Flash XDR on HPX300

[Barry_Green]

But when we talk on FCP works natively with AVCintra ... i donnt agree cox i had to transcode it thru ProRes....

That's the way FCP is set up to work. It doesn't HAVE to work that way, and you can get around it.

also i had to waste enough time to transcode the P2 file to MOV...

Only if you refuse to use one of the many workarounds. You never *have* to transcode or convert the files to MOVs at all. This is the single most irritating thing about FCP, and it's easily overcomeable.

all this gets saved by use of an XDR or similar unit this the best way to go to edit straight from edit.

You can go straight to the edit with P2 as well. Just use Raylight, or Calibrated's MXF importer, or HD Log Pro, or MXF4QT, or ... heck, there are probably others. You can edit directly off the card, even with AVC-Intra. You can edit the MXF files directly, even with AVC-Intra.

You don't have to ever do the silly .MOV re-wrap or a ProRes transcode unless you simply just won't use one of the above tools.

P2 shoot but one has to transcode the whole footage into MOV & that takes a considerable amount of time for edit; whereby defeating the very purpose of Direct To Edit.

No, it's FCP that defeats the very purpose of direct to edit. You can do direct to edit on *any* Windows NLE. Only FCP requires the transcode or rewrap, and as stated before you can avoid the transcode and rewrap entirely, which brings FCP back into the real world of tapeless editing.

 

[Big Brother]

thx Barry for the few insight which panny folks not able to. BUT can you also give me an idea will a AVI-1@100 be better or near XDR MPEG2 -I @ 160MBPS. i feel that @ 160MBPS i get more data so better Pix quality.

 

[Barry_Green]

But it's still going to be 8-bit. How can 8-bit ever be better than 10? It can't, provided that there's enough bandwidth overall.

You can't just compare megabits to megabits, because you're talking about an entirely different compression system. AVC is far more efficient than MPEG-2. According to Sony themselves, 9 megabits of AVC long-GOP is equivalent to 25 megabits of MPEG-2 long-GOP.

It's true that efficiencies are greatest at the smaller data rates, and once you allocate enough bandwidth you're getting close to uncompressed quality; I would expect that 160mbps MPEG-2 would be on par with 100mbps AVC-I in that both should deliver close to uncompressed, and maybe even hit the magic level of "virtually" uncompressed. But even then, you're going to have 10 bits of data vs. 8. You're going to have 1,024 shades of each color, instead of 256. You're going to have smoother gradients instead of banding.

 

[Big Brother]

Cool Barry, Thx again. But isint 160mbps on xdr an I-frame compression. one similar to panny Iframe compression @ 100 mbps. As thats what XDR site states.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

What else or where else is it different.

Instant Edit
Safe Data storage random access

How about loss of footage if you lose power?

How about a metadata wrangling?

How about Parity check on the recording of the footage?

What about an ever increasing speed for read or write? Just off loaded 2 64 GB cards in 34 minutes.

in any language or words it(read EXPENSIVE P2 cards)

Only expensive if you use them once and put on a shelf. If you used the 64GB card 1000 times, you are loking at a cost of $2.40, 10,000 times, .24 cents. It is a relative thing, certainly more expensive as the front end of the purchase but the cost goes down but the reliability stays the same.

Seems to do the same job as a relatively cheap memory card (300x UDMA type) I see it hard to make my self understand

Only cheap if you don't lose the power in the middle of recording. P2 closes the recording every 2 seconds so that the most you would ever lose is 2 seconds.

Only cheap if you aren't concerned with a data rich archive that allows for searching for clips.

Only cheap if your investment will handle what might come down the stream. Keep in mind the 4GB cards we started to deliver 5 years ago handle the DVCPRO and DVCPRO50 which were the first P2 cameras, but they can als handl DVCPRO HD and now AVC-Intra. And if we were to develop product warpped around the 4:4:4 version of the AVC-H.264 family that same 4GB card could handle it. So you make your invesment once and it continues to work.

what panasonic it self feel as a tough terrain to explain to competition. i did a small maths for cost evaluation a few pages back on this thread.

Been meaning to go back to that math and show you that your estimates of needing 4 cards is not necessary, you could do what you are doing very easiliy with 3 cards. Seen it done.

I see the only dif which panny is beating around on HPX300 is a AVC-I @ 100with 422 codec. I am not very satisfied with Panny explanation on --- either P2 cards exorbitant cost esp when we see the media cost going down every passing day & where we see so many CF or SDHC cards coming with large space & fast speeds enough to sustain a bit rate of 160mbps

The difference between the Memory is different but because it is not commercially available, you cannot buy it and thus you do not have a reference. The Memory in the CF Cards and SDHC cards are a step down from the memory that is in the P2 cards. But it is hard to prove without ruining a card. And frankly that is not worth it to me. I look at all of the failsafes built into the card and feel comfortable in recommending them and have my customer's careers ride on them.

--- or with geting a bit too much detail with the extra 2but color space !

This detail is only a portion of the entire story but I have spent the time trying to educate you in the difference between 8 bit and 10 bit and the difference it will make in color correction. It will also make a diffi=erence in the tonal gradations of a singular color, or flesh tones. It does make a difference in color, just like the gray scale, imagine it in color, it is the same number of steps.

Best,

Jan

 

[DavidNJ]

Hi Jan, Mike, and Dan (did I miss someone?),

Let me first say that both Panasonic's AVC Intra and the Flash/nanoFlash XDR show both vendors are pushing the envelope. Let me add the GH-1 to Panasonic's feather collection, although that is a different division.

There have been a few statements here that I would love to get clarified.

1) What rate does AVC Intra 100 record at? Is it VBR Max 100? If so, what is that target rate? What is the actual rate?

2) With the introduction of the impressive HPX300 and HPG20 AVC Intra is available at a lower price point. That would allow capturing AVC Intra from any HD-SDI (or HDMI with a conversion box like the ones sold by Convergent). Has it been used with the EX3?

3) I thought the Thompson output uncompressed 4:4:4 RAW format. If so, how does it interface to the Flash XDR?

4) Has the XDR been used on a camera that outputs AVC Intra 100? If so, have the formats been compared?

5) Convergent records both Long GOP and I-frame outputs. Why did Panasonic chose not to offer 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC output? That would have fit with the 100Mb/s P2 speeds and offered more information picture detail.

6) Panasonics AVC is a VBR, effectively using the bandwidth while producing a consistant image quality. Why is the Flash XDR CBR? Does it cause an inconsistent image quality? Was it a codec limitation, as was 8-bit recording?

Thanks for offering such great products (that we are having a discussion of competing 100Mb/s protocols!!!)

David

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Jan, Mike, and Dan (did I miss someone?),
1) What rate does AVC Intra 100 record at? Is it VBR Max 100? If so, what is that target rate? What is the actual rate?

If you are are 24P, just like the DVCPRO HD, there are fewer bits used but not quite the savings as DVCPRO. There is no VBR in the top end, only in the bottom end. AVC-Intra is CBR, as each frame stands alone.

2) With the introduction of the impressive HPX300 and HPG20 AVC Intra is available at a lower price point. That would allow capturing AVC Intra from any HD-SDI (or HDMI with a conversion box like the ones sold by Convergent). Has it been used with the EX3?

Yes, the EX3 can become a Mastering Quality camera as well.

4) Has the XDR been used on a camera that outputs AVC Intra 100? If so, have the formats been compared?

AVC-Intra is a Codec, what would ome out of the HD_SDI is uncompressed HD.

5) Convergent records both Long GOP and I-frame outputs. Why did Panasonic chose not to offer 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC output? That would have fit with the 100Mb/s P2 speeds and offered more information picture detail.

The Output of the HPX300 is 10 bit uncompressed which is by its nature 4:2:2

6) Panasonics AVC is a VBR, effectively using the bandwidth while producing a consistant image quality. Why is the Flash XDR CBR? Does it cause an inconsistent image quality? Was it a codec limitation, as was 8-bit recording?

Depends on which end of the AVC spectrum you are on. The AVCHD while in the H.264 family, it is not the same as AVC-Intra, it is able to do VBR. AVC-Intra is CBR. At the low end of the AVC familiy is 4:2:0, 8 Bit, long GOP. At the top end it becomes I-Frame 4:2:2 100 Mbs.

Thanks for offering such great products (that we are having a discussion of competing 100Mb/s protocols!!!)

It is more like competing Codecs. Not protocols, just to be specific. protocols would be like the protocol that is embedded in the HD-SDI stream to trigger the HPG20 into record from the camera's record trigger. Codecs are what will determine quality that ends up on the timeline for editing.


Hope this helps,

Jan

 

[Barry_Green]

But isint 160mbps on xdr an I-frame compression. one similar to panny Iframe compression @ 100 mbps.

Yes, they're both I-frame. But the XDR is MPEG-2, and the Pansonic is AVC. AVC is a lot more efficient...

To break out the eternal comparison to cars, which one can drive farther, the one with a 10-gallon tank or the one with a 16-gallon tank? And the answer is, you don't know until you know how many miles per gallon the car gets! AVC gets way more miles per gallon than MPEG-2 does.

MPEG-2 at 160mbps is probably about equivalent to AVC at 100mbps, in terms of resolved detail and resistance to artifacting. But AVC-Intra is 10 bit instead of 8 bit. So it's still recording way more information, above and beyond the nominally-stated 1920x1080 and 4:2:2.

 

[Mike Schell]

But it's still going to be 8-bit. How can 8-bit ever be better than 10? It can't, provided that there's enough bandwidth overall.

You can't just compare megabits to megabits, because you're talking about an entirely different compression system. AVC is far more efficient than MPEG-2. According to Sony themselves, 9 megabits of AVC long-GOP is equivalent to 25 megabits of MPEG-2 long-GOP.

It's true that efficiencies are greatest at the smaller data rates, and once you allocate enough bandwidth you're getting close to uncompressed quality; I would expect that 160mbps MPEG-2 would be on par with 100mbps AVC-I in that both should deliver close to uncompressed, and maybe even hit the magic level of "virtually" uncompressed. But even then, you're going to have 10 bits of data vs. 8. You're going to have 1,024 shades of each color, instead of 256. You're going to have smoother gradients instead of banding.

Hi Barry-
It's a little more complicated than just a straight 8-bit to 10-bit comparison. Remember these are compressed images, so you undoubtedly loose some of the resolution through the compression process. Most compression routines reduce the resolution of the values and introduce round-off errors. So, I bet the 8-bit / 10-bit difference becomes much less after compression through the respective CODECs.

You also have to consider the final compression ratio. As you noted, AVC-I is more efficient than MPEG2, but the efficiency difference is greatly reduced as the bit-rate increases. I will do some more research on this difference at the 100+ Mbps level, but I bet it's not very large.

Let's do some compression ratio comparisons at 1080psf23.98, the most popular format for output to film (where quality is most critical). AVC-I bit rate = 80 Mbps (effective) at 4:2:2 10-bit for an effective compression of 12.43 to 1. MPEG2-I = 160 Mbps at 4:2:2 8-bit for an effective compression of 4.97 to 1. In other words, the MPEG2-I has 2.5 times less compression. (Both CODECs are 4:2:2, full-raster, I-Frame only).

So, I bet the quality differences are very small and may be very difficult to discern. Naturally, we do need to test and confirm.

Having spent many years in video CODEC design, I know that the actual silicon implemetation of any compression algorithm can made a huge difference in the final quality, especially with regard to the encode quality (much less for the decode quality). So, it is a very complex comparison, and the numbers can be very misleading.

So, let's try to arrange a test in the near future.

Best-
Mike Schell
Convergent Design

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

So, it is a very complex comparison, and the numbers can be very misleading.

So, let's try to arrange a test in the near future.

Hi Mike,

If you want Barry there, no problem, but frankly I think you just need to figure out the 8bit-10bit reality and if you really want that to be part of the "public record." Look back at the pic I posted earlier in the thread, trust me we will go to that level in the test, color and all. And we will do the full work flow with the power outage and see how much we lose and what the th metadata capabilities are. In addition we need to look at during post color correction to the ideal color can we say a standard like Coca-cola Red and Panasonic blue. Do you have any favorites?

Yes, 160 sounds better than 100, but the total, needs consideration. I can arrange a test after NAB. Of course that test is here in NJ with our $16,000 Digital Scope and our BT-LH2550 Full Raster LCD.

See you at NAB


All the best,

Jan

 

[Mike Schell]

Hi Jan, Mike, and Dan (did I miss someone?),

Let me first say that both Panasonic's AVC Intra and the Flash/nanoFlash XDR show both vendors are pushing the envelope. Let me add the GH-1 to Panasonic's feather collection, although that is a different division.

There have been a few statements here that I would love to get clarified.

1) What rate does AVC Intra 100 record at? Is it VBR Max 100? If so, what is that target rate? What is the actual rate?

2) With the introduction of the impressive HPX300 and HPG20 AVC Intra is available at a lower price point. That would allow capturing AVC Intra from any HD-SDI (or HDMI with a conversion box like the ones sold by Convergent). Has it been used with the EX3?

3) I thought the Thompson output uncompressed 4:4:4 RAW format. If so, how does it interface to the Flash XDR?

4) Has the XDR been used on a camera that outputs AVC Intra 100? If so, have the formats been compared?

5) Convergent records both Long GOP and I-frame outputs. Why did Panasonic chose not to offer 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC output? That would have fit with the 100Mb/s P2 speeds and offered more information picture detail.

6) Panasonics AVC is a VBR, effectively using the bandwidth while producing a consistant image quality. Why is the Flash XDR CBR? Does it cause an inconsistent image quality? Was it a codec limitation, as was 8-bit recording?

Thanks for offering such great products (that we are having a discussion of competing 100Mb/s protocols!!!)

David

Hi David-
I'll answer the questions directly at our products:

3) The Thomson Viper can output either 4:4:4 dual-link or 4:2:2 single link HS-SDI, so we can connect directly to the Flash XDR / nanoFlash.

4) I don't think anyone has made a direct comparison. I will speak to our Viper users next week about doing a comparison shot. We can use an HD-SDI DA and simultaneously send the same signal to an AVC-I recorder and our Flash XDR. We can compare some complex sky shots, facial shots and some gradient charts. I bet the differences will be very small and we will find some areas of the image where AVC-I excels and some where MPEG2-I excels.

The Thomson Viper is actually an ideal camera for this compariosn since it has a wide dynamic range and and low-noise sensors. The image quality is really amazing.

6) The choice of CBR was made to match with software CODEC specifications. However, I am fairly certain we can switch to VBR with little effect. The CBR choice is not based on a CODEC limitation or because of 8-bit encoding. I'll ask our engineers to test VBR next week.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

 

[DavidNJ]

Hey everyone...everyone please calm down...

If the Flash XDR is better...so what? The HPX is the same price as its competitors and my all accounts a bit better. It can use the XDR the same way.

If AVC Intra is better...so what? The Flash is smaller, uses less expensive media, can interface to an HDMI device (in nanoFlash format).

And other than the XDR, its native recording is significantly better than the XDCAM EX used by both Sony and JVC. 8-bit editing isn't a problem. I know if I use a nanoFlash XDR from a GH-1, I will convert to Cineform 10-bit 4:2:2 for editing. It was only 5 years ago our choices were DV, HDV, or maybe DVCProHD. XDCAM EX seems like HDV to me.

There is no need for a battle...the playing field is different.

And maybe complementary. For $8500 B&H lists the camera with a very nice Canon lens. An Flash XDR is $4800. And a HPG-20 with monitor is $4600; that device is probably more comparable.

Flash questions: What speed is 720p24 recorded at? Can we get 160Mb/s with no pulldown?

P2 questions: With regards to power loss...that facility is in the camera or on the P2 card? How does the battery powered Flash XDR deal with power loss?

Thanks,

David

 

[Mike Schell]

Hi Mike,

If you want Barry there, no problem, but frankly I think you just need to figure out the 8bit-10bit reality and if you really want that to be part of the "public record." Look back at the pic I posted earlier in the thread, trust me we will go to that level in the test, color and all. And we will do the full work flow with the power outage and see how much we lose and what the th metadata capabilities are. In addition we need to look at during post color correction to the ideal color can we say a standard like Coca-cola Red and Panasonic blue. Do you have any favorites?

Yes, 160 sounds better than 100, but the total, needs consideration. I can arrange a test after NAB. Of course that test is here in NJ with our $16,000 Digital Scope and our BT-LH2550 Full Raster LCD.

See you at NAB


All the best,

Jan

Hi Jan-
Thanks for the offer, I think we can do some tests in the meantime. I think the differences are going to be very small. Our Thomson Viper users have examined the quality of the images to the nth degree. I am quite comfortable with their findings.

As I have stated before, I think AVC-I is a great CODEC, but it's not the only possible or viable solution on the market (you do sell lots of DVCProHD based cameras, for example). And, as you mentioned, many other factors come into play including metadata support, ease of use, cost, portability, connectivity, etc. Like image comparisons, it's not a simple black and white (no pun intended) decision.

Best Regards-
Mike Schell

PS We will use our $24K Tektronix HD-SDI waveform monitor and look at the images on a Sony TriMaster monitor.

 

[Big Brother]

Hi Mike,

If you want Barry there, no problem, but frankly I think you just need to figure out the 8bit-10bit reality and if you really want that to be part of the "public record." Look back at the pic I posted earlier in the thread, trust me we will go to that level in the test, color and all. And we will do the full work flow with the power outage and see how much we lose and what the th metadata capabilities are. In addition we need to look at during post color correction to the ideal color can we say a standard like Coca-cola Red and Panasonic blue. Do you have any favorites?

Yes, 160 sounds better than 100, but the total, needs consideration. I can arrange a test after NAB. Of course that test is here in NJ with our $16,000 Digital Scope and our BT-LH2550 Full Raster LCD.

See you at NAB


All the best,

Jan

Hi, Any ida what goes in the inside of P2 card. Can Panasonic shws us an open P2 card, it shall help (at least) me to beileve on why P2 cards are Expensive.

I spoke with C-D folks & was told that the power failiure result in last clip being stored geting lost but they are upto some development thru firmmware where we can recover the last lost clip if in case of any power failure. But a power failure can happen in only Two cases if we shoot on bats. Firstly if a foolish cameramen fails to notice Batt end or near end warning. secondly if bat goes dead in the middl of shot for some tech fault.

In any which case I am really impressed with HPX300 in anyy senses but still not happy with P2 prices,,, hopefully Jan has some images of an open P2 card which shouldnt be too hard for her to Get being in PANNY.Unless Panny doesnt want to reveal the simple layout plan inside of p2thing.

I am sure Jan will oblidge us all with the tests mentioned above to proove the discussion with facts. B it codec 100vs160mbps or P2 inners so much fan faired so called complex design which alow them to double the capacity each NAB but not drop the prices.

Hi Jan-

Best Regards-
Mike Schell

PS We will use our $24K Tektronix HD-SDI waveform monitor and look at the images on a Sony TriMaster monitor.

I liked the last line where you mentioned the $$$ a cost comparison to Pannys DigiScope.

Earlier when Panny had 1280x720 then also they were the BEST (in their own thoughts) now that they have been able to finlly offer full raster they still are the best Wonder what sony is feeling & saying when they were full raster much earlier & still leads the pack with the benchmark Product to which all products aim HDCAM SR (800+mbps to my knowledge) well no comparision between Panny & sony tech. I feel i am attracted to panny as of now cox of the low entry cost of their HD full rasters.

i am no big film maker am a simple events guy wored way up to HD ri8 thru the good Old VHS, Umatic Low/High Band, Betacam SP, DVCAM & now aspiring for HD. But the cost have been really the biggest hurdle to make a decision, I must thank panny for stealing the show with low cost HPX300. Now my aim here was solely to compare the much lower vost media & its recorder C-D to the MUCH expensive P2 card.we need four p2 cards per camera as we dont want to have a shoot held up cox the card simply is wasting its our time while it gets copied onto the P2 gear. We shoot average 5hours per camera effectively 10Gig P2 cards !

I use generally Three Cam setup any given event. My maths there has been like this for each HPX300 I will need aleast 4 P2 cards which jacks up the cost considerably & when i theritically speaking go the nanoFLASH way then this is what i calculate. (Not counting the cost of Hard Disks as it gonna be cooman to p2 or nanoFLASH way)


3 Panasonic HPX300 = 8500x3 = 25,500
P2 Gear = 5000
12 P2 cards = 30,000 (2 hour average on each camera)

Cost of ownership = 60,500 WOAH all to get the 10bit recorded & will not want to have a laptop instead of P2 ear cox then i will have to have atrained person baby sit the transfer process. p2 gear can be opeated with ease by any of my assistants without any extra cost.

Now the nanoFLASH way.

3 Panasonic HPX300 = 8500x3 = 25,500
3 indivudual data copier with 500GB hDD = 1000x3 = 3000
12 cheap 300x CF cards = 1200
3 nano Flash = 3400x3 = 10,200

so the cost of owner ship = 40,000 On the higher side.

And if i decide to add 2 P2 cards for record operation thru camera on the wonderfull nanoFLASH then i can burn some more hard earned money like this

6 p2 32 GB cards = 8400

now these cards can be re used after formatting inside the corder or on laptop with a trained guy or if programmable then tp be reused after they reach end there by they sit USELESSLY in my HPX300 just to enable me to trigger record on the wonderful nanoFLASH from the lens trigger button. WOAH still I am way under 61,000$ thats a hell lot load of moolah saved for my next pruchase. This calc wil got up & up ...

BTW why cant C-D design their prods around AVC-I format 10 bit codec...Ok may be some Licenses issue & more over i feel panny wont let their P2 Profit go away like this. If panny says they do have a real tech inside then am sure Jan will help us all with the images of open P2 cards to take her facts further.

So just to get the 10bit recording i will have to burn extra 20,000 now thats no brainer for a simple event shooter company. Jan should feel that here on this forum she is interacting with the END most user, & they comprise of high end fellas to lower end ones like me. Here she will get what end users feel & want from panny.

Believe me if panny decides to reduce the HUGE margin they make on P2 sales this sort discussion will die off suddeny. but no its not gonna happen & so will the companies making cost effective solution will win hands down.

My thoughts flushed out on this page.... No personal attacks so pls dont get back with vengeance I am a end user who is expressing his simple thoughts. i hope I am helped by Jan to start thinking Panasonics way...

 

[ROne]

Why are we still doing the cost thing on P2? It's Sesame street maths.

My company makes a reasonable £85,000 profit on £120,000 turnover. That includes the cost of buying new equipment and running the business. P2 costs and camera are maybe 10% of that figure spread over several years! Say 3.33% a year to allow upgrade every 3 years. (Not to mention tax write off.)

If it's too expensive buy the alternative then or get more business.

Expensive is relative, expensive is subjective - but expensive is not a fact.

What I like is quality and reliability. P2 achieves that mecca.

 

[Jason Stewart]

OK Big Brother, we get it. You don't value p2 cards because of the premium price, etc, but understand that others do. You don't know what pannasonic's profit margin is on the cards or how complex or simple the internals are(does it really matter??) so some of your remarks on these subjects aren't that creditable and kinda immature.

You definitly put some thought into your price comparisons that we saw many times and it seems for what you think you need purchasing the external recorder will serve you better. Since this topic interests you so much, once you get this setup, you should post an extensive review on it for us. I'm sure we'll all be intersted to hear the outcome.

Years ago i did something similar with my dvx. I needed long uninterupted recording times so I purchased a firestore (same recording format though)and it got me tapeless and served me well but wasn't a solution for all my needs. When I got a P2HD camera, I was already familiar with the tapless workflow but loved the 100% reliability and performance I got from P2 even with that so called HUGE profit margin you talk about. Even though my comments or others won't change your opinion on this, just know that I, like many others, value P2 cards/products and the INVESTMENT was well worth it.

What I find interesting how some people changed their tune about P2 once avc-i became available at this price point. I also understand that C-D needs to sell their products and shouldn't be overlooked. The cameras internal avc-i codec and C-D's device will BOTH provide much better quality compared to other codecs in this price range. There is enough room for both.



I think everything productive on this thread's topic has been said, again and again. So relax, that's enough.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

If the Flash XDR is better...so what? The HPX is the same price as its competitors and my all accounts a bit better. It can use the XDR the same way.

Point is that why would you? The FLASH XDR is not better, you can get a better recording using the on camera recorder. Why would you spend the $5000 on the XDR to get a lesser recording than what the camera can offer? It makes no sense to me.

If AVC Intra is better...so what? The Flash is smaller, uses less expensive media, can interface to an HDMI device (in nanoFlash format).

The Camera is able to record a better picture with having anything attached to it. The flash is smaller but it doesn't have a camera. So if that is the system that you want to use, find a camera that doesn't have a 10 bit recorder to hang it on.

And other than the XDR, its native recording is significantly better than the XDCAM

But AVC-Intra is better than the XDR. 10 Bit will always be better than 8 bit any way you slice it.

There is no need for a battle...the playing field is different.
An Flash XDR is $4800. And a HPG-20 with monitor is $4600; that device is probably more comparable.

Exactly but the difference will be that the HPG20 will record 10 bit and the XDR will only record 8 bit.

P2 questions: With regards to power loss...that facility is in the camera or on the P2 card? How does the battery powered Flash XDR deal with power loss?

That facility is part of what is in the card. There is an LSI in the card. It is part of why we say the card is format agnostic. If we came out with a 200Mbs AVC-Intra codec the cads we produced in 2004 could still handle it. It handles the parity checking, metadata once generated, and file structure. It also controls the Raid on the memory sites, which is how we get the read/write speed, currently at 800mbs on the 64GB cards, and it closes the recording every two seconds so that the most you would ever lose is 2 seconds. You would have to repair the clip that was recording but that would only be because it would need a finishing close.

I will let the XDR guys answer the question on how the XDR handles power loss.

Best,

Jan

 

[Big Brother]

I will let the XDR guys answer the question on how the XDR handles power loss.

Best,

Jan

i hope XDR folks do respond to it. I by all times have been looking like a fool to market my pov on XDR ... I will let C-D take over from here to do better explaining

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi, Any ida what goes in the inside of P2 card. Can Panasonic shws us an open P2 card, it shall help (at least) me to beileve on why P2 cards are Expensive.

Well if you have failed to pick up any of what has been said ovre the last four years and what has been said in this thread I can't help you. In direct response to you I have said what happens inside the P2 card. In response to others I have said what is in the card.

I spoke with C-D folks & was told that the power failiure result in last clip being stored geting lost but they are upto some development thru firmmware where we can recover the last lost clip if in case of any power failure. But a power failure can happen in only Two cases if we shoot on bats. Firstly if a foolish cameramen fails to notice Batt end or near end warning. secondly if bat goes dead in the middl of shot for some tech fault.

So in other words currently you lose the last clip. I know a pretty good DP and he by no means is foolish, but he lost his shot due to things just going wrong, and got to pay for another helicopter ride.

In any which case I am really impressed with HPX300 in anyy senses but still not happy with P2 prices,,, hopefully Jan has some images of an open P2 card which shouldnt be too hard for her to Get being in PANNY.Unless Panny doesnt want to reveal the simple layout plan inside of p2thing.

The cost of 2 P2 Cards is equal to the cost of the XDR, add a third card and you could record all day without stopping, as one card could be offloading.

I am not going to cut open a $2000 card so that you can see the inside. We do not make them in the US. They are made in a Clean Room in Osaka. I have a picture of an 8GB card cust open but they no longer look like that on the inside.

I am sure Jan will oblidge us all with the tests mentioned above to proove the discussion with facts.

The P2 card has performed flawlessly for the last 4 years for our customers. That I think is the best test one can have. We have over 100,000 P2 devices in the world working for some of the most demanding customers in the world. I have laid out facts, I have stated how the card works. The proof is in customer satisfaction.

B it codec 100vs160mbps or P2 inners so much fan faired so called complex design which alow them to double the capacity each NAB but not drop the prices.

Well here you are wrong, the price has come down. The 8GB card when intro duced was $2400. The 16GB Card was $900 when introduced. The memory we use offers 100,000 rewrites.

Now my aim here was solely to compare the much lower vost media & its recorder C-D to the MUCH expensive P2 card.we need four p2 cards per camera as we dont want to have a shoot held up cox the card simply is wasting its our time while it gets copied onto the P2 gear. We shoot average 5hours per camera effectively 10Gig P2 cards.

Frankly you wouldn't need 4 cards per camera and yes the P2 Portable would be a very handy thing to have in the tool kit. The cards offload faster than they can be recorded. We have a white paper on our website www.panasonic.com/p2hd called Time Management, you should take a look at it for solid information about how fast these cards are.

I use generally Three Cam setup any given event. My maths there has been like this for each HPX300 I will need aleast 4 P2 cards which jacks up the cost considerably & when i theritically speaking go the nanoFLASH way then this is what i calculate. (Not counting the cost of Hard Disks as it gonna be cooman to p2 or nanoFLASH way)

I have redone your math below

3 Panasonic HPX300 = 8500x3 = 25,500
P2 Portable= 4600
9 P2 cards = 21,492 (2 in camera, one at the offload station) Given that each card can be offloaded faster that one is filled, there is ample time for offloading the singular card. If you also equip that offload station with a mirrored raid, you will have a back up copy ready for the archive.

Total cost$ $51,592

However this assumes that you fill the card slots with 64 GB cards. You wouldn't have to. Why not put 32GBs in the slots? I mean the guys shoot the Iditarod with 16s and 32s and they come away with about 120 hours of footage at the end. Then the table would look like this:

CamerasX3= $25,500
Cards X9 = $12,600
P2 Portable= $4,600
Total= $42,700

The benefit of this calculation is that the cards offload even faster(because they are smaller), and they are less expensive than the 64GB. Since you had in the earlier budget the P2 Portable this is still in this one, and there is no need for the computer on set. Frankly there is no need for a trained person to baby sit this process, it is so simple that you basically tell it to offload the card and walk away. The Serial number of the copied card is on the screen and if you want to verify you can match the number on the card or play back off the HDD a couple of seconds. Then reformat the card and put it back into the camera. It really is not rocket science.

Plus having the P2 portable there can allow for playback at the event. Another function you can offer your clients.

Believe me if panny decides to reduce the HUGE margin they make on P2 sales this sort discussion will die off suddeny. but no its not gonna happen & so will the companies making cost effective solution will win hands down.

You are so misinformed about what it costs to make these cards with the memory we are using we do not make huge profits with these cards. If we change to memory that is comparable to the CF we could reduce the price.

Best,

Jan

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

PS We will use our $24K Tektronix HD-SDI waveform monitor and look at the images on a Sony TriMaster monitor.

Either we paid a lot less than you for the same scope or my tech gave me the wrong price, as we have the same scope.

While you are doing your tests, check out the color gradations.

Best,

Jan