[opendtv] What place does videotape have in newsrooms?
- From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:16:13 -0700
A former colleague of mine asked me the following question for a textbook
he is writing:
What place does videotape have in newsrooms and production houses now that
so much production and editing is now on digital formats?
Here is how I thought I would answer:
Videotape no longer has a place in the common path of a modern workflow in
newsrooms and production houses. However, there are still many uses for
videotape, requiring most facilities to keep at least a few decks around :
1. There are still a lot of historical assets on videotape and it will
take a while before it is all digitized and converted to a data file.
2. Several distribution centers are still only distributing tape products.
For instance, some distribution houses for PSAs still on send out
videotape.
3. While file-based formats can be easier to work with, there are still QC
and portability issues. Videotape is still one of the most dense forms of
storage where hours of broadcast-quality footage with low to no compression
can be transferred on a single tape. Also, when ingesting into the
destination production setting, there is a QC step that can take place
where there is usually not one during a file based "import".
4. There are still several advantages to videotape, at least
psychologically, in the area of media asset management. It is much harder
to delete and much easier to organize a physical tape. Of course, this is
subjective and there are certainly arguments for digital forms of
management and storage. But there still seems to be a confidence for some
to have the tape in their hand.
5. Because of compatibility issues in the file-based workflow, it is often
easier and quicker to dump a video to videotape to hand off and transfer
where almost all tapes in a given format are compatible with corresponding
players and recorders at each end. Conversion software is getting better
at each revision, incorporating more and more codecs each time, allowing it
to be easier to convert video files. But often, expensive codecs are
required at one end or the other. Also, there is still a divide between
the various computer operating systems. Hard Disk Drive file structures
and proprietary video codecs are still incompatible with each other,
causing a lot of extra effort to simply transfer and transcode a file for
use.
Of course, there are still many newsrooms and production houses that have
not converted to the modern, file-based workflow. While most of these
reasons are economic, they have a definitive impact on when and how
videotape is used. Until it makes sense financially, replacements will not
be made. Because of this, there are still many cameras and videotape
recorders in daily use, especially in smaller markets and in less developed
countries. In fact, much of the equipment discarded from the modern
facilities are shipped out to smaller countries to gain a new life.
And why not? As long as the equipment is still producing a product that is
viable in its market, it makes sense to continue to use it. This is
especially true for the small markets where finances are on a smaller
scale.
Of course, all of this is very dated and eventually videotape will not
likely to be used in any setting.
Before I send him my answer, I thought I would get some opinions from all
of you out there. What do you think of my answer? What would you add or
delete?
Dan
Other related posts:
