Crazy discussions at dv.com

[Barry_Green]

not true today unless you meant to say that the computer’s a Mac with FCP.

That's not what I meant at all. I said that it could be read by any computer (and it can); it uses the FAT32 file format system so Macs and PCs can read the cards. Now, whether any computer can edit the footage is another question, as it depends on what program you have installed on the computer. It's like saying a Joliet DVD can be read by any computer, but if you don't have the right type of programs installed on that computer you may not be able to use the contents. But at least you could do SOMETHING with the card. You could copy it, archive it, load it onto your server, whatever. No need for decks and whatnot. And, of course, you could always install whatever software you need to run it.

And saying that it only works with FCP is completely not accurate; any current Avid PC system out there can read the cards and import the files and work with 'em. And while their market share is currently small, Canopus can do the same. And while it's an intermediary situation, Raylight makes it possible for any Windows system running ANY NLE program to edit the footage.

And that's kind of the point. Supporting a new format doesn't mean buying a new $20,000 deck; it can be as simple as downloading a $195 program from DVFilm and now all of a sudden you can edit the footage.

 

[AshG]

I perceive that evinsky is stoked.

What are these requirments that are so different than the rest of the planet ?

(I'm not baiting you Ash; I'm curious at what this means)

Not from a lofi indie film maker perspective... from a professional backed-up redundant copy workflow. When you have clients, you simply cannot afford the advantage of tapeless leave you at risk of losing anything. If it is your own stuff, not near as important. P2 is realistially $20K+ upgrade to a pro workflow and back-up.



ash =o)

 

[AshG]

If that's true, I sure can't tell. Some of the more recent threads are absolutely silly.

Cost and workflow certainly to be the two biggest discussion points, more so than anything about quality. Cost will continue to drop (and if you buy from a dealer you know nobody is paying $6k for the camera), and workflow just requires adaptation. Film has a horrible and expensive workflow, and people still use it.

I think I've said it a dozen times today... We don't edit with tape, so why should we shoot with it?

Tape is its own back-up and archive, just like film. Even when tapeless outnumbers tape i doubt it will be a destructive medium that makes the most market penetration.



ash =o)

 

[AshG]

It seems really obvious to me what is going on at DV.com. There is basically one guy who has it in for Panasonic/P2. He constantly complains about Panasonic's marketing as if the other three cameramakers don't market their own solutions. Or more to the point, as if everyone, other then himself, are children that just soak up whatever is told to us by Panasonic or any company for that matter. DVCPRO is actually 3:1.5:1.5 instead of 4:2:2??? Come on, this is so obviously an attempt to degrade that which he does not approve of. Not that it really makes a difference either way, but come on, get a life.

Point out his bias and he whips out his credentials like that somehow makes him "fair and balanced". If his internet connection would go down for a month, that anti-P2 propreganda would pretty much disappear. It's completely fair to make the weaknesses of P2 or the HVX obvious to potential users but this guy and his minions take it to a religious extreme.

Basically, I can't stand to wade through all the BS over there anymore. While dvxuser does get it's share of trolling, most of the regulars here are able to fight their rantings with mostly impartial facts. Frankly, I am seriously impressed with how unbias the admins in here are.

I can certainly understand to an outsider that dvxuser.com appears bias, and to a small extent that is accurate. But the stuff on DV.com is embarrassing mis-informative and inflammatory. To those looking for a middle ground, DVinfo.net seems to have an equal amount of pro and con P2 people. You get the same info as here but less trolling. I think the name, DVXUser, just paints a target here for anti-Panasonic trolling.

At least that is how I see it.

Check your facts, turns out Walter was correct, albeit harsh about the color space and resolution. Agree about DVinfo... very little bias and diverse in both brands and skill.



ash =o)

 

[P2metoo]

Throw Tape Film and P2 card in water for an hour then test what survives. For 2 years P2 had been working with broadcaster more than 80 station according to Panny. If there is a reliable and perfect system available like P2 then whats wrong in Paying for little extra. You can not insured your film stock or Tape stock this cheap. I think short term thinker talks about price of the P2 card but long term value of the P2 cards are unbeatable.

 

[xray]

Tapeless Dutch spoken ' promo movie' little boring but from the year 2004. Movie is showing the need for a tapeless surrounding.
http://www.dedigitalevoorziening.nl/wwwdata/pages/nieuwsitem39.html (choose your speed)

NOB= Dutch broadcaster. Tapeless broadcasting transport and archiving and the use of metadata is after 2 years testing and implementation finally working now. It is based on the MXF container, NOB is betatester and one of the founders of MXF. We are done.

The final dataformat is D10-30Mb/s and D10-50Mb/s (IMX).

 

[wabbit]

Check your facts, turns out Walter was correct, albeit harsh about the color space and resolution.

I REALLY don't want to continue that ridiculous argument here (my point of even bringing it up was not about how correct or not this assessment is but how revilent it is and how one man clings to a point for seemingly no reason other then to demean anything P2/HVX). But as has been pointed out over there too; the 4:2:2 is just a ratio to represent color space NOT resolution. If you want to call it 3:1.5:1.5 go for it. Call it 2:1:1 for all I care but the revilence of what the starting number is not what the color space ratio is meant to represent.

The matter of how to describe color space ratio has obviously been blurred over the years. Anyone who wants to call the Varicam 22:11:11 or whatever, makes no difference to what the numbers are meant to convey.

If someone wants to continue this pointless discussion just read all of the post at DV.com on this silly subject (ok fine, silly IMHO, if this has meaning to you, sorry).

Now the discussion of how the native pixel count and pixel shift (which is not new news) effects the HVX's final image is certainly one that many will find important and I have little doubt the debate will continue on how the pixels should have been done this way or that. At some point you have to just look at what is being offered and pick one that suits you.

Let the words fly. After a time the constant postings on why this or that format sucks just starts reflecting on poster himself and everything he is saying becomes just the rantings of a bitter man with an axe to grind. Certainly not someone I will look to for unbias opinions on anything.

Best

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Who's Walter ?

 

[AshG]

Walter is from DV.COM... couple decades of experience and pretty salty and outspoken for sure.

As for the 4:2:2 color space? I have come to understand that from a native 540 CCD with vertical shift, it is NOT true 4:2:2 and in 1080 mode it is indeed 4:2:0.

The arguments over tech could end for all I care, I just want to understand what I am working with and how to work around the shortfalls. Ford versus Chevy here...get what you like, not what some magazine says gets from 0-60 the fastest. All I ask is that you not try and convince everyone that the 0-60 tests are all wrong and by some random calculation your car is actually faster. Just tell me you like the leather seats better! =o)




ash =o)

 

[stabwound]

Walter is from DV.COM... couple decades of experience and pretty salty and outspoken for sure.


ash =o)

I can't stand it any longer.

Ash.... John's yanking your chain. He knows who Walter is.

 

[jackal2513]

who cares ? buy whatever camera suits you. Why do people spend hours and hours on internet forums trying to justify their purchases, their materialistic posessions and the choices they've made.

 

[Simon Wyndham]

Because discussions wouldn't be half as colourful if we didn't

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

AshG: Walter is from DV.COM... couple decades of experience and pretty salty and outspoken for sure.

However he also has some grudge maybe because he has been kicked off so many boards, who knows. I wouldn't take his opinion as totally impartial and in some of the things he says, just outstandingly incorrect!

>As for the 4:2:2 color space? I have come to understand that from a native 540 CCD with vertical shift, it is NOT true 4:2:2 and in 1080 mode it is indeed 4:2:0.

I think you are outstandingly misinformed and need to go back to the article as we posted it. The pixel offset chart is what the effective pixels are when the DSP captures the image at 1080P, doesn't matter how you slice it, that is the fact. It is not captured at 540. Anyone that keeps pointing to the 540, does not understand the impact of the offset, and thus are just spreading misinformation. It is from the 1080P/60P or soon in PAL land 50P that all other images are taken.

As far as it being 4:2:2, it is longstanding that DVCPRO HD is 4:2:2 and this camera records 4:2:2 DVCPRO HD. Go back and look at the best green screen from the H1, there was still the cartoon outline around the suject, not bad but it was there. No go baCK and look at the Green Screen stuff from the HVX, voila, no line, 4:2:2.

Hope this helps,

Jan

 

[Jarred Land]

When you have clients, you simply cannot afford the advantage of tapeless leave you at risk of losing anything. If it is your own stuff, not near as important. P2 is realistially $20K+ upgrade to a pro workflow and back-up.


ash =o)

Mmm.. you do realize that P2 cards store in 4gb chunks, which happen to be the exact size as a DVD-R right... cause you can make backups of your cards to DVD that will be a much better backup than tape.

So shoot to an external hard drive.. after, or during the shoot, drag each Card 1 folder to your DVD drive and have at it.

You gotta stop thinking tape is your only viable form of backup.

 

[Simon Wyndham]

And there's risk in all situations. You just have to manage it. There's risk in crossing the street, there's risk every time you get in your car.

Yes, there is risks in everything we do. But minimising the chance of someting happening, especially with video footage, should be at the forefront of peoples minds. The big difference between chancing your footage to a hard disc or laptop compared with tape or other storage medium is that if that hard drive does crash, or something does go wrong with the laptop, you may have lost ALL your footage for the day (or several days if you are out on location).

Somebody brought this up on another forum and said that "yeah well a film lab could scratch the neg or fog up the film", therefore P2 is not more risky than other formats. However the difference is that if a film neg is scratched it can be fixed with digital tools, and the whole reel wouldn't be ruined. If the lab fogs the film up then again it is just the reel you lost, not the whole day or several days footage.

If I'm going to be backing up to a device, I would expect that device to be just as robust and indestructable as the medium I recorded to. I wouldn't understand why anybody else wouldn't either.

And, in any sort of dramatic narrative circumstance, that card will be done offloading well well well ahead of when you need it. I shot five days of intense

But P2 was mainly devised for ENG. For dramatic narrative it might work fine. What about other situations?

As a user of a tapeless system yourself, surely you can see the silliness in that argument.

Not really. I have the archive and the original footage as one and the same. The same goes for tape. I don't see the sense in having a temporary container for footage. I don't see why or how doing things that way gives an advantage or is an advancement on previous workflows. If it works for you that is great. But I still see much of the P2 workflow being by way of working around the limitations rather than by design. It just doesn't seem very well thought out IMHO.

pretty much the same as tape. Same workflow, still need a deck, still need to digitize, etc. P2 isn't like that. It's very different, and it works as a nonlinear

Urm Barry, not being funny or anything, but you know very well that that is factually incorrect. You are right in that Blu-Ray still records in a linear fashion (ie I can't delete a clip from, say, 3 clips ago, and then have the recording device fill the space automatically with a new clip). However there is no need to digitise (where did you get this idea from?) and there is no need for a deck. I don't use a deck, and that was another reason I went for XD over a tape based camera. It is nicer to have a deck though. Panasonic even make a deck for P2.

Your argument mirrors the argument of HDV shooters, who say "if you're broadcasting in MPEG-2, why not acquire in the same format?"

The two arguments (I prefer 'points' rather than arguments as I am not trying to argue, I am trying to reason) are not similar. This is a workflow issue where extra steps are having to be taken. I see a sacrifice in footage safety being made for the sake of speed. Hard drive crashes are rare. But they happen, and when they do, especially if it happens before you have a chance to back up, they can be catastophic for data loss. At base you have the luxury of regular backups or RAID arrays. On location, especially for run and gun do you really want to be lugging all that stuff around?

There are very good reasons why one would acquire in one format and deliver in another. And there are very very good reasons why one would acquire

No, we aren't talking about formats, we are talking about recording mediums. P2 has drawbacks in both capacity and cost. To say that such a thing is better suited to acquisition than another format, to me at least, is not logical. Tape is great for acquisition. So far the blue disc has served me very well, and read/write speeds are being increased all the time (in fact recently the speed of XD was increased with a simple firmware upgrade).

It may not work for your workflow, and that's okay. But you have to understand that for some of us it's very very workable, it's delightful, and it's

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do understand that some people like it. I'm just trying to understand why.

As a Sony owner I can see why you'd say that, but as a thankful escapee

Barry, Sony didn't assimilate me like some Borg character or something! I'm not manufacturer loyal. If something better comes out from someone else I'll go with them instead.

they are. Sony has a history of developing and discarding new formats quicker than anyone should be comfortable with. BetaSX? MPEG-IMX? HDCAM? HDCAM SR? HDV? Digital-8? MicroMV? XDCAM? XDCAM HD? DVCAM? 8mm? Hi-8mm? DigiBeta? BetaSP? ED-Beta? Which will be here next year? Next week? Seems like

And of those you will find that apart from MicroMV and ED-Beta (never heard of that one?) all of those formats have enjoyed very widespread and popular use (yes, even SX, just not in the US). Digibeta was a defacto standard in UK broadcasting for years, and still is to a degree. DVCAM is the format of choice for BBC news acquisition on the DSR500/570. HDCAM is pretty much the standard for HD right now with HDCAM SR being the preferred master delivery format of the BBC for HD material. So in reality 90% of the formats you mentioned have been supported very well by Sony, and have enjoyed widespread use. A choice of formats for all occasions and price structures.

DVCpro is a good format. But it never acheived the same market penetration as those other formats. In the UK DVCpro is pretty much non existent. The only time I've ever seen an SDX900 is in a salesroom or at a trade show. Thats not a slight on the cameras. They are very, very, good indeed, and I would love to own a 900. Indeed if we weren't moving towards high def and my finances permitted it would have definitely been on my 'to get' list. But the fact I had to have a deck as well negated it for me. But the fact remains that DVCpro is not in as universal use as the Sony formats whether anybody likes it or not.

you're always needing a new deck if you want to keep up with Sony.

Only if you are an operation that wants to accept all the formats. I could also argu that you need new decks with DVCpro. If you only have a bog standard older DVCpro deck, you can't play DVCproHD on it unless you get a deck that handles that version of the format.

Whereas with the Panasonic approach, that's all eliminated. Everything goes to the same card, and that card can be read by any computer.

Yes, that part of P2 is commendable. However I'm not sure that is the advantage it first seems. After all any footage from P2 is going have been offloaded to another device during production anyway. So all that footage is going to be on a hard drive or location laptop and it is that that will need to be transferred, not the footage from a card.

Totally eliminating the deck concept.

But it doesn't. Panasonic still have a P2 deck available at a high cost. If not purchasing a deck, then the P2 Store is an equivilent. P2 was designed for ENG, much like XD was. From the point of view of a news freelancer P2 is not very useful. What do they hand over at the end of a report?

Supporting a new format is as simple as downloading a new codec.

They've built in codec update capabilities into the HVX?

card you've been using! It's a computer data file. It doesn't need any hardware to support it, now or ever. No new investment. No new decks. No

Its not as simple as that. The card may store the datafiles, but it doesn't perform the actual encoding AFAIK. And we both know that things won't happen that way anyway. I can't see either Sony or Panasonic supporting JPEG2000. H.264, hmm, well, HDCAM SR is MPEG4 right now.

Its a nice thought, and great if it happened. But it won't. Sony and Panasonic want to keep their products exclusive. They don't want to share the market with anyone.

when XDCAM HD chugs along at 1x realtime.

Not true. You are mistaking write speed with read speed. XDCAM can write, currently at 72mbps in the single pickup devices (80mbps in devices with the latest firmware), or at 144mbps with dual head systems. So XDCAM HD's transfer time is twice as quick as realtime using a single head device such as the camera.

But lets not forget the options that are there. XDCAM can record proxy files to Memory Stick. So if someone did want to start editing or logging footage on location they can do so with the proxy files and then conform to the full res footage later. Using the proxys saves HDD space too as you only end up transferring the full res footage that you need.

Not trying to get into a format war here. But the way I see it is that Panny hasn't really thought through the full workflow as well as they should have done.

adopt very rapidly, especially as card capacity grows. If Sony pulls one more BetaSX fiasco, I think you'll see a lot of broadcasters being very open to the P2 concept.

I'm not sure where this SX fiasco I keep hearing about comes from. Broadcasters such as Sky are still using SX, as are some US outfits. It is greatly exagerrated IMHO, and it considering that most of the other formats Sony have brought out are extremely widespread and standardised the SX thing is but a mere ripple in a big sea. Want to talk SX fiascos? How about we talk about M-II?

 

[Simon Wyndham]

Jan, the colour sampling thing wasn't just Walter. The exact technical explanations, while still differering from Walter, were explained by Graeme Nattress. About as impartial as you can get.

His explanation was that at 1080i the sampling the way the HVX does things, is 4:2:2, but at 1080p it would be more like 4:2:0, but that in reality because of the way the HVX is performing things it would be footage dependent. Ie in some shots it would behave more like 4:2:2 and in others with different colours more like 4:2:0. He wasn't trying to slam the HVX. He is seemingly still very impressed with what the camera is managing to do, and the way Panasonic have managed to do things.

But he is a realist. No offense intended Jan, but Panny as a company can be very, very overreactive when it comes to public comments about their equipment. Even a very slight negative in an overall positive magazine review can bring about the Panny wrath.

The key thing is whether the camer produces nice pictures. I have no doubt that it does. My issues with the HVX aren't with the camera head or quality, but are workflow related (and that viewfinder!) If you do an HVX200A please get that viewfinder sorted out. It is abysmal.

 

[Jarred Land]

some good points some bad points there... And like i said.. DVD-R's are a cheap backup solution.. They last longer than Tape and are more stable in temperature/humidity fluctuations.

BTW.. P2 records proxies as well.

Your gonna have a hard time wining the argument that Sony hasn't had more failed formats than every other manufacture put together (well, maybe not more than Iomega.. but i secretly think Sony owns them).

 

[Jarred Land]

Jan, the colour sampling thing wasn't just Walter. The exact technical explanations, while still differering from Walter, were explained by Graeme Nattress. About as impartial as you can get.

His explanation was that at 1080i the sampling the way the HVX does things, is 4:2:2, but at 1080p it would be more like 4:2:0, but that in reality because of the way the HVX is performing things it would be footage dependent. Ie in some shots it would behave more like 4:2:2 and in others with different colours more like 4:2:0. He wasn't trying to slam the HVX. He is seemingly still very impressed with what the camera is managing to do, and the way Panasonic have managed to do things.

But he is a realist. No offense intended Jan, but Panny as a company can be very, very overreactive when it comes to public comments about their equipment. Even a very slight negative in an overall positive magazine review can bring about the Panny wrath.

The key thing is whether the camer produces nice pictures. I have no doubt that it does. My issues with the HVX aren't with the camera head or quality, but are workflow related (and that viewfinder!) If you do an HVX200A please get that viewfinder sorted out. It is abysmal.

"acting like" and actually "performing" are two different things..

 

[izoneguy]

The key thing is whether the camera produces nice pictures. I have no doubt that it does. My issues with the HVX aren't with the camera head or quality, but are workflow related (and that viewfinder!) If you do an HVX200A please get that viewfinder sorted out. It is abysmal.

When Digital Still cameras came on the market most Pros Poo-pooed the whole idea of shooting professional photos on digital. Now I cannot think of any serious pros not shooting on digital. The early adopters of the HVX-200 and its "abysmal" workflow will be far ahead of the pack in terms of the quality of video offered to the marketplace. Once you have worked with P2 and seen the results..........
For shooters with a techno bent the P2 workflow on a PowerBook working with FCP is fantastic. I am an oldtime Beta shooter who thought you would have to pry the BetaSP tape from my cold dead hands. When I die, I want my gravestone to look like a giant P2 card!!

 

[Jarred Land]

. When I die, I want my gravestone to look like a giant P2 card!!

priceless