MP4 format suitable for HD broadcast TV>

I had an editor send me a 30-second TV spot as .mp4 file format, 1920x1080, format AVC Coding for video, data rate 15.17 Mbit/s. and 23.98 FPS. I am thinking that this file format would below standard for a high quality presentation on TV such as using Apple Pro Res 422 codec. But does anyone know if in fact this spot would be suitable for high quality broadcast TV?

Welcome to fcp.co

the broadcast-standards differ from station to station, so no general advice possible.

What's obvious: the bitrate is 'hobbyist' level. 16mbps is way too low. And the broadcasters I know don't allow 4:2:0 color compression , what AVC indicates...

But I've read about stations in the US, allowing to deliver program on DVD = SDef, mp2, 9mbps… :woohoo:

Ask the broadcaster … his QC will decide = if it's the only recording of Elvis, leaving last week a Starbucks alive and singing… who cares for standards then?!

If it is cable, very acceptable. IF it is over-air, then that is too compressed. Most broadcasters I've worked with accept 4:2:0. Like Karsten said, depends on the station. And that is usually a standard set by the national or international network they are an affiliate of. Euro standards are a little higher than US standards with local stations. The big networks are all pretty strict. Cable is WAY compressed, so don't be surprised if that file is fine for a cable broadcaster. Over-air is not nearly as compressed, infinitely better image quality than cable or online streaming. Depends on the individual station.

FCPX.guru wrote: … Euro standards are a little higher than US standards with local stations. ….

define 'broadcasting' ....
I was thinking of nationwide, not home-brewn TV from some local religious enthusiasts
(no bad feelings about those… welcome to my tech standards…)

Just read demanded specs from The Mother of all broadcasters … link to BBC , other European (=nationwide) broadcasters differ just in detail. Esp. low colour-subsampling is a neck-braker for all those one-man-documentarists using consumer devices "but it has 4k!!!" …

'a little higher' … funny.

… and the bitrate the OP mentions - that is about half of 'allowed' standards - what makes you think, such material is 'very acceptable'? Just one additional 'generation'/transcoding, and the audience knows what banding is ...

yep, as I mentioned, there exist 'broadcasters' in some parts of the globe, accepting even DVDs, but I guess that's not what the OP meant. Or, does he??

One of the three networks we broadcast here accepts 18-25 Mbps. 18 is not far from 15, no one would ever know the difference. And it gets crushed down from there when it hits the cable provider's equipment. Man, I can't stand cable TV, hate it with a passion.

What the editor sent could be encoded for a local TV station, or a cable public access channel. I'd personally never accept something that compressed to re-work, though. There are local stations that broadcast very low bit rate stuff, there's lots of them across rural America. I won't work for them, but they exist.

FCPX.guru wrote: One of the three networks we broadcast here accepts 18-25 Mbps. 18 is not far from 15, no one would ever know the difference. ….

 …never tell the QC-technicians at any given German broadcaster! Those pixelpeepers, who reject tapes because some number is 0.5% too much, too little, too wotever… :silly:

medianegotiator wrote: I had an editor send me a 30-second TV spot as .mp4 file format, 1920x1080, format AVC Coding for video, data rate 15.17 Mbit/s. and 23.98 FPS. I am thinking that this file format would below standard for a high quality presentation on TV such as using Apple Pro Res 422 codec. But does anyone know if in fact this spot would be suitable for high quality broadcast TV?

Each network has their own technical standards for submitted content of a given type. They will often accept lower-grade supplementary content for b-roll or field interviews:

ABC News using three DSLRs to shoot interview in front of White House. These were all shooting 720p or 1080p to the internal codec, likely 8-bit 4:2:0 at a fairly low bit rate: joema.smugmug.com/Photography/ABC-News-Using-DSLRs/n-BsScJC/

ABC News using GoPro Session during interview: joema.smugmug.com/Photography/ABC-News-u...ro-Session/n-Q775hV/

CNN using 5D Mark III (apparently internal recording) for studio piece: joema.smugmug.com/Photography/CNN-Using-5D-Mark-III/n-5JqGgB/

CNN using Canon C-100 and internal AVCHD recording plus GoPro for field interview: joema.smugmug.com/Photography/CNN-Moneyl...n-ffF2JW/i-tQ6Wj4s/A

Fox News using DJI Osmo and GoPro for field piece on aviation: joema.smugmug.com/Photography/Fox-News-u...I-Osmo-and/n-pbrJHC/

Even this recent 60 Minutes field interview uses an old Panasonic HMC-150, which records at a top bit rate of 21 megabits/sec to 8-bit 4:2:0 AVCHD using H.264:

joema.smugmug.com/Photography/60-Minutes...asonic-HMC/n-MFg8L9/

So they may have technical standards for submitted material but they disregard these at the drop of a hat. The networks also allow their content to be bit-starved and hyper-compressed during transmission. Note this frame grab of NBC footage from the Olympics. It is smeared, blurry, full of artifacts. Their excuse would probably be "it's not us, it's Comcast". However transmission of network content is a signal chain that's only as strong as the weakest link. If they permit gross degradation of image quality at any point in the chain, then being persnickety about technical matters at other points is simply lost in the noise:

photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-BKWbk3B/0/X2/i-BKWbk3B-X2.jpg

The technical quality of NBC Olympic content delivered to end users was so bad that the below footage from 1894 was actually better. Imagine that -- some of the first film footage ever shot, and it's better than what NBC delivered. Despite having supercomputers on a chip, satellites in space, and optical fiber spanning the globe, the delivered quality was worse than an old piece of film:



That said, the previous statements about re-editing rendered, exported 8-bit H264 material are correct. If that 30-sec piece is not ready for broadcast "as is" it will require editing. Nobody likes doing that, as you are recompressing the content. Plus if the submitted content has any transitions, effects or mixed-down audio those can be hard to edit.

If the 30-sec piece is commissioned work, the content provider should have already checked what technical standards are required. If it's an ad-hoc submission they should have checked anyway.

We are in an era of "New Media" and some of the old standards may not apply. Increasingly content is targeted for web presentation, and networks may have lower standards for that. However it is always best to check.

If I spent a lot of time working on a piece I would not want it cast aside when I could easily have strapped an HDMI recorder on my camera and recorded at a higher bit rate or color depth.

There has been speculation some networks use high technical standards as a barrier to entry to either (a) "keep out the DSLR riff-raff", (b) project an image to their peers of elite standards, or (c) protect the market position of ENG and EFP camera manufacturers they have a close relationship with. The above shows this doesn't seem so since they already accept material shot by their own personnel using DSLRs.

However IF any do use technical standards for the above reasons, they are about to get a rude awakening with the release of the Panasonic GH5. It is a lower-cost camera that meets every broadcast standard currently in use. They would have to exclude it by specific omission from an "accepted camera list". I understand some networks already do that -- only accept content from cameras on an approved list. That is another thing to check before spending a lot of time shooting material intended for network submission.