Has P2 been completely murdered by KxS?

[lawriejaffa]

Yah well i call it 'highly compressed' lol, and you really need to get over the numbers issue, - look at a screenshot, watch a movie shot on these cams. The finest hpx500 and hvx footage have made me go wow with its qualities. What better marketing is there than to say just look at the image...

I never seem to hear EX guys go on about any artistic qualities that aid them in their preference for a cameras look. I already have some things i prefer about the EX that i look forward to exploring but its not simply a case of measuring numbers that could get me excited!!! All this rubbish about what sensor is bigger, or how compressed / uncompressed lol.

I also love it when somebody - in this case you mr.jazz, says a load of sillyness (basically its you soothing your manly ego until you are relieved of the pressure of your camera anxiety...) only to add at the end of your post.... guess cams arent important hehe. Its like running up to someone peeing on their shoes then saying 'thats life' only to be shocked when they say somethig back hehe.

Basically it boils down to something like, if i say 'oh... well i use an EX to wipe my big scottish arse' and then go with an *innocent face* 'hey no need to reply, because its what we do with the cams thats important' - isn't it just

For added patronising its wise to always add a winky face at the end of a sarcastic post - here we go.

 

[mrjazz]

What better marketing is there than to say just look at the image...

No problem. Look at the attached ex1-grab. What do you think about it?

I never seem to hear EX guys go on about any artistic qualities aid them in

Because I don't need aids (not HIV), but high-quality footage. The artistic stuff is done in post.

in this case you mr.jazz, says a load of sillyness

The problem is that you believe that I'm doing silly talk, because you don't have a clue what I'm talking about, because you don't know much about technical stuff...

(basically its you soothing your manly ego like self till you are relieved of the pressure of camera anxiety...)

...and so you're getting personal all the time, because that's all what's left for you.

 

[lawriejaffa]

Your going to exhaust yourself quoting me - now im glad you don't think an hvx gives you HIV?! Anyway, an aid... see again thats the same sillyness... real men don't need any help lol they use Gilette EX 'the beeest a maaan can get!' Cooome on...

I need only the UBER best, thats why i use an hvx. (Yeah... its stupid coming from anyone about any camera...)

I'm fairly technical actually... but i know when folk are asking questions with genuine intellectual curiousity or if they are instead being a silly billy trying to point score.

Oh and i guess it was rather personal... perhaps even intimate!



The still is nice but its not really a wow still for the EX eh.

I don't think the director will mind, but here

Now the hvx/hpx set right would do this shot beautifully too, but the characteristics are different between them and the EX, they have their own qualities. The EX and its technology captured this pic in its own unique way - from the film Forgotten. That is nice... is it nice because its sharper than my wit? Who knows... that is worth getting passionate about and both cam types do great shots in their own ways.

 

[mrjazz]

but i know when folk are asking questions with genuine intellectual curiousity or if they are instead being a silly billy trying to point score.

Yes, I want to score, but with spreading my insight/knowledge and not at any cost.

The first impression I had about your still was great, but the second was that there's some ca (chromatic aberration) and a lot of vignetting. I guess especially the vignetting comes from a 35mm-adapter.
I don't like these adapters, because the results often look quite dull/unbrilliant. Also I don't like that heavy grading often done. I prefer a highlights-compressed (I hate obvious clipping) brilliant natural bit punchy look. I like depth-of-field, but only if I don't have to interchange brilliance for it.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward hearing about your first impressions with the ex1/3. I'm pretty sure you'll be hesitant to go back to your panasonics.

 

[Stevet]

Today, Sony's electronics business laid off 16,000 people (8,000 full-time, 8,000 temporary workers) and announced that they were closing 10% of their factories, blaming lack of demand, and Sony chief Howard Stringer even said (paraphrased) that "it may hurt today, but if we don't take this step there won't be a tomorrow". These layoffs are of course spread across all of Sony, not just the (relatively tiny) broadcast division.

Barry, you do know this is just NOT Sony... Expect a LOT of news from many very soon.

There's a slow down everywhere in the electronics market. Intel just announced they are laying off 6000.

Also, I remembered in November Panasonic reporting their forecasted sales for 2009 to be 10% of originally projected:
http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/081127/as_japan_panasonic.html?.v=5

 

[Green Hornet]

Barry, I think you are missing the point.

The point being that to shoot an 8 hour day..what is the cost versus quality per dollar? Using the KxS and EX1, the cost is lower for higher quality output, so why would anyone (other than corporations who have deep pockets) buy Panasonic over the EX1?

I thought you (Barry Green) stated that you wanted an EX1? If you have one, how often do you think you would use that over the Panasonic cameras you have? If I had both cameras, I think I would use the EX1 over the Panasonic in 95% of the time.

I think the point being made is, if you had $9,000 to buy a whole SYSTEM (camera, cards, chargers, batteries), You would be further along with the EX1, than with Panasonic and it's P2 card system.

Obviously MURDER may be a big word to use, but that is the context of a board post, and most likely chosen to raise an eyebrow or two. Conversations such as this, may encourage Panasonic to think about some of our concerns. To me, it is a concern that I feel forced into buying something else, because Panasonic doesn't have a similar product.

I like the Panasonic product, and had it full raster, and or a solution that made an 8 hour day reasonable to me, then I would buy again. I don't mind buying into a format if it serves me back, but the price of P2 is such that to shoot an 8 hour day without off laoding would cost me as much as a new camera.

I would rather have a new camera than a bunch of P2 cards that lose money.
Every P2 card I bought cost me over a grand when I bought them. The same cards, I am having trouble getting $375 out of them.
Sure one can say, you can use them to pay for themselves over time.
My point is, I don't want to buy a system to have it pay for ITSELF,

I want a system that will have something left over in the form of a profit that I can pay for things for ME. I don't want to be in the business of working to buy and replace camera systems, where the camera systems have a better life than I do. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

But why would anyone, who looks at price, go with an EX1 instead of an HMC150? Long-gop 4:2:0 recording to solid state, but with one it costs $6500 and with the other it's $3400. With one you have to use a specific kensington adapter with certain pre-qualified forum-vetted memory cards, with the other you can slap any $10 SD card in there as long as it says "Class 4" on it somewhere.

So, at this point, someone will undoubtedly point out some irrelevant-to-the-recording media factor such as "EX1 is sharper" or "EX1 does variable frame rates" and at that point we're back to the crux of the same discussion, right? You can't separate the media from the camera and indict the media alone.

That, plus the fact that about 80% of the broadcasters going tapeless have chosen P2, and Fuji and Maxell and Hitachi are all making P2 equipment, would seem to imply that no "murdering" is going on.

I think the initial question is flawed based on the notion that one may sometimes project one's own opinion upon the rest of the world, seeing the whole world from their own perspective. It ain't so. For example, people clamor that 720p is "dead" and 1080 is the one and only true form of HD, right? As an experiment I went through my cable system to see what's being broadcast. I have the basic HD package, 28 channels broadcasting in HD. Of those 28 channels, 17 were 1080i, and 11 were 720P! Eleven! Who would have thought that in (almost) 2009, 40% of the channels broadcast by Time Warner Cable would be 720P?

Sometimes what people think, and what actually *is*, ain't the same thing.

There's a perception among some folks that Sony's EX1 is "murdering" the market. Today, Sony's electronics business laid off 16,000 people (8,000 full-time, 8,000 temporary workers) and announced that they were closing 10% of their factories, blaming lack of demand, and Sony chief Howard Stringer even said (paraphrased) that "it may hurt today, but if we don't take this step there won't be a tomorrow". These layoffs are of course spread across all of Sony, not just the (relatively tiny) broadcast division.

Perceptions can be altered by regional territories too; certain areas of the world are predominately sony or predominately panasonic, so residents there might say "all I see is XDCAM 330s everywhere I go, therefore Sony must have the market locked up." But just because Australia bought Betacam SX, that doesn't mean any other market in the world did.

Final thought on this is that our little corner of the market is not exactly a massive segment. If every DVXUser/DVInfo member with an EX1/EX3 used KxS, that might account for maybe 5% of the market. The rest of the world doesn't even know it exists. And I've got to believe the big section of the market, the broadcast buyers, are never going to be tempted to use something like KxS. If you ever see ABC or NBC or CBS or Fox or the BBC or anyone like that using KxS, let us know because frankly I'd be shocked.

Is KxS a lovely thing for the indie/prosumer guy? Sure. Is it going to make the slightest perceptible dent in either P2 or SxS sales? I extremely exceptionally doubt it. I mean, if HALF the people we get were swayed to make a decision based on KxS vs. SxS or P2, then you're talking about 1/2 of 5%, or less than 3%. Not enough to even pinch or slap the market, much less murder it.

 

[Stevet]

lawriejaffa shows us the most important point -
It's really about composition.

That is quite the shot to say the least.

Any of these cameras would of been happy shooting that image.

Nice shot man!

 

[Noel Evans]

Divide 154 minutes/ 230 minutes = 0.669 (round up to 0.67) so 67%. The DVCPro HD footage rendered approximately 33% faster.

DVCPro HD at 1080/25p resolution is 1280x1080. XDCAM EX is 1920x1080. Guess what the differential in width resolution is? 1280/1920 = 0.66~ which is approximately 33% less resolution with the DVCPro HD format.

So...33% more resolution for 33% more rendering time.

See my issue with your point is that you referenced only part of my post and it could be taken out of context. SO, I will restate. More often than not if a simple filter is applied on DVCProHD footage I dont require render. Whereas, it will on EX footage.

And, the math you are equating is not relevant to the frame size, it is based on time to render LONG GOP - now dont go blasting me about mentioning long gop, I made no other comment in relation to it other than render time - I am not a purveyor of the I-frame only codec.

But looking at how Hollywood seems to work, the idea of cutting on proxies seems well established, so I don't think my workflow is too far from the mainstream. If I was passing things off to an editor, I think I'd be pretty happy using either methodology.

And weather this workflow is common in Hollywood or not is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that Time is money.

The point being that to shoot an 8 hour day..what is the cost versus quality per dollar? Using the KxS and EX1, the cost is lower for higher quality output, so why would anyone (other than corporations who have deep pockets) buy Panasonic over the EX1?

Again, and as no one shoots one single 8 hour day per year, most likely many. Hours and hours of footage. Apply my orignal comment.

Heres the deal, I always complain about p2 cost - ask anyone. But I only argue the cost relative to the one off upfront expense. As the ongoing costs in time are higher for ex footage.

But again, I qualify that with - if your a hobbyist, or doing one job per month, or an aspiring film maker, where TIME ISNT MONEY - my point is totally invalid for you. It doesnt matter at all does it?

The original question was has p2 been completely murdered by Kxs, and the answer is no, and I provided one reason why.

 

[Bucknfl]

I purchased the panasonic hmc 150 because of the ease and cost effectiveness of the sdhc cards. I get the panasonic film look without the hassle of p2.

 

[mrjazz]

More often than not if a simple filter is applied on DVCProHD footage I dont require render. Whereas, it will on EX footage.

The point is:
XDCAM EX-footage needs more resources not because it's long-gop, but because it's actually higher definition than DVCPRO-HD. And this is a good thing.

I'm pretty sure that you can lower the realtime-render-resolution in your NLE. That will probably fix your realtime-issues.

 

[David Jimerson]

The point is:
XDCAM EX-footage needs more resources not because it's long-gop, but because it's actually higher definition than DVCPRO-HD. And this is a good thing.

?

You don't mean it takes that much longer because it's sharper on a resolution chart (EX1 vs. HVX200), do you?

 

[Stevet]

David does have a point. The HVX200 also offers 1920x1080 rez.

 

[PerroneFord]

he HVX200 also offers 1920x1080 rez.

Not recorded it doesn't.

 

[Stevet]

Not recorded it doesn't.

Perrone, I was not implying that. The discussion is regarding editing image resolution.

 

[mrjazz]

?
You don't mean it takes that much longer because it's sharper on a resolution chart (EX1 vs. HVX200), do you?

No, I mean that it takes longer, because there are more pixels to render (1920x1080 of XDCAM EX vs. 1280x1080 of DVCPRO-HD).

 

[Green Hornet]

See my issue with your point is that you referenced only part of my post and it could be taken out of context. SO, I will restate. More often than not if a simple filter is applied on DVCProHD footage I dont require render. Whereas, it will on EX footage......

And weather this workflow is common in Hollywood or not is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that Time is money.

Again, and as no one shoots one single 8 hour day per year, most likely many. Hours and hours of footage. Apply my orignal comment.

Heres the deal, I always complain about p2 cost - ask anyone. But I only argue the cost relative to the one off upfront expense. As the ongoing costs in time are higher for ex footage. ....

If you are defending the cost of P2 shooting, and if you say P2 shooting is less time, that would imply you have enough money to buy P2 cards to cover you for a full days shoot 8-10 hours or more, or to hire someone each time you need to do an offload.

Surely if you have that kind of money, then your edit bay would also be equipted to edit the footage real time. With either codec, there are solutions to make either edit real time, or near enough to be called equal. In most cases, one who shoots would not also be the one to edit. No one is saying you have to keep the EX-1 footage the same from the point of edit to delivery.

I never heard an editor charge more for EX1 footage over DVCPRO HD.

If time is money to you, then you have enough money to fix the time issues.

 

[Buck Forester]

There's a perception among some folks that Sony's EX1 is "murdering" the market. Today, Sony's electronics business laid off 16,000 people (8,000 full-time, 8,000 temporary workers) and announced that they were closing 10% of their factories, blaming lack of demand, and Sony chief Howard Stringer even said (paraphrased) that "it may hurt today, but if we don't take this step there won't be a tomorrow". These layoffs are of course spread across all of Sony, not just the (relatively tiny) broadcast division.

- Barry Green

This is really not a fair statement by itself. Sony's stock this very day is trading at nearly double Panasonic's stock.

Panasonic Corp. - $11.42 http://www.marketwatch.com/quotes/pc

Sony Corp - $20.67 http://www.marketwatch.com/quotes/sne

Both companies have been hit hard by the recession.

Slump Forces Panasonic to cut profit view http://en.ce.cn/subject/financialcrisis/financialcrisisf/200811/28/t20081128_17530984.shtml

Sony net income drops
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6609658.html?industryid=47215

According to these articles, Panasonic is cutting forecasted profits by 90% and Sony is cutting forecasted profits by 71.8%.

Keeping things in perspective and a level playing field is nice.

Also, whether one company actually does have higher sales in a market segment (no matter which company) doesn't equate to quality, or "better" in and of itself. Apple only has a 10-15% share of the computer market and a strong argument can be made that their computers and operating systems are better than Microsoft and Windows based PCs.

 

[Buck Forester]

But why would anyone, who looks at price, go with an EX1 instead of an HMC150?

Because getting full 1920x1080 specs accepted for 100% footage by companies such as Discovery HD for so little is amazing and allows nearly anyone to compete with the big boys on the big channels. If the HMC150 allowed this then I'd probably get one. Don't forget the high-def market, it's not all about indie filmers. Even if a lot of HD channels broadcast in 720p, that doesn't mean they will accept 100% footage acquired at 720p, or even 1080 with 1/3" chips. There is a 'real' reason why many of us have gone with the EX1. Out-of-the-camera "mojo" won't cut it when there are minimum specs required for broadcasting in high-def. That's just the reality of the situation today and it's a legit reason to choose the EX1... the camera and media are insanely cheap to be hitting these specs.

 

[Noel Evans]

No, I mean that it takes longer, because there are more pixels to render (1920x1080 of XDCAM EX vs. 1280x1080 of DVCPRO-HD).

Thats an inaccurate statement. DVCProHD 1920x1080 4:2:2 i-frame from the HPX3000 does not increase render time.

that would imply you have enough money to buy P2 cards to cover you for a full days shoot 8-10 hours or more, or to hire someone each time you need to do an offload.

Surely if you have that kind of money, then your edit bay would also be equipted to edit the footage real time. With either codec, there are solutions to make either edit real time, or near enough to be called equal. In most cases, one who shoots would not also be the one to edit. No one is saying you have to keep the EX-1 footage the same from the point of edit to delivery.

If time is money to you, then you have enough money to fix the time issues.

How does it imply that? Maybe I do have the money, but like anyone I prefer to keep my operating costs down. I dont edit EX footage often enough to consider major changes to my set up. Just often enough to see the difference required in edit time.

With either codec, there are solutions to make either edit real time, or near enough to be called equal. In most cases, one who shoots would not also be the one to edit. No one is saying you have to keep the EX-1 footage the same from the point of edit to delivery.

Well I didnt feel the need to state the obvious. Of course you can recode any codec, but again it takes time.

I never heard an editor charge more for EX1 footage over DVCPRO HD.

Well editors usually charge an hourly rate. So if they need to do a transcode first or work with the ex codec - more $.

Can I also add, I am not making these points as a member of any fan club. I simply made points based on my real world experience of working with a number of different cams and dealing with the resulting footage. I have never once said x is better than y.

I am simply saying I-Frame DVCProHD - extracted from a p2 card - weather its a pixel shifted image camera such as the HVX or full 1920x1080 from the HPX3000, the time to edit is faster. And it is. Of course if you TAKE TIME to transcode to an I-frame codec its similar, but you still have to TAKE TIME to transcode, that you dont with DVCProHD. Thus, your operation costs go up. And yes, if your operation costs go up, you may consider upgrading your edit bay depending on whats going to cost you more - additional render / transcode times over a 12 month period OR the cost to get a VERY high end machine that can avoid renders. If youre like me and grade using Color, then EX footage unless transcoded is a nightmare.

Either way its still more $.

 

[The Noble Robot]

what is the cost versus quality per dollar? Using the KxS and EX1, the cost is lower for higher quality output, so why would anyone (other than corporations who have deep pockets) buy Panasonic over the EX1?

Actually, the operating cost for both formats is $0 (I'm surprised that so few people have mentioned this). Hell, it costs more to shoot a project on miniDV unless you reuse your tapes.

But you *do* still need to buy the storage upfront. I think of it as part of the cost of the camera.

From my personal experience, to shoot an 8-hour day on a indie film, 5-6 pages a day, averaging 3-8 takes per shot (and since I'm an editor too, I like to shoot a lot of angles), I shot about an hour of footage a day (which I think is a bit above average). You'd need 64GB of P2 storage at 1080i/24pa.

That's $3,000 if you don't plan to unload during lunch, $1500 if you do. Even as a one-time investment, that is a big deal. Add the cost of a used HVX200, and you get $5,000 to $6,500.

However, add the cost of a used EX1 and a 16GB card (for 50mins of recording time), and you get a similar cost (eBay had the cheapest one, with 16GB card, at $6500, and one with a 8GB card at $5,400). If you use KxS, you can probably shave a few hundred dollars off, let's say $5,100.

So at best, you can potentially hope to save $1,500. And in the future, EX1 used prices will come down like the HVX has.

But let's be honest, those kinds of one time cost benefits, which will be forgotten in a year or less, are not going to convince the P2 user to abandon their format, nor is it a real compelling reason to choose Sony over Panny if you like what panny gives you.

For those who prefer "Sony Style" (ha!), those price reductions are gravy, but I can't imagine that it would ever be cited as the chief reason for choosing Sony over Panny.

So, with that out of the way, let me comment on this vague notion of "pixels":

P2 is 1280x1080, but each frame contains all the pixels. EX is 1920x1080, but with it's long GOP, not every frame has all the pixels, and while in a single frame (kayframe) it will have more horizontal resolution, over time, the format has far less pixel information.

That said, it's an incredibly efficient way to reduce space, not "heavily compressed" as some have charged.

In the end, it's pretty much a wash, and it's quibbling to compare, since DVD still looks good to the human eye (and yes, that's a stretched pixel format, too). Both formats achieve an HD standard.

For me, it comes down to three things. Shooting conditions, color information, and ease of use for composting (and keying). DVCPRO HD wins in all three catagories.

P2 is a wasteful format at 100mbps, and I wish it were full frame, and not tied to the PC Card format, but don'you Sony folks wish EX could be captured with CCDs, or there were a intraframe compression option?

I would argue that SxS is the better physical storage medium, but that DVCPRO HD is the better file format, and that my subjective opinion is that Panny makes the better cameras. However, I for one do think that Sony's user interfaces are miles ahead of panny's, but I'm over it.

Your milage may vary, and it's important to note that *both* represent the best of the best. Both cameras have drawbacks which are about equal in severity, so it comes down to (as many have intoned) what you need to do with it.

It just seems to me that, other than in situations of saving just a bit of money and saving just a bit of storage space, I can't imagine many situations where the clear benfits of EX really make much of a difference at all, and I really can't see where the clear drawbacks of P2 seriously hinder... well, anything.