?"</p> <p>I don't think that's possible. I mean, I've never heard of that</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/help-connecting-camera-wirelessly#post-58480 Tue, 11 May 2010 08:48:10 +0000 Andrew-C-Greer 58480@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hey Guy's am new to this forum...</p> <p> </p> <p>Anyway, well I have a pro camera but I've wanting to brodcast a live event live via Ustream but I can't have cables running over the stage everywhere so i need to do it wirelessly! I can purchase additional gear if nessacery.</p> <p>Firstly does anyone know how to wirelessly stream video from camera to a computer?</p> <p>Secondly do I need aditional hardware and software? If so what?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/the-death-of-broadcast-television#post-56939 Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:23:27 +0000 composite1 56939@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Well it looks like the fine folks over at our FCC are up to some more 'wacky' antics when it comes to 'reforming' the way we get our info and entertainment over the airwaves. First, they've introduced potential legislation to police the internet, then they reallocated wireless bandwith so non-government entities will soon be operating their wireless gear in illegal bandwiths and now boys and girls (drum roll please...) they're looking at reallocating the bandwidths for broadcast television!</p> <p>Now, I'm no fan of the big broadcasting outfits, but it seems like every time the FCC tries to 'help' us it ends up causing us major headaches and money. Reallocation may be a good thing, but anytime the government starts fooling around with the major corporation's bread and butter it ends up becoming another pain in our backsides. Here's an article by Bruce Johnson "What do you love more, your TV or Smartphone?"</p> <p><a href="http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/bjohnson/story/what_do_you_love_more/">http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/bjohnson/story/what_do_you_love_more/</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/videomaker-on-roku-a-message-to-videomaker#post-56751 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:22:50 +0000 EarlC 56751@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Could be a good thing, I suppose. Even when facing marital bliss J. Michael has time to think of such things :-)</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/videomaker-on-roku-a-message-to-videomaker#post-56749 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:39:40 +0000 Derek Sine 56749@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Great idea - I will pass this along.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/videomaker-on-roku-a-message-to-videomaker#post-56747 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:36:33 +0000 Aspyrider 56747@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>In July 2009 I received a Roku Box for my Birthday, since then I have fallen in love with the ability to stream Netflix and all the channels they offer direct to my TV.</p> <p>Roku now has the ability to set up a channel and have your own programming added so viewers can watch. There is nothing like being able to watch internet shows on an actual TV rather than sitting in front of my PC. Yes you can hook a PC to a TV but this is easier and simple. See my <a href="http://intheviewfinder.blogspot.com/2009/10/roku-netflix-box.html">article on ITV about the growing online streaming industry and how it affects viewers</a>. </p> <p> </p> <p>So, I would like to ask Videomaker to add their content of fantastic videos, tutorials and programming to a channel on Roku! You can set it up <a href="http://www.roku.com/developer">here in the development section</a>. </p> <p> </p> <p>Imagine being able to watch Videomaker on TV! It's possible now, and with more units available to do the same, XBox, Boxee, etc., this is a growing trend with hundreds of thousands of viewers already jacking in the internet to their television sets. </p> <p> </p> <p>So, what about it Videomaker? Are you game? Will you accept the challenge to create your own TV station and stream your quality programming on Roku? I hope you will and I know many others will enjoy the show!</p> <p> </p> <p>Other alternatives would be to join Mediafly, BlipTV or another channel already there. But I think Videomaker deserves to have their own station on the net. </p> <p> </p> <p>So there you have it. Videomaker, I want to watch YOU on TV where you belong! What say ye?</p> <p>J. Michael</p> <p><a href="http://www.intheviewfinder.blogspot.com/">In The Viewfinder</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54378 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:37:45 +0000 XTR-91 54378@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"I could be wrong, but I thought the real reason we shoot 60i is because of our electrical wiring in this country, which runs at 60Hz. But like I said, I could be wrong or maybe we're both right."</em></p> <p>Wasn't even quite sure myself, but I think my words are better stated as: 'interlaced video was intended to create a 60 frame-ish affect while only being able to broadcast only one field 60 times a second.'</p> <p> </p> <p><em>"In my opinion, the standard should be 30fps, whether progressive or interlace. I don't like 60p because it looks too good. You see almost no motion blur, and motion blur is natural. I WANT to see some motion blur. The only time I would ever shoot 60p or higher is to achieve a VERY clean slow-mo effect."</em></p> <p>This part of your post struck me amusing at first, but I sort of get your point of making better motion realism (which in a lot of cases it's a good affect). For the most part, 60p was created to move forward in attempt to ditch the whole interlaced gag. 60p is really the only progressive mode that creates enough adequate fluid of motion. 30p is still a bit too jabbish - I'd still take 60i over it. If I had the option, I'd only use 24p for achieving a certain affect, not as my everyday story/movie/documentary shooting mode. I've heard some RED cams can shoot 120p for achieving some motion affects while retaining the good quality of 60p.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54359 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:00:10 +0000 robGRAUERT 54359@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>"The TV production world uses 24fps for no other reason than it saves money"</p> <p>How does shooting 24fps save money?</p> <p>"interlaced was intended to create a 60 'frame-ish' affect being able to broadcast in only 30 frames."</p> <p>I could be wrong, but I thought the real reason we shoot 60i is because of our electrical wiring in this country, which runs at 60Hz. But like I said, I could be wrong or maybe we're both right.</p> <p>Mocojez,</p> <p>I agree with you. I'm not down with 24p. The only time I find it acceptable is if you are transferring to film. The thing that bugs me most is people think 24p actually makes their video looks like film. It probably has the least impact. Composition, camera work, lighting...those all have a much bigger impact for creating a film look than the frame rate.</p> <p>In my opinion, the standard should be 30fps, whether progressive or interlace. I don't like 60p because it looks too good. You see almost no motion blur, and motion blur is natural. I WANT to see some motion blur. The only time I would ever shoot 60p or higher is to achieve a VERY clean slow-mo effect.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54353 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:34:13 +0000 XTR-91 54353@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>60i (30 frames with 60 interlaced fields) has always been the standard broadcast quality since the early days of television. More recently with the introduction of digital video, video producers have been trying to acquire more of a film look in order to compete with india filmmakers by setting the rate which they record and reproduce to 24p. Film was always recorded and processed in 24p and sent to a 60i analog broadcast. Not the most ideal, but interlaced was intended to create a 60 'frame-ish' affect being able to broadcast in only 30 frames. 24p was almost universal for video recording since people have tried to boost the quality of their productions, when in reality they took on one of film's disadvantages into acquiring something more 'filmic'. If I had more options I would honestly shoot only 60p (or 60i if there's no 60p option), except for those occasions when wanting to imitate something that happened in the past, or achieving a special affect. I'd check out this article:</p> <p><a href="http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2008/10/4083-opinion-24p-must-die/">http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2008/10/4083-opinion-24p-must-die/</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/24p-playback-of-24p-video#post-54351 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:04:51 +0000 Mocojez 54351@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I just watched the tutorial on creating a 'film look' using 24P, and I felt there were some misleading statements. I'd also like to add a very big comment about PLAYBACK.</p> <p>If there's no way to display or present your material at 24fps, I challenge the whole concept of shooting at 24P. Most decent video editing software now has the option to work in 24P format, so the material can be encoded to 24P MPEG-2 and displayed using HD DVD and a 24P-capable LCD screen (at a multiple of 24hz, with 120hz and above being optimal). You can also play directly from many cameras in 24P direct to these screens.</p> <p>However, if you have to convert to an NTSC broadcast format to display the 24P, forget it. A lot of material is still produced on film for TV broadcast, and they generally shoot at 24fps. I've even seen digital video shot at 24P for television broadcast, which is perverse. The whole system for getting feature films onto North American TV is a horrible compromise. The 3:2 pulldown 'expansion' of film frames to interlaced video is not part of the 'film look', especially since that effect doesn't happen in places with 50hz systems, like the UK. They don't watch movies on TV with any 'mashing' of frames.</p> <p>The TV production world uses 24fps for no other reason than it saves money, particularly in post production. I've seen many TV commercials shot at 24fps where the advertising agency actually believed they were producing a 'film look', which is a testament to the disingenuous nature of advertising.</p> <p>A couple of other comments:</p> <p>Motion blur is not the same as strobe - it's the opposite. Strobe occurs when the brain cannot perceive continuous motion, and this happens when we use a slow display frame rate COMBINED with a fast shutter (or narrow shutter angle in a film camera). At 24fps we don't perceive the black phases between the projected images - that's what persistence of vision means. But a narrow shutter angle means that each frame only captures a small percentage of the motion, and we can't put that movement back together in a fluid way. The narrow (or fast) shutter also decreases the motion blur, making things crisper, and this INCREASES the strobe effect.</p> <p>I also totally challenge the idea that you should add film grain, unless you want a 'vintage' look. 35mm film has more than twice the detail resolution of HD video, and a modern feature film shot on film and transferred to digital video has no perceivable grain, unless it was intentional. Grain comes from degraded stored print, or from high speed stocks 'pushed' in exposure, printing or development.</p> <p>And lastly, I wanted to comment that the 24fps standard for film-making is not set in stone. I agree that it was introduced with costs in mind, and then became a standard which was difficult to alter for the same reason. But movies are increasingly shot on digital video, and displayed on digital projectors. There's no doubt that a higher frame rate would raise the quality, so I predict that 30fps might be introduced in the near future.</p> <p>Movies certainly produce the highest quality of image, being processed in post production and projected in theatres at about 4K resolution, but we can only display those images currently on a TV screen at 1920 x 1080, so I have to ask why we trying so hard for a 'film look' in video at 24P, when HD video at 30P arguably looks better on a TV screen?</p> <p>I look forward to getting some comments!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/autodesk-smoke-software-comes-to-the-mac-at-last#post-53206 Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:06:20 +0000 grinner 53206@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> I'm pretty excited about this. Attending a webinar for it tomorrow. Lookin' forward to it. I was on Smoke* years ago and always loved it's capabilities for shortform stuff. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/autodesk-smoke-software-comes-to-the-mac-at-last#post-53143 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:29:57 +0000 Krama 53143@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>That's really GREAT news! New Creative Editorial Finishing Software for Mac OS X Snow Leopard Now Shipping! Autodesk' Smoke for Mac is a fact! At about $15K you can have a software-only editorial finishing tool no other to match!</p> <p>Read at <a href="http://blog.krama.tv/autodesk-smoke-software-comes-to-the-mac/">http://blog.krama.tv</a><br />a blog for videomakers </p>