Challenger to P2

[KnockOutFilms]

. . . The Infinity doesn't shoot 24p, but with the Nattress plugins, there is a great way to achieve 24p from the JPEG2000 footage.. . .Gibby
www.cut4.tv

I was excited about this camera until you mentioned it doesn't shoot p. Are you sure about that?

this is from their site "Ideal for multi-format acquisition as well as migration from SD to HD, the Infinity camcorder provides a choice of video formats and standards selectable within the camera: 525i60, 625i50, 1080i50, 1080i60, 720p50, or 720p60."

Could we get a 720p 24 from the 720p60 stream? It seams weird that GV wouldn't think of adding 24p. I actually think that would be a deal killer. I don't want to mess with a plug-in in post to creat the the 24p.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[eLeventy]

... I invite anyone to drop a small rock or other object not too heavy that you normally handle during your work on a P2 card. now look at the dent in the body of the P2 card - there's a very good chance you have shorted something inside...

Well, euh, don't tell Panasonic, but we just did that very thing. We're testing the P2 at the moment. We've invented a game you could call 'P2-baseball'. A few small dents, but no lost frames. Inside the P2 are 4 SD cards, so you would have to penetrate not only the metal outer casing, but also the individual SD cards.

We didn't go 'all the way', but our guess is that if you would drop something 'really' heavy on the card, it would bend/break right in the middle, because that is its weakest point( between the 4 SD-cards). The card would be useless, but there's a good chance the 4 cards inside could be recovered.

Stop blaming other technologies before trying them or at least read some reviews. Rev might be a big thing or just another unreliable Iomega crap - we don't know yet.

I agree completely. We've tested Ikegami cams also, whose FieldPack's are in fact 2.5" HDD's in a plastic casing, filled with silicone( yep, like breast implants :laugh: ). So, in fact comparable to Rev. And guess what, there's a game called 'Fieldpack baseball' whose rules are very similar to P2 baseball. :thumbsup:

 

[stephenvv]

I was one of the skeptics in the original thread and still am (i did own a Rev drive that died in the first week of operation after I decided to forgive Iomega for years of dead Jazz and Zip). Sure, the Rev Pro may be fine, but until it's out and proven (as P2 is already) it's purely paper speculation.

It's not clear yet exactly what data rates the Infinity is getting to compact flash and how rugged it's going to be.

Plus the cam is pretty expensive and not the main focus of marketing info thus far. So to me it's still paper vs. prototype. P2 is here and tested. HVX200 is prototype and close to shipping. Infinity, Rev Pro is still paper until footage and much more info arrives.

I also think the fact the Rev disks require a Rev drive to play to be a big, big issue. P2 plugs into in recent laptop - no drive or reader needed. Most laptops do not have CF slots, although CF readers are cheap. If the Infinity records nice 4:2:2 HD gently compressed intraframe with variable frames rates to off-the-shelf CF, that will be impressive.

Otherwise, P2 has the lead in my view, from the HVX up to whatever new P2 Varicam ships.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Inside the P2 are 4 SD cards, so you would have to penetrate not only the metal outer casing, but also the individual SD cards.
We didn't go 'all the way', but our guess is that if you would drop something 'really' heavy on the card, it would bend/break right in the middle, because that is its weakest point( between the 4 SD-cards). The card would be useless, but there's a good chance the 4 cards inside could be recovered.

Let's see what country are you in? ;-) Actually the little cards are pretty tough. We have tested them as well because we know that people drop things. The casing is a diecast magnesium aluminum alloy casting and thus is less prone to simple damage. I am not saying that you can't break it but they are pretty tough. I have dropped a couple on demos before.

It is interesting the tests that customers come up with. My favorite was the "bake" test. They put it out on the tarmac, camera and all and put in into record on a 102 degree day to see when it would shut down. All the other cameras they had tested did. The P2 was still recording 20 minutes later.

Best,

Jan

 

[taubkin]

Awn man, you can't drop a rock in your master footage? Dang, man, how useless. I mean, I plan to be shooting inside a crocodile lake, and once and again I have to just throw the tapes to my assistant and more often than not the crocodiles manage to intercept them. SO maybe if we can't remove the media safely from their dead stomachs, this might not be the camera for me. And my live avalanche footage, yeah I need a more rock resistant media. And a cheaper health plan.

(Just kidding, engeneer, go easy on me! )

C'mon, we all use those crappy plastic miniDV tapes, or even worse film negative that can't scratch, can't come in contact with dust, have a very narrow working temperature range and is sensitive to LIGHT! I think most of us can manage a diecast aluminium body... I don't think the HVX or P2 for that matter have to be perfect or flawless, all they have to be is better (maybe way better).

 

[Flintstone]

Yes taubkin, it is so true. A lot of people expect P2 to be made of titanium for the price. But when you put it that way, tape, film and hard disks, are all extremely fragile inherently. Compared to P2, P2 is rock solid. And because of that, some people expect it to be invulnerabe to... jagged pointy rocks! :laugh: My guess is it's the price that puts people on the defensive when it comes to the solidity of P2. But that will change eventually as prices go down.

 

[The Engineer]

The casing is a diecast magnesium aluminum alloy casting and thus is less prone to simple damage.

I agree about the frame, but the top/bottom cover are very soft. They are way too thin, as a matter of fact you can bend them with your nail. Otherwise it'a a pretty tough construction and I haven't seen too many faulty. Another thing I personally don't like (even if I understand perfectly why it's done) is the fact that the cards are using the SD cards as they are. I would of used the chips only soldered on that PCB. That way the whole thing would of hosted more memory in the same formfactor, but obviously would be a big problem when it comes to sort the chips for speed and bad locations. Don't get me wrong, I don't say they are bad, but as pretty much anything else on this planet, can be improved. However mingling with industrial processes already in place is often more expensive than a minor improvement will ever bring in profits.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

I agree about the frame, but the top/bottom cover are very soft. They are way too thin, as a matter of fact you can bend them with your nail.

But those are simply window dressing. The diecast is under that.

Otherwise it'a a pretty tough construction and I haven't seen too many faulty. Another thing I personally don't like (even if I understand perfectly why it's done) is the fact that the cards are using the SD cards as they are. I would of used the chips only soldered on that PCB.

But that would mean that we would capitalize on the one thing that can drive the price down, the fact that they are SD cards, there are over 70 manufacturers making things that work with SD and they all clamor for mor capacity.

Hope that helps,


Jan

 

[contentlab]

jan,

panasonic doesn't have some fancy exploded/internal view diagram of a P2 card? i swore i something resembling just that in one of your slides that shows how the P2 card is made.

 

[The Engineer]

But those are simply window dressing. The diecast is under that.

Jan, I have to challenge this. Under the top/bottom covers there's no diecast other than a frame that holds the PCB with the P2 cards. In between the covers and the actual circuit there's only a mylar type foil insulator. I would of made the covers a bit thicker, that's all...

 

[khmuse]

Jan, I have to challenge this. Under the top/bottom covers there's no diecast other than a frame that holds the PCB with the P2 cards. In between the covers and the actual circuit there's only a mylar type foil insulator. I would of made the covers a bit thicker, that's all...

Since the P2 cards are PCMCIA compliant form factor, there isn't much latitude in the material thickness of the cover plates. None-the-less, I really doubt that many will experience any mechanical failures from the case. I am a bit more concerned about the life cycles of the contacts and their plating, but have been assured that this too shouldn't be much of a concern.

 

[Gibby]

I was one of the skeptics in the original thread and still am (i did own a Rev drive that died in the first week of operation after I decided to forgive Iomega for years of dead Jazz and Zip).

Ok, let’s analyze this. You are the only one on the original thread, or this thread, to claim to have had a problem with a Rev drive that died. Is that conclusive evidence for readers to write off Rev drives? On the other hand, in the past year my company has employed graphic designers that own four Rev drives, used a total of twenty-eight Rev disks, and have had no problem whatsoever with the disks or drives. Do some online research, as I have, and try to find any substantial claims of reliability problems with Rev drives or disks. Rev drives and disks started shipping in April 2004 (20 months ago), so if there were significant reliability problems with them, shouldn’t accounts and studies on that have been published by now? The REV drive was honored with a Best of CeBIT America award for personal hardware. The REV drive was also a PC Magazine Editors’ Choice recipient (June 22, 2004 issue). Your claim of a Rev drive problem seems to be an isolated instance in view of there being no other significant evidence of a pattern of problems with Rev drives and disks.

Sure, the Rev Pro may be fine, but until it's out and proven (as P2 is already) it's purely paper speculation.

As I illustrated above, Rev drives and Rev disks have been in distribution for 20 months now with no significant reliability problems. Thomson Grass Valley has an excellent engineering reputation for their previous products. GV co-engineered with Iomega the improvements of the already reliable Rev drives and disks to create the new Rev Pro disks and drives – and yet we’re supposed to deduce that somehow Rev Pro disks and drives will not prove itself as reliable? Rev, the basis of Rev Pro, has been in distribution nearly as long as P2. Panasonic introduced P2 in 2003. Bottom line: Rev has shipped for almost as long as P2 and both P2 and Rev have proven themselves as reliable recording mediums.

It's not clear yet exactly what data rates the Infinity is getting to compact flash and how rugged it's going to be.

GV has not published the exact data rates the Infinity will record to CF. Why should that surprise you? Panasonic still hasn’t published many of the final tech specs of the HVX and the HVX is scheduled to ship next month! Camera manufacturers routinely with hold final specs on new models while they finalize the designs. The specs and data rates of JPEG2000 have been published for some time now. GV has stated that the Infinity will support the data rates of the JPEG2000 codec, along with many other codecs and scalable compression. You question the ruggedness of CF cards? CF was originally invented as NOR flash by Intel in 1988. Samsung and Toshiba then developed NAND flash in 1989. CF was first specified by SanDisk Corporation in 1994. Though not specified, CF Type II, 3.0 will probably be the version of CF used in the new Thomson Grass Valley Infinity camcorder. CF cards have a long history of reliability in widespread use in the digital photography industry and other industries.

Plus the cam is pretty expensive and not the main focus of marketing info thus far.

Infinity expensive? Under $20k for a groundbreaking camera from a reliable manufacturer, tapeless, IT-based, muliple HD & SD codec, scalable compression, intraframe, 1080i & 720p, recording to HDD (Rev) and CF, 2/3” CCD’s, HD-SDI output, and a hi-def codec (JPEG2000) that is technically equal to, and in some ways a superior codec to DVCProHD. The Infinity is not positioned as a competitor for the HVX. There are currently no competitors for the Infinity in the sub-$20k price range that offer similar features and capabilities. The HVX is a $6k, unibody, 1/3” CCD camera. The Infinity is a sub-$20k professional form factor, 2/3” CCD camera. A used HD lens can put Infinity in business for under $30k for the package. JPEG2000 and DVCProHD have similar properties. Infinity footage should cut nicely with HVX footage. A two-camera package of the Infinity as the “A” camera, and HVX as the “B” camera is a very viable production scenario. I’m at the head of a waiting list to buy an HVX – are you?

So to me it's still paper vs. prototype. P2 is here and tested. HVX200 is prototype and close to shipping. Infinity, Rev Pro is still paper until footage and much more info arrives.

The HVX prototype only shot in 1080i. It had very limited functions. Many final specs for the HVX have not been published. That sound like “paper”, doesn’t it? Rev products (4/04) have shipped for nearly as long as P2 products (2003). Rev is “here and tested”, just like P2. Infinity is “paper”, but GV as historically a producer of quality cameras certainly isn’t “paper”. Infinity is “paper”, but the JPEG2000 codec, and all the other codecs the Infinity uses are certainly not “paper”. Rev is not “paper”, and with Rev Pro being a GV re-engineered modification of technology that has shipped reliably for 20 months, its stretching the point to even call Rev Pro “paper”. Earlier in this thread I already acknowledged that the jury is out until the Infinity and Rev Pro can be fully tested: ”When the camera, deck, and Rev Pro disks are all released and field tested, then educated opinions on the utility and dependability of the Rev Pro disks can be formed. Until then, it's all just conjecture, so to currently write them off as "undependable" makes no sense.”

I also think the fact the Rev disks require a Rev drive to play to be a big, big issue. P2 plugs into in recent laptop - no drive or reader needed. Most laptops do not have CF slots, although CF readers are cheap. .

Your statement totally sidesteps my in-depth calculations in the original thread of how GB for GB using Rev was a far cheaper way of recording your high definition video. The Rev drive is only $399, and the Rev Pro disks are forecast to be around $85 for a 35 GB disk. P2 is far more expensive per GB recorded than Rev Pro will be. Do the math. Better yet, go back and read my math in the original thread. It is well researched and accurate. I also illustrated in the original thread how much less expensive per GB recorded that using Rev was then using a Firestore. CF readers are extremely cheap so that’s not an issue.

If the Infinity records nice 4:2:2 HD gently compressed intraframe with variable frames rates to off-the-shelf CF, that will be impressive.

Uh – that’s exactly what GV has published in their press releases and other info on their web site. The Infinity will be able to use off the shelf CF cards, and I’ll also predict that SanDisk or another CF manufacturer is developing, in conjunction with GV, a “super CF” card that can be used in the Infinity, or any other CF application.

Otherwise, P2 has the lead in my view, from the HVX up to whatever new P2 Varicam ships.

As I pointed out in the original thread, Thomson GV is a member of the Panasonic P2 Alliance. Indeed, Thomson GV manufactures some P2-compliant electronics for the broadcast industry. If GV wanted to incorporate P2 in the Infinity they would have negotiated for that. After all, GV has a good business relationship with Panasonic, as witnessed by GV’s inclusion in the Panasonic P2 Alliance. My guess is that either Panasonic and GV couldn’t reach an agreement on P2 inclusion in the Infinity, or GV saw an advantage in the Infinity using non-proprietary, off the shelf CF cards in lieu of P2.

Do you honestly believe a P2 Varicam body will be priced in the same range as the Infinity body (sub-$20k), when the original tape drive Varicam is $66k for the camera body? If Panasonic somehow pulls that off, then the P2 Varicam could be competition for the Infinity. $66k down to sub-$20k for the body? If the justification for the huge price of the Varicam was the “18 tape heads”, and the theory in keeping the HVX inexpensive was not including the “18 tape heads”, and Panasonic comes out with a sub-$20k P2 Varicam, there’s going to be a lot of original Varicam owners doing the math and saying “Wait a minute, we were charged $46k for 18 tape heads!!!” I’ll predict that a P2 Varicam body will at least be in the mid-$30k range, thus making a P2 Varicam no competitor for the Infinity.

This whole thread is off base from the outset. Rev is not necessarily positioned as a competitor for P2. Rev is positioned as a less expensive per GB recorded alternative recording medium. In technology, Rev is obviously positioned as an alternative to other HDD recording options – like the Firestore. Rev and Firestore are both disk systems. Rev is way less expensive to use per GB recorded than a Firestore, plus Rev is internal, opening up many field production advantages over a Firestore. CF is a direct competitor for P2. They’re based on similar flash technology and have similar construction materials, capabilities, dependability issues, etc. Again – let’s compare Rev with Firestore, and CF with P2. Comparing oranges to apples makes no sense. Let’s compare oranges to oranges.

If I were a total GV fanboy, would I be at the head of the list to buy an HVX next month? I’m no GV fanboy. I use other Panasonic products regularly – Varicam, SDX900, DVX100A. I am a fanboy of progress, utility, and fiscal conservation – thus my open mind on the possibilities for Infinity, Rev Pro, and CF use.

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

 

[Jarred Land]

Jan, I have to challenge this. Under the top/bottom covers there's no diecast other than a frame that holds the PCB with the P2 cards. In between the covers and the actual circuit there's only a mylar type foil insulator. I would of made the covers a bit thicker, that's all...

As for Durability of P2 cards, it sounds like you are questioning more the PCMCIA form factor rather than the actual P2 cards.. in which case, I will be very surprised if anyone breaks one. As mentioned, we all are used to handing media somewhat delicately, and somewhat not. I also have a PCMCIA modem card from 1992 that has been thrown around, stepped on, put in a drawer with a buncha other junk, gotten wet, I think the cat even peed on it.. and it works fine.

I cant imagine any case which the card would come near its breaking point. If you put it up against a Minidv tape in the same sort of brutal test, the tape would die way way way before the P2 card... and why havn't we ever started bitching about the structure of Minidv tape being too weak?

 

[stephenvv]

Gibby:

Before I get into a reply to your missive, I want to remind you of the thread you started:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=34030&highlight=gibby

and my basic objection. I like the HVX the way it is designed (since I am a fanboy of the DVX series). I don't want Panny to change tape drive to Rev Pro (too heavy, not silent, don't want to buy Rev drives, don't want to have to worry about finding Rev drives in the field, especially traveling internationally) and I'm skeptical off-the-shelf CF can deliver full HD variable frame rates. Having a miniDV deck in the HVX is design winner for me.

So Panny, please leave the HVX design alone for a few years.

That being said, my response....

Ok, let’s analyze this.

Or over analyze this :laugh: For whatever reason you a deeply passionate about the Infinity and Rev. Too bad you are not in the employ of GV marketing like the DEFPerception blog :evil:

Is that conclusive evidence for readers to write off Rev drives? On the other hand, in the past year my company has employed graphic designers that own four Rev drives, used a total of twenty-eight Rev disks, and have had no problem whatsoever with the disks or drives.

Neither of our samples is anywhere close to statistically signifigant and no conclusions can be drawn from either POV other than buyer preferences and bias which is what I was saying. My singular preference as a potential buyer/user is negative until proven otherwise.

Do some online research, as I have, and try to find any substantial claims of reliability problems with Rev drives or disks.

I did. I bought a $400 Rev Drive and 1 TB of disks. I extensively researched and my conclusion was inconclusive - spotty reports like mine but also plenty of satisfied users like yourself. Only consistent complaint was speed (my firewire drive was much slower than my external USB 5400 2.5. drives) and Iomega's bundled software (which did suck).

Bottom line: Rev has shipped for almost as long as P2 and both P2 and Rev have proven themselves as reliable recording mediums.

Now you are way off base. P2 is solidly proven for solid state DVCPro recording on cameras in the field. Rev Pro is completely unknown for recording any video in a camera in the field. As is CF for HD recording. If you have evidence of Rev Pro or CF being used to record HD video in field cameras (other than what GV says about this cam), please post it.

GV has not published the exact data rates the Infinity will record to CF. Why should that surprise you? Panasonic still hasn’t published many of the final tech specs of the HVX and the HVX is scheduled to ship next month!

This is another misleading comparison you are making. The only spec missing from the HVX that Panasonic has not released is CCD resolution and you can search for the dozens of threads on this issue on why Panny is keeping this quiet. Frame rates are pretty well know as of this week. Might be a slight change, but the HVX is completely spec out except for the political issue of CCD res.

You question the ruggedness of CF cards?

Nope, I question the reliability of standard off the shelf CF card to record 100 Mb/s HD video in a field camera. I still have questions about P2, though with P2 there are plenty of people shooting with it now that are providing feedback.

Infinity expensive? Under $20k for a groundbreaking camera from a reliable manufacturer, tapeless, IT-based, muliple HD & SD codec, scalable compression, intraframe, 1080i & 720p, recording to HDD (Rev) and CF, 2/3” CCD’s, HD-SDI output, and a hi-def codec (JPEG2000) that is technically equal to, and in some ways a superior codec to DVCProHD.

It's only groundbreaking on paper. Like the HVX, until the cam exists and the tech proven, it has not done a thing. It's expensive relative to the DVX but with 2/3" CCD's might well offer better low-light and images than the HVX, but then again, maybe not.

The Infinity is not positioned as a competitor for the HVX. There are currently no competitors for the Infinity in the sub-$20k price range that offer similar features and capabilities.

I couldn't agree more - however, you did start up the original thread and have argued the Infinity/REV vs HVX/P2 for pages of posts.

The HVX is a $6k, unibody, 1/3” CCD camera.

Which is exactly what I want. I used to shoot Super 8, then 16mm and stock. processing, work prints, sound prints, negative cutting and the pain of not having enough money left for film prints and having to settle for 16mm telecined to beta or miniDV sucked. I then had an XL1 with "all" the lenses for 3 years and realized what a total joke "interchangeable" lenses are on sub $100K cams. Unless you really have the budget for a nice set of primes (like in 16mm), the pitifully few lens choices offered for all 1/3" and many 1/2" and 2/3" inch camera are very poor price/performance buys.

Nature videographers, mini35 users and long telephoto junkies may like it, but i waited three years for the "XL1 Primes" and "fully manual 5X wide) that never arrived.

I have a DVX100a and stopped worrying about technical perfection.

I’m at the head of a waiting list to buy an HVX – are you?

I believe Rush said I was 6th or 7th on the EVS list. But my current film is bankrupting me so I won't know for a few weeks (depending on fundraising) if I will be able to order.

That sound like “paper”, doesn’t it? Rev products (4/04) have shipped for nearly as long as P2 products (2003).

I don't understand why you repeat this comparison over and over. No camera currently records HD video to Rev. I don't care what else it's used for. That's like saying SD card have been shipping since the 1990s - P2 is SD used for recording video in cameras. This has not been done with a video camera yet.

Do you honestly believe a P2 Varicam body will be priced in the same range as the Infinity body (sub-$20k), when the original tape drive Varicam is $66k for the camera body?

Nope - you misread my post. P2 Varicam will save the cost of the deck but Panny will have other models throughout the range of prices.

This whole thread is off base from the outset. Rev is not necessarily positioned as a competitor for P2. Rev is positioned as a less expensive per GB recorded alternative recording medium.

Strange that you say this since you started the original thread yourself? Now I'm really confused

If I were a total GV fanboy, would I be at the head of the list to buy an HVX next month? I’m no GV fanboy. I use other Panasonic products regularly – Varicam, SDX900, DVX100A. I am a fanboy of progress, utility, and fiscal conservation – thus my open mind on the possibilities for Infinity, Rev Pro, and CF use.

You can say it all you like but perception is what counts. You clearly think the Infinity, Rev and CF is superior to P2 tech. You are willing to go to incredible lengths to "prove" your point and shoot down anyone who disagrees or has a different perspective. That = fanboy in my book.

I admit to be a DVX fanboy - it suits me and my creative workflow really well. The only things I would change are getting rid of tape, full-rez 16:9 and maybe HD. Assuming the HVX images and construction match well with the specs, it looks like a great upgrade for me. If not, I will wait.

 

[contentlab]

I believe Rush said I was 6th or 7th on the EVS list. But my current film is bankrupting me so I won't know for a few weeks (depending on fundraising) if I will be able to order.

oooh please please pleaseif you can't order yours can i have your spot in the list? i'm on promax's waiting list but these recent rumors are worrying me.

 

[stephenvv]

oooh please please pleaseif you can't order yours can i have your spot in the list? i'm on promax's waiting list but these recent rumors are worrying me.

i'm not giving up yet :beer:

however, if fundraising does not go as planned, I may auction off my spot here :evil:

I will certainly post my spot here first if Rush allows if it turn out I can't raise enough. I do have my DVX to sell which is in fabulous shape, so we shall see...

 

[The Engineer]

As for Durability of P2 cards, it sounds like you are questioning more the PCMCIA form factor rather than the actual P2 cards.. in which case, I will be very surprised if anyone breaks one. As mentioned, we all are used to handing media somewhat delicately, and somewhat not. I also have a PCMCIA modem card from 1992 that has been thrown around, stepped on, put in a drawer with a buncha other junk, gotten wet, I think the cat even peed on it.. and it works fine.

I cant imagine any case which the card would come near its breaking point. If you put it up against a Minidv tape in the same sort of brutal test, the tape would die way way way before the P2 card... and why havn't we ever started bitching about the structure of Minidv tape being too weak?

I'm not bitching. I've seen/opened broken P2 cards (5 or 6) and I simply say that THE COVERS SHOULD BE THICKER!!!! P2 is great, this doesn't mean that it can't be improved, mechanically and/or electrically. I never intended a comparison between P2 and tapes. Tapes are supposed to be fragile and handled acordingly, but Panasonic makes a big fuss about the rugedness of P2 cards. They are far more rugged than pretty much anything else, but they are far from being indestructible - as a matter of fact a reasonable mecanical shock can put them out of order. P2 is a new product and all new products should be subject to improvements. This phiolosophy which says "we have the perfect solution in all respects" is wrong. It's a nice sales blurb, but from a technical point of view is wrong. As for the formfactor, PCMCIA is as good and as bad at the same time as any other option, but the day when laptops will come without the slot are very close.

 

[Jarred Land]

well said The Engineer.. i am sure if there is a large issue with cards being broken, Panasonic will improve the design. Not alota room in there.. but who knows.

 

[Gibby]

Stephen:

I make a real world living producing national television programs. If I don’t respond to a post immediately it’s because I’m taking care of business in the field. My business model isn’t centered around spending a lot of time chatting in online tech boards. I’m back, I’ve read your post, and my responses are below.

Gibby:

Before I get into a reply to your missive, I want to remind you of the thread you started:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=34030&highlight=gibby

and my basic objection. I like the HVX the way it is designed (since I am a fanboy of the DVX series). I don't want Panny to change tape drive to Rev Pro (too heavy, not silent, don't want to buy Rev drives, don't want to have to worry about finding Rev drives in the field, especially traveling internationally) and I'm skeptical off-the-shelf CF can deliver full HD variable frame rates. Having a miniDV deck in the HVX is design winner for me.
So Panny, please leave the HVX design alone for a few years.

That being said, my response....

I’m thoroughly aware of the thread I started. My company’s experience with Rev and extensive online research were the basis of each of my entries on that thread. Hearsay and emotional opinion simply don’t hold water in analyzing technical equipment. Direct experience with multiple units (not just 1 drive and 1 disk), coupled with careful research, are the basis for my opinions.

Now: An internal Rev drive in a camera weighs roughly the same as a DV tape drive. If there’s a difference in weight , its minimal. We found Rev drives/disks to be very quiet – no more noise than a tape drive. You’re OK buying $1,600 8GB P2 cards - but not OK with the concept of buying a $399 Rev drive, $85 Rev disks, for a much lower cost per GB recorded? That’s where we differ. In your response to me you stated that you might not even be able to complete the purchase of the HVX you reserved because your finances were tight. If finances are tight, shouldn’t the cost of mediums you record on be an issue to you? If you can just barely buy the HVX, but can’t afford the P2 cards or a Firestore, you simply have a real expensive DV camcorder on your hands until you can afford the recording P2 and/or Firestore that put you in the DVCPro50 and DVCProHD game. You may be a budget-challenged indie filmmaker, but a large portion of HVX buyers are not in that category. I’m a budget-secure producer/director/DP of national television programs and I’m simply not afraid to be straight up in giving Panasonic my thoughts on the HVX. Having the HVX be a completely tapeless, IT-based camera, is attractive to me, thus I posed the concept in the original thread. The concept behind the Infinity is to be able to use off the shelf recording mediums (REV & CF), rather than proprietary tape and cards. Optimally, users will be able to walk into almost any electronics outlet and find the disks or cards they need.

Or over analyze this :laugh: For whatever reason you a deeply passionate about the Infinity and Rev. Too bad you are not in the employ of GV marketing like the DEFPerception blog :evil:

Four words and a smiley face? That’s the strength of your comeback on that? I’m deeply passionate about any tech advances that are a potential benefit to my crews working in the field. I connect the dots on what the potential is for each successive incarnation of motion media technology. I use top-level pro equipment from every manufacturer. Do you? I praise and criticize equipment from every manufacturer. Do you? Though some professionals are not sold on Rev yet, the tapeless, IT-based concept and JPEG2000 codec of the Infinity are receiving interest and praise from many highly respected tech “gurus”, some of them on this very board. The budget-challenged indie crowd, many of which will never be able to afford a camera like the Infinity, find it very convenient to take potshots at the Infinity and its technology. I could care less about GV marketing – I only care about the potential of their new products and the new products of every other manufacturer.

Neither of our samples is anywhere close to statistically significant and no conclusions can be drawn from either POV other than buyer preferences and bias which is what I was saying. My singular preference as a potential buyer/user is negative until proven otherwise.

Me = 4 drives, 28 disks used repeatedly for several months, and no problems.
You = 1 drive, 1 disk, and a reported problem.
That’s not “statistically significant”? My company has used four times as many drives and as you, and twenty-eight times as many disks as you, for many more recordings and erasures than you – and that’s not “statistically significant”? I’ll let readers of this thread draw their own conclusions on that. (see my response to your next quote below)

I did. I bought a $400 Rev Drive and 1 TB of disks. I extensively researched and my conclusion was inconclusive - spotty reports like mine but also plenty of satisfied users like yourself. Only consistent complaint was speed (my firewire drive was much slower than my external USB 5400 2.5. drives) and Iomega's bundled software (which did suck).

Your quote from above: “I extensively researched and my conclusion was inconclusive - spotty reports like mine but also plenty of satisfied users like yourself.” So you admit that your online research showed only spotty complaints about Rev, but also plenty of satisfied users like me? That exactly parallels what I stated my online research showed.

Now you are way off base. P2 is solidly proven for solid state DVCPro recording on cameras in the field. Rev Pro is completely unknown for recording any video in a camera in the field. As is CF for HD recording. If you have evidence of Rev Pro or CF being used to record HD video in field cameras (other than what GV says about this cam), please post it.

My quote was: “Rev has shipped for almost as long as P2 and both P2 and Rev have proven themselves as reliable recording mediums”. P2 has been used for DVCPro and DVCPro50 recording in the field. I’m well aware of that. I use high-end Panasonic camera regularly. Do you, or is the DVX100A the extent of your experience? You claim I’m “off base” in my quote above. Let’s analyze that.

“Rev has shipped for almost as long as P2…”. – P2 first shipped in late 2003. Rev started shipping in Early 2004. My statement is entirely accurate.

“…both P2 and Rev have proven themselves as reliable recording mediums”. – My statement is entirely accurate. Did my statement say Rev Pro? No. Has Rev proven itself as a reliable recording medium? Yes. Have Rev drives been used reliably to record video in the field and in the edit bay? Yes. Did I say that Rev Pro had been used yet for that purpose? No. Is Rev Pro re-engineered Rev technology? Yes. If Rev has been used reliably to record video, can it be deduced that Rev Pro, co-engineered by GV, will be able to also reliably record video? Yes.

True that CF has not been used to record HD, or at least the results of that have not been published yet. Since CF is based on similar flash technology as P2, and CF has a long history of reliable use in digital still cameras in the field, why would you assume that CF will not perform as well as P2 for recording HD video? If you have any evidence that the HVX can record HD to P2, other than what Panasonic has stated, please post it. You get my point? CF, based on similar flash technology, has nearly identical capabilities as P2. There is no technical reason for you to question if CF can perform like P2, and GV, just like Panasonic, will release their specs and test results on CF for HD when they are ready to.

(more responses in my next two posts below)

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

 

[Gibby]

This is another misleading comparison you are making. The only spec missing from the HVX that Panasonic has not released is CCD resolution and you can search for the dozens of threads on this issue on why Panny is keeping this quiet. Frame rates are pretty well know as of this week. Might be a slight change, but the HVX is completely spec out except for the political issue of CCD res.

Not misleading at all. The point is that every camera manufacturer withholds the release of the final tech specs on a camera until just before the camera is released, or in some instances when the camera is released. Why hold GV to a higher standard than Panasonic or Sony? The HVX is six weeks from shipping and we still don’t know the CCD size. I’m well aware of all the threads on this board and others expressing frustration over that. The Infinity probably doesn’t ship until around March 2006, five months from now, and yet you want all the tech and test specs for the Infinity now? Its ridiculous to ask that of GV this early in the game and to have not asked Panasonic for the same level of info on the HVX at NAB.

Nope, I question the reliability of standard off the shelf CF card to record 100 Mb/s HD video in a field camera. I still have questions about P2, though with P2 there are plenty of people shooting with it now that are providing feedback.

Economics 101: When there is a demand for a commodity, someone will create a product to satisfy the demand. CF has been used since the early 90’s in various industries. The digital still photography industry uses CF extensively. An already-existing demand for larger capacity CF cards will be boosted into overdrive by the demand for CF cards that can be used by digital video cameras like the Infinity. SanDisk, or one of the other CF card manufacturers, will undoubtedly create the next generation of CF cards that will be ideal for the Infinity. I’m sure they’re under NDA, or they would be talking about it now. Don’t forget that the Infinity is a variable bitrate camera. JPEG2000 is scalable and very efficient. HD in JPEG2000 does not necessarily have to be at 100 Mb/s. A bitrate of 75Mb/s should make JPEG2000 HD recording to CF more feasible. Would 75Mb/s JPEG2000 HD look as good as 100Mb/s DVCProHD? Could be. Research the compression scheme of the JPEG2000 codec and you’ll find that in some ways JPEG2000 is more efficient and less prone to artifacts than DVCProHD. The Infinity also has MPEG2-compliant (HDV) recording at 25Mb/s, which should be easy for a CF card.

It's only groundbreaking on paper. Like the HVX, until the cam exists and the tech proven, it has not done a thing. It's expensive relative to the DVX but with 2/3" CCD's might well offer better low-light and images than the HVX, but then again, maybe not.

Every tech advance that ends up being groundbreaking was at one point groundbreaking on paper! Do we go from concept to physical reality in the snap of our fingers? No. Why even bring the DVX up in relation to the Infinity? This board’s name is an anachronism back to the inception of the DVX. Now there are forums for various levels of cameras and NLE’s from every manufacturer on the DVXUser.com. With a codec (JPEG2000) equal to or better than DVCProHD, 2/3” CCDs, and a 14 bit DSP, you question whether the Infinity will offer better low-light images than the HVX?

I couldn't agree more - however, you did start up the original thread and have argued the Infinity/REV vs HVX/P2 for pages of posts.

That is totally inaccurate! Go back to that thread, Post #1, and re-read it. My post used the Infinity’s use of internal Rev drives as an example of another possible option package for the HVX that Panasonic should consider – a tapeless HVX option utilizing a Rev drive in place of the tape drive. That post also discussed the Infinity’s use of inexpensive CF as opposed to Panasonic’s expensive P2. At no point in that entire thread was my position Infinity/Rev vs. HVX/P2. My consistent point throughout the thread was Infinity/Rev/CF cost & workflow vs. HVX/P2/Firestore/tape cost & workflow.

I then had an XL1 with "all" the lenses for 3 years and realized what a total joke "interchangeable" lenses are on sub $100K cams. Unless you really have the budget for a nice set of primes (like in 16mm), the pitifully few lens choices offered for all 1/3" and many 1/2" and 2/3" inch camera are very poor price/performance buys. I have a DVX100a and stopped worrying about technical perfection.

So your experience with interchangeable lenses on an XL1 qualifies you to condemn all removable lens options for sub-$100k cameras? That’s ridiculous. I’m a multiple Emmy-winning DP, director, and producer with 27 years of national experience. The production for every Emmy I’ve received involved the use of sub-$100k cameras with interchangeable lenses. Every professional DP or director I hire or work with would disagree with your statement. There are a vast array of 2/3” lenses made by Fujinon, Canon, Angenieux, and others. Me and my crews work with them daily on sub-$100k cameras – Varicams, HDX900, Betacams, etc. We use primes when the look and feel of the production require it, but high-quality 2/3” zooms are the staple of our production – in SD and HD. We’ve also used XL1’s and DVX100A’s extensively. They are very good for some productions. With media convergence, and to pay the bills, independent producers like yourself would be wise to realize that there is whole big world of equipment use and applications beyond indie film production. Professional directors and shooters should develop the skill sets to be able to shoot every film style and TV style. It pays the bills while you build your business into the direction you dream of. I’ll give you an example. The DVX100A is an excellent camera. Though I produce most of my own syndicated national programs, I do freelance as a director/cameraman when a project comes up that I like. In October I took a well-paying week freelancing as a cameraman for a national sports television program. Though I’m well qualified with an F900 or Varicam, the director wanted me to shoot the behind the scenes handheld creative b-roll of competitors with a DVX100A in 24p. No problem. I own a DVX100A, love to use it, and the footage from it was perfect for that particular program. Because of NDA I can’t tell you what program it is, and frankly many companies don’t like to publicize their use of 1/3” camcorders. Shortly after that gig I was using a Varicam on one of my own productions – 2/3” removable lens and all. I rent primes when I need them. An attitude of “if it ain’t a DVX100A or above $100k I’m not interested” will only limit your professional development and bank account.


(more responses in post below)

Gibby
www.cut4.tv