ELECTRONIC MEDIA

Published: 12-19-94 





I'M STICKING TO MY GUNS ON HI-8 -BETA IS BETTER



Byline: By Joe Fedele 



  My last column focused on Hi-8 as a replacement for Betacam

and I knew when I wrote it that it was a controversial topic.

 But I never expected the diametrically opposed reactions that I

got. My impression is that people either love Hi-8 or they can't

stand it.

 After listening to the arguments and reading the responses I

have come to the following conclusions:

 First, facts are facts and we cannot change the laws of

physics. Betacam is and always will be a far superior format to

Hi-8.

 The real controversy seems to be how and when it is appropriate

to use Hi-8. This is the point where the discussion meanders to

every topic imaginable, from who specifies equipment purchases

to what the bottom line cost is.

  What is right for a station in one market may not be the right

choice in another.

 Choosing a videotape format is an important matter that needs

to be evaluated by all personnel at a station.

  One thing to consider is how your station looks on the air.

 I can't tell you how many times I've heard executives blame a

show's bad ratings on an artifact in the video. Inferior video

quality is a dartboard for everyone else's problems.

 Often, when ratings are high, it's attributed to programing

genius, but when they're low it's because of ``technical

difficulties.''

 Every station is in a head-to-head fight for ratings. You don't

want to lose rating points because your station looks

second-rate, and if you do then you have no one to blame but

yourself.

 But that does not mean that you must have Betacam to remain

competitive.

 You can be an all S-VHS plant and still be a winner, just so

long as you are willing to provide your maintenance staff with

the proper parts, tools and training to keep looking good.

  Now, what about cost?

 Again, you can't argue with the facts, Betacam is far more

expensive than Hi-8. But every station has to operate within its

means. 

  Smaller-market stations can use Hi-8 as an excellent means of

meeting technical standards while not overtaxing the balance

sheet. 

 In fact there are some stations that are taking this a step

further and using S-VHS as their primary news-gathering medium. 

 But those executives making such decisions must also come to

grips with the fact that their stations' equipment will only

perform as well as it was designed to.

  What about changes in technology? 

 There should be no doubt that the future of broadcasting will

be digital. And if high-definition TV should ever get off the

ground it will be wide-screen, too.

 How will your archived footage look when you try to convert it

to an advanced TV format?  Higher quality source material will

yield a higher quality conversion product. 

 And what about your audience? 

 We have all grown accustomed to seeing VHS videotape on shows

such as ``America's Funniest Home Videos.'' But does that mean

that VHS is ``broadcast quality''?

  The Cable Act of 1992 was proof that the viewing public is fed

up with bad-looking video. 

 And ask AM radio station owners what a difference stereo sound

meant to them as many lost market share to FM. Then ask the FM

owners if they think compact discs have had any kind of an

impact on their audience. 

 There is a myth circulating that engineers have the last word

on every equipment purchase and that they are the final arbiters

of technical standards in the broadcast environment. 

 Get real, folks! These days, engineers have less of a say than

ever before.

 News directors, general managers, programers and even the guy

who changes the water bottle in the newsroom have their own

ideas of how the station should be run.

  The next thing you know, someone will try to convince you that

HDTV was the brainchild of some engineer bent on getting new

test equipment. Now that's almost as laughable as HDTV itself. 

 Uh oh, there I go again-another controversy!