What I Do and Don’t Want to See at NAB 2007

The Dream Continues...

Last year at this time, I listed 13 products and technologies I wanted to see at NAB 2006 (www.studiomonthly.com/6267.html). I built my wish list on existing technologies and user needs. I wanted mid-range HD cameras and lenses, new compressed acquisition formats, better and cheaper monitoring tools, less expensive HD storage, better inter-application metadata, improved file sharing and one or two other things.

To my pleasant surprise, manufacturers met many of my production-tool wishes. For example, Sony’s XDCAM HD and Panasonic’s AJ-HDX900 cameras each offer a good price/performance ratio and let me work with professional, full-size HD cameras at SD prices. For post, HD monitors, scopes and storage are dropping in price, though not as quickly as I’d like. But I still need better cross-application and cross-format compatibility.

I’ll follow up on my’06 list at NAB 2007, but I do have some additional, or at least restated, needs. So, with all of that said, here’s what I want to see— and don’t want to see— at NAB 2007.

What I Do Want to See

Shipping versions of NAB 2006 cameras. I want to be able to buy (or at least rent) working versions of the fascinating camera prototypes and mockups shown in Vegas last year: RED ONE, Silicon Imaging SI-2K, Panasonic AG-HPC2000 and Grass Valley’s Infinity. The innovative combinations of design, acquisition codecs and recording systems, along with promised prices, truly excited my jaded eyes. But the excitement has worn off. Shipping cameras will restore it.

Cheaper, good HD cameras. I’m not a DP so I’m not planning on buying a $40,000-plus camera package. I rent those (and usually hire someone to operate them). But if Panasonic’s newly announced HPX500 (HD P2, shoulder mount, 2/3-inch CCDs, $14,000) is any indication, then I’ll decide on my next camera purchase at NAB 2007. All manufacturers have cameras in the running at the moment. In Vegas, I’ll see what’s leading the pack.

Affordable 5600K lights. I own a nice 3200K tungsten light kit, and occasionally rent 5600K daylight instruments. I’d like to buy a small 5600K kit, but can’t justify current prices. At the show this year, I want to see 5600K lights at prices closer— not cheaper, just closer— to what I paid for tungsten. HMI, LED or fluorescent; the specific technology doesn’t matter to me. What does matter is that it’s an affordable, quality daylight kit.

Wireless mics that avoid DTV interference. I’m still looking for less-expensive digital wireless systems. But like all wireless users I face a more pressing problem: As television stations broadcast over channels licensed to them for DTV, wireless mics that use the same spectrum band feel the pinch. Secondary users (e.g., wireless mics) must accept interference created by primary users, such as TV stations. This is a complex issue that I’ll explore in a future column. But at NAB, I need to see wireless mic systems that somehow deliver pristine audio over our increasingly crowded airwaves.

Smoother workflows. Last year we saw upcoming cameras cleverly coupled to acquisition codecs, such as JPEG2000, CineForm RAW and AVC. While I like innovation as much as the next guy, I need to deliver formats my clients will accept. For me that currently means HDCAM, Betacam (both digital and SP), DVD, Flash and a couple others. I can’t give a client what’s coming off many new cameras. That’s OK if I can easily work with the content. But too often, I can’t.

Transcoding isn’t the only, or even the major, issue. Rather, the real hassles revolve around more mundane challenges like working with GOP structures, handling time code and just getting the dang files off their original media. It takes too much work to post and deliver images acquired on HDV, P2 and disk (both magnetic and optical). Toss in more new codecs, which I’d like to use, and I worry that every clever acquisition advance arrives coupled to a time-consuming post setback.

Post tools that offer deep and broad support for new production formats. I want convincing demonstrations of content and metadata moving effortlessly from acquisition through post with no, or at most, one transcode (delivery is a separate matter).

Accurate progress bars. As I worked on one project, a sequence was rendering on another machine. The progress bar and numerical display had been steadily advancing until the sequence reputedly hit 99 percent rendered. The dialog box first claimed 99.27 percent finished, then 99.29 percent. Each one-hundredth advance started to take longer than the earlier integer advances. Since when is time exponential? I want to see software that accurately represents how much time a given action will consume.

What I Don’t Want to See

Tape. NAB’s audio-hall exhibitors long ago relegated tape to the dustbins of history. I want the video exhibitors to do the same thing this year. I don’t want to see any cameras announced that use tape as the primary recording medium. I don’t have anything against existing tape cameras, but we now have enough. The sooner we eliminate tape from NAB, the sooner I can eliminate it from my life.

However, the alternative recording media need to provide longer run times, more reliable operation and simpler file archiving and transfer. Solid-state memory, hard disk and optical disc all require more compromises or effort than I’d like. But advances such as 16 GB and 32 GB P2 cards and the rumored 50 Mbps XDCAM HD make going tapeless more attractive for long-form folks like me. This year, I want vendors to show me that tapeless production is easier, cheaper, more reliable and better than tape.

More Pixels. 4K resolution is great. And it’s enough. Let’s agree and move on to the next image-quality battle.

Compression. Don’t get me wrong; I want compression. I just don’t want to see it. I don’t want my first thought to be when I look at an image, "that’s obviously compressed." I want it to be, "that looks very nice." Actually, I expect to be viewing compression artifacts for a long time. So I’ll settle for compression my clients can’t see, at least when they’re in my edit suite. As for eliminating compression artifacts from video delivered to our viewers at home, even a digital Pollyanna would demand a reality check.

Balsacams. I’m always interested in vendors’ future plans. But since the proof of a camera is in the viewing, I don’t need to see conceptual mockups that convey nothing more than a glint in a designer’s eye. Instead, show me a Frankenstein prototype that at least partly works. Homely reality is better than beautiful supposition. If the product isn’t yet at the Frankenstein stage, just show me a drawing. I don’t want vendors wasting my time and their money with Bondo-and-button conceptualizations of what they might build one of these days. Just show me equipment I can use now... or soon.

That’s what I’ll be looking for. But then, the most memorable NAB sights are unscheduled and unpredictable. I saw an executive of a major camera manufacturer walk out of the tent at the RED camera booth last year and proclaim, "That is f***ing amazing." He was right. What will provoke that reaction this year?