16gb P2 Cards, Oh My!

[attar-khoje]

is it possible to add any external HDD in HVX to record directly while shooting rather than using P2 cards..?

 

[MrPolarBare]

is it possible to add any external HDD in HVX to record directly while shooting rather than using P2 cards..?

Nope.

 

[xray]

Sure you can add the Focus FS-100, it is a harddrive you connect with the firewire connection. You need (non-Panasonic) batteries for the FS-100.

Other camera brands ( JVC, Sony) give you simmilar connectivity for their cams.

 

[harddrive]

I believe it's within Panasonic's power to make a larger card at a cheeper price.

It may be, if we're just looking at manufacturing costs v retail price, though I'm not sure the margins are as big as you may imagine. But business doesn't work like that, you have to somehow recoup R&D costs, and they obviously have to be factored in to the items unit price. I don't see Panasonic as "milking customers" at all, rather trying to get their development costs back, trying to make a reasonable profit, and maybe suffering from developing a technology too soon.

But this really gets to the heart of the dilemma they now face in a business sense. All that R&D took place when a P2 type solution was the only way to record pro video to solid state. That's not true anymore, and whilst Infinity may be seen as the first living proof of that, it may also be seen as proof of concept, and I fully expect the other big players to come out with their own solid state recording solutions eventually. I won't predict timescales, but am pretty sure they are likely to follow the Grass Valley route and be based on such as CF, SD, or maybe Memory Stick - not a complex raid arrangement.

Which gives Panasonic a problem. Do they cut their losses and adopt the same "off-the-shelf" approach, or try and persevere with P2, and the inherently high costs associated with it?

If you want a solid state 1/3" HD camera NOW, the choice is clear - the HVX200 is the only contender. But all that will change relatively soon, and the question must be whether the HVX200s successor will use P2, or a much cheaper off the shelf product like SD. My money must be on the latter. Since that makes solid state recording viable to more people sooner, I regard it as a good thing.

 

[DavidBeier]

I think P2 will survive but not on a consumer and perhaps not even on a prosumer level. I with an P2 version of the SDX900 already around and a P2 version of the HDX900 on its way, I think it'll be around for a while and still be a good choice for the pros who want the extremly durible and fast P2 cards over a cheaper solution.

As far as consumers and perhaps even prosumer goes, I'm not sure if we'll ever get P2s as cheap as we want (though I'm sure they'll get big enough). Yes, Pansonic could make cheaper cards but they'd take a big loss and they simply aren't going to do that. As well as the HVX200 is selling there isn't enough of a market for them to drive down the price as much as we'd like. Perhaps if all prosumer HD cameras were using it and others were also making P2s and thus spurring competition then yes it would be cheaper. As it stands though, this isn't the case. P2 is a very high quallity and professional method of shooting, perhaps more so than people on this level want or can handle. So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if stuff like the infinity eventually takes over the consumer and prosumer markets. The bottom line is that since P2 is higher quality, it'll never be useless. Perhaps they'll come out with an DVX200 or an HVX100 that does much of the same things but uses the cheaper cards and lacks a few of the features and some may have wished they had waited for that but, at the end of the day, I think the HVX200 will be a viable option for years to come and will still serve those who were willing to pay a little more to get in on an incredibly innovative and exciting new technology early on.

 

[harddrive]

That sums up things fairly well, David, but I will comment on a couple of things.

P2 is a very high quallity and professional method of shooting, perhaps more so than people on this level want or can handle.

It may well be made to a very exacting standard (which is why it costs more), but the real question is what PRACTICAL benefit does that now bring? The only one I can think of is theoretically faster download times - but other limits mean that most users won't be able to benefit here anyway. And the lower price makes it possible to own more memory for the same price anyway, so the download imperative is lessened anyway.

CF has been extensively used for press photography in the most demanding conditions for a long time now, and I've heard no complaints about reliability.

If you simply want a parcel delivered, does it make sense to pay four/five times as much to have it delivered by a sports car as a van, all else equal? Especially when speed limits mean that each will take about the same length of time anyway?

So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if stuff like the infinity eventually takes over the consumer and prosumer markets.

Yes, but Infinity is aimed fair and square at the professional market, and ENG and broadcasters in particular. I was talking to a couple of other freelances yesterday, and they said that in this market what is looked for is a solution that is fast enough to edit directly off the media (no downloading), and cheap enough for a cameraman to be able to hand over his material without having to worry if he ever sees the tape/disc/card again. (As with tape now.) XDCAM is lacking in the first respect, P2 in the second. We all felt that a solution as being pioneered by Grass Valley may be just what such users want.

There are rumours that they may follow up with a 1/3" version, probably CF only, to provide the second unit camera that a Z1 typically provides in the UK.

The bottom line is that since P2 is higher quality, it'll never be useless. ............. I think the HVX200 will be a viable option for years to come and will still serve those who were willing to pay a little more to get in on an incredibly innovative and exciting new technology early on.

If you have an HVX200 now, then indeed it will be a viable option to use for a while to come. People are still using and making money from BetaSP, probably even U-matic! A new camera using different storage technology won't render anything existing unusable.

But I think you have to be careful when you say "since P2 is higher quality". I know what you mean, but the video recorded won't be any higher quality - that depends on bitrate and codec (and obviously the camera front end!), not whether it's P2, CF, SD or even XDCAM.

If you have $X to spend on memory, and need to record Y minutes of material, then all else equal you will get more than 4x as many GB for your $X with a CF solution as with P2! That could equate to a far, far higher bitrate possible with CF than P2. So CF could equate to higher quality video than P2!

But all this is future gazing. Infinity is certainly being watched by many people, but the question remains when the HVX200 will have a tapeless competitor, and what that will use.

 

[MrPolarBare]

I don't think the price/capacity will be the determing factor of the future of P2. In a few years, I think the capacities will be high, and the prices low. As manufacturing processes advance for other flash memory types, those benefits will trickle through to all Flash media. So, actually the popularity of CF and SD will ultimately help P2.

I think that P2's biggest scare is it's formfactor. 2 years ago it sounded great having something slip right into your PC Card slot of your computer. Now, with Express Card, the future of mobile computing obviously isn't with the old standard PCMCIA slot. That's the only pitfall I can see with the future of P2.

 

[OliverM]

There are already expresscard to PCMCIA out there so that's not an issue any more. And the biggest advantage of P2 I think, is that there are NO moving parts in the entire recording process any more. The only thing might be the connection slots, but other than that, less wear and tear. And while problems with SD card are not happening much, they are not an option in this type of broadcast aquisition. So only using the best possible components is a good thing to me.
As far as freelancers handing stuff over, you can always hand over an HDD, or production companies could invest in a P2 store.Or buy their own cards and let you work with those. But amongst pros that should be negociable. The only problem is that DV and DVCAM have gotten so big that many small bussinesses have gotten used to cheapo kinda workflows. This is a new thing, that requires a bit of thinking and some dialog to set the workflow. But no real problems that counterweigh the advantages I think...

 

[harddrive]

And the biggest advantage of P2 I think, is that there are NO moving parts in the entire recording process any more.

That is an advantage of solid state - not P2. In this respect, P2 and CF are identical, but CF has the potential advantage of far lower cost. At the moment, solid state recording does mean P2 - it's the only product available - but all this changes in a month or two in the pro world with Infinity. I fully expect the prosumer world won't be far behind, and Infinity will be the first solid state rival of many. And all cheaper than P2.

As far as freelancers handing stuff over, you can always hand over an HDD, or production companies could invest in a P2 store.

This came up during the discussion. It may be suitable for some types of work, but their work includes such as news etc, and the general agreement was that any time delay or inconvienience involving a download was out of the question for such work. Potential advantages of solid state could be seen in general, but not P2 v CF/SD etc.

The only problem is that DV and DVCAM have gotten so big that many small bussinesses have gotten used to cheapo kinda workflows. This is a new thing, that requires a bit of thinking and some dialog to set the workflow. But no real problems that counterweigh the advantages I think...

Hardly a new thing - the workflow (cheap media, shoot and give away) dates back to the early U-matic days, which must be over 20 years ago now. For news especially, any time delay neccessitated by a requirement to download is very widely seen as a real problem, believe me.

Regarding form factor, adaptors definately are available, but again are more expensive than CF/SD readers. The move away from Cardbus doesn't mean P2 can't be used, but it does make it much less convienient, and Panasonic even promote the Cardbus compatability as an advantage in their current literature. ("The P2 card slips into the card slot on almost any laptop PC with.........")

 

[DavidBeier]

That sums up things fairly well, David, but I will comment on a couple of things.

It may well be made to a very exacting standard (which is why it costs more), but the real question is what PRACTICAL benefit does that now bring? The only one I can think of is theoretically faster download times - but other limits mean that most users won't be able to benefit here anyway. And the lower price makes it possible to own more memory for the same price anyway, so the download imperative is lessened anyway.

CF has been extensively used for press photography in the most demanding conditions for a long time now, and I've heard no complaints about reliability.

If you simply want a parcel delivered, does it make sense to pay four/five times as much to have it delivered by a sports car as a van, all else equal? Especially when speed limits mean that each will take about the same length of time anyway?

Let's wait and see how well CF handles DVCProHD and do some serious testing. One thing I like with P2 is that I've NEVER had a drop out because it has so much more speed than is needed. Lets see how CF works.

But I think you have to be careful when you say "since P2 is higher quality". I know what you mean, but the video recorded won't be any higher quality - that depends on bitrate and codec (and obviously the camera front end!), not whether it's P2, CF, SD or even XDCAM.

If you have $X to spend on memory, and need to record Y minutes of material, then all else equal you will get more than 4x as many GB for your $X with a CF solution as with P2! That could equate to a far, far higher bitrate possible with CF than P2. So CF could equate to higher quality video than P2!

That's not what I ment. If CF as a 166mbs transfer rate and P2 has a 640mbs then P2 is capible of a higher quality codec. What if a new DVCPro200 codec comes out that not only manages 4:4:4 color space and runs at 200mbs? Suddenly CF isn't going to work but P2 will still be a viable option. This is why they may be viable for the pro industry in the future.

 

[harddrive]

Let's wait and see how well CF handles DVCProHD and do some serious testing.

I'll agree with the underlying sentiment, but I don't see CF ever being used to record DVCProHD. Not because it can't cope with it, but because it's an old codec, and the general trend is seen as towards more advanced ones for new gear, AVC-Intra in the case of Panasonic.

Grass Valley seem to be going with JPEG2000 for Infinity, and I've heard bitrates of around 75Mbs talked about. That sounds sensible - should be better than DVCProHD quality, and a bitrate that 166Mbs CF should have no trouble with.

If CF as a 166mbs transfer rate and P2 has a 640mbs then P2 is capible of a higher quality codec. What if a new DVCPro200 codec comes out that not only manages 4:4:4 color space and runs at 200mbs? Suddenly CF isn't going to work but P2 will still be a viable option. This is why they may be viable for the pro industry in the future.

That's theoretically possible of course, but I feel highly unlikely. All of a sudden, even the largest P2 cards only last 4 minutes, and the still to come 16GB ones will only last for 8. The move seems to be towards more efficient codecs as well, and AVC-Intra at 50Mbs is flagged for Panasonics forthcoming HPC2000, with comparable quality to DVCProHD. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear of a 100Mbs AVC-Intra option, but 200Mbs seems unlikely.

Even if it did come about, I'd venture that most users, even in the broadcast arena, will feel that something like 75Mbs JPEG2000 is good enough, and prefer the cheapness of CF. I doubt the viability of keeping P2 going for what then becomes a very small number of potential users.

But the speed of advance for CF/SD seems to be far greater than for P2 anyway, both in terms of capacity and speed. The speed of CF is not defined as 166Mbs per se, that's just the Sandisk Extreme III variant. Maybe by the time somebody really does have a need for a 200Mbs solution, CF speeds will be more than adequate, maybe even rivalling P2 !?!

 

[DavidBeier]

Out of curiosity, what exactly are the specs of AVC-Intra and JPEG2000? What kind of color compression are we talking and is there interframe encoding going on?

Once again, i think we need to wait and see on most of this stuff. Who knows how much bandwidth is going to be taken up and what people are willing to deal with? The faster nature of P2s plus their RAID nature along with their possiblity for firmware upgrades may well ensure them over other technologies (as well as their supposedly more reliable nature). I don't know how much is lost using other codecs but there are many who feel that the less compression the better. That's why Michael Mann for instance was so hot on the Viper since he was getting strait 4:4:4 out of the camera. I also think for higher end users the small recording size may not be such a big issue. One who are already used to haveing an AC availible for offloading. I really don't have a problem picturing some pros willing to deal with having only 8 minutes on a 16 gig card and having to swap out in order to maintain 4:4:4 colorspace.

I really don't think it's ever been unlcear that P2 is VERY high quality and perhaps more so than most users want or need. Many of us made the comment a while back about wanting a lower cost alternative that wouldn't need to be quite so professional. The case however is that Pansonic chose to go with as much quality as possible with the recording medium and I can only assume that they did so because some felt it was neccesary for future proof. Once again, time will tell whether or not they were right.

 

[harddrive]

Out of curiosity, what exactly are the specs of AVC-Intra and JPEG2000? What kind of color compression are we talking and is there interframe encoding going on?

I don't think you can exactly define the specs of either of them, in the same way that you can't MPEG2. They define a family more than an individual, a method of compression rather than a precise colour space, bitrate etc.

That said, neither of them is inter frame compression in the applications intended here (hence the "Intra" tag for AVC, the interframe equivalent is AVC-HD). You may like to look at the manufacturers site for Infinity - http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/infinity/camcorder/ . Here they list certain facts about how they intend to implement JPEG2000 - "JPEG 2000 high-efficiency, scalable compression for SD (4:2:2, 10 bit) and HD (4:2:2, 10 bit)".

No mention of bitrates, (and different from SD to HD, presumably) but I'm sure I've heard 75Mbs mentioned for HD. Maybe it will be user variable?

I don't know how much is lost using other codecs but there are many who feel that the less compression the better. That's why Michael Mann for instance was so hot on the Viper since he was getting strait 4:4:4 out of the camera.

Fair enough in principle, but if any requirement for 4:4:4 and/or less compression meant higher storage requirements, then maybe such as CF may better suit than P2 as the cost/GB is so vastly lower? CF may actually be MORE viable for low compression systems than P2.

The case however is that Pansonic chose to go with as much quality as possible with the recording medium and I can only assume that they did so because some felt it was neccesary for future proof. Once again, time will tell whether or not they were right.

I don't think that assumption is right. They did indeed choose to specify only top end chips, etc etc, but I understand that was simply because it was the only way it could work at all AT THE TIME IT WAS CONCEIVED. That's not true any more due to technical advance, and I doubt strongly they'd go down the same path if they were starting to develop it now. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As a user, it interests me not at all how the device used to store the data I produce is manufactured, whether each and every one is lovingly hand crafted and finally monogrammed in gold by it's maker. What is important are factors such as reliability and price, and whether it does the intended job in the first place! In this respect I believe professional grade CF to be every bit as fit for purpose as P2 - and very much cheaper.

 

[SymphonicFilmworks]

With the P2 slot being the same as a PCMCIA port, and (supposedly, but don't quote me) the HVX running a form of Unix... perhaps we could see an after-market solution that uses one of those PCMCIA CF-Card adapters in the P2 slot. All it would take is some sort of driver installation into the camera, and for the CF cards to be up to spec, which looks like it could be in the near future from what everyone is saying.

Perhaps Panasonic made themselves futureproof by making the P2 slot a PCMCIA device.... just in case it didn't work out with the P2s, and we're not all left stranded with a proprietary device that isn't supported anymore!

C'mon hackers, you made the XBOX into a super-cheap, mean entertainment machine... hell, even a Linux webserver! Think of what you could do with a HD beast such as the HVX!!!!

Kevin

 

[harddrive]

A few days ago, in response to DavidBeier posting:

What if a new DVCPro200 codec comes out that not only manages 4:4:4 color space and runs at 200mbs? Suddenly CF isn't going to work but P2 will still be a viable option.

I answered:

Maybe by the time somebody really does have a need for a 200Mbs solution, CF speeds will be more than adequate, maybe even rivalling P2 !?!

It's just been pointed out to me that CF should already be more than adequate for what David suggests. Not in the Extreme III variant, and so far only as a 8GB max size, but look at: http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Item(1997)-SDCFX4-8192-SanDisk_Extreme_IV_CompactFlash_8GB.aspx .

They are quoting up to 40MBs for speed, which equates to 320Mbs! OK, they do say "up to", not "guaranteed" (as for the 160Mbs for Extreme III), but I would fully expect them to handle 200Mbs sustained. They are also more expensive per GB than Extreme III, but still under half the equivalent P2 cost. Hence CF will still be more viable than P2.

 

[Crown1]

I with an P2 version of the SDX900 already around and a P2 version of the HDX900 on its way, .

If true, that says a lot about a P2 roadmap.

Panasonic is a great company with a range of products that would rate the best in price/performance.

I just wish folks Panasonic were a little forthcoming on the P2 roadmap or issues if any. That would be really pro-consumer.

Also are there any reliable figures on the Production numbers of the P2 cams ?

 

[StMad]

C'mon hackers, you made the XBOX into a super-cheap, mean entertainment machine... hell, even a Linux webserver! Think of what you could do with a HD beast such as the HVX!!!!

Kevin

Your logic is flawed Symphonic...only cool people use the HVX.