royal wedding

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by bob, Apr 29, 2011.

  1. bob

    bob Guest

    I watch the royal wedding on usa TV, so it is broadcast in NTSC HD. But is
    it shot in PAL (native format to England) then converted to NTSC, or do they
    have a set of NTSC cameras, and another set of PAL cameras for European
    viewers? If it was converted from PAL to NTSC, I must say the conversion is
    flawless. Although I have never seen what a PAL HD converted to NTSC HD
    looks like.

    The vows from the prince and the bride is clearly miked. Yet I don't see any
    mike on Kate or Prince William. At first I thought they were hidden under
    the clothes, but I don't hear any clothing sound. I do see the officiate
    wearing two lapel mikes facing outward. Could these be the ones (and only
    ones) miking the couple? Wouldn't this make the officiate's volume much
    louder than the couple's?

    Interestingly no videographers are visible inside the church. It looks like
    all video cameras are remote controlled, including jib arms. There is one
    mounted high near the ceiling. I wonder how many safety devices are there to
    prevent the camera from falling.
     
    bob, Apr 29, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. bob

    Bob Myers Guest

    No such beast. The U.S. high-definition broadcast standard (which is,
    of course, fully digital) is commonly referred to as "ATSC," and has
    little if anything to do with the standard-definition NTSC analog
    broadcast standard (outside of occupying the same 6 MHz channel).
    Again, if it's HD, it's not really being "shot in PAL" in the first
    place. The "European" (and pretty much all of the rest of the world
    outside the US and a few others) HD standard is "DVB," and like the ATSC
    system it's all-digital. Actually, the most significant difference
    between the two is in the actual broadcast (transmission) system used;
    they share a common color space definition, typical image formats, etc.
    Biggest issue in converting from one to the other is in the frame/field
    rate differences, but even that is pretty easy to do well in this
    all-digital age.

    Bottom line is that while the world failed to come to agreement on a
    single worldwide digital TV standard, "being digital" has made life a
    good deal simpler (or at least better in terms of crossing system
    boundaries) than it ever was with the older analog systems. And if, for
    some reason, you DO need to convert digital TV material into any of the
    straight analog systems, that's also pretty easy to do quite well these
    days. ("Easy" may not be quite the right word, given everything that's
    going on in various little bits of silicon, but at least all the
    nastiness is tucked away in those sorts of "black boxes," well hidden
    from sight, and it all gets done pretty darn well compared to what life
    was like, say, 30 years ago.)

    Bob M.
     
    Bob Myers, Apr 29, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. It was shot in digital HD and converted on-the-fly in real time. This
    is old-hat now in the digital age. I remember decades ago seeing
    the artifacts of PAL to NTSC conversion on the stuff we watched
    here in America that came from Europe. But the conversion, even
    the real-time conversion is exceedingly good these days.

    The pixel dimensions have been standardized for the digital era,
    but the frame rates are still "parochial". You will find 25 and 50
    FPS in Europe and in the ex-NTSC territories, you will see 24 (the
    standard for cinema film) and 30 (the traditional TV) and 60 ( the
    high-definition) frame rates. (Note that the ex-NTSC rates are
    frequently 1000/1001, ie. 29.97 FPS, etc. Don't ask. It's a long story.
    I suspect you are correct. Getting mics near the bride/groom has
    been a nightmare for wedding videographers forever, and even
    for state weddings with astronomical budgets :) Of course if you
    are the BBC, you have leveling amps and other gadgets that take
    care of those kinds of audio issues.

    Disclaimer: I didn't watch the wedding or even the later coverage
    of it during more convenient hours. I find other things more
    entertaining and distracting.
    It is a big place. There are lots of places to put cameras with live
    operators. And remember that cameras are getting smaller and
    smaller (although not necessarily the 88x zoom lenses that are
    more at home on the soccer field or the cricket pitch.
    To be sure, anything that you "fly" over the heads of the public
    audience must be safety secured. Not just cameras, but most
    typically light fixtures, etc.
     
    Richard Crowley, May 16, 2011
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.