Sandisk has a full replacement warranty. Write speeds are easily determined and there are are plenty of sources that test writes speeds on a regular basis. CF is a mature market that has been serving professional still shooters for a long time.
EX1 or HPX500
- Thread starter STORMDAVE
- Start date
Sandisk has a full replacement warranty. Write speeds are easily determined and there are are plenty of sources that test writes speeds on a regular basis. CF is a mature market that has been serving professional still shooters for a long time.
The 1000 calculation is actually an offloading solution as well, that includes 2 FW800 readers and whatever else you need. So, that's actually not 8hours of recording.
Trust me, I see where you're getting at, just the equation is biased.
It will cost you 4500+ to get 8 hours of recording, not 1000. You must consider that the nanoFlash unit is an added expense to get to CF card in the first place.
And while the Codec sounds really nice, how will you convince a client that's been working with DVCproHD for years that this is better than DVCproHD? I'd find that a pretty massive task. I think in the end if your primary camera is a DVCProHD cam then you'll end up keeping some P2 Cards around regardless.
For the XDcamEX I can't see it being an issue because it's already a Sony camera to begin with.
Well, I'll tell you: If I wasn't working for a big entity, and had my own, private production company, the Nanoflash would be an immediate must buy. Not as an alternative to P2, but as a complement to a HPX170 or any sub 10k HD camera with HD SDI.
Tell you more, I'll definitely purchase a Scarlet, so maybe this goes into the price...
But one thing is for sure: Using DVCPRO HD (PAL) in the original HVX200 has been a dream. I've been able to produce internationaly Broadcasted TVC's (BBC, CNN, etc), so this says something about how robust the codec is. (Graded in a Da Vinci with professional colorist, this has to be said, which is different than doing your own CC'ing in FCP, for example).
Its a fantastic codec for all aplications EXCEPT very high end productions- Planet Earth like documentaries, formal Short and feature fIlm's (not dogma).
I'm quite happy with my personal HVX, and my job has 2. More than enough for Broadcast and event display usage. Just have to make sure you know the camera limitations, and invest in professional grading and Post-Porduction.
Tell you more, I'll definitely purchase a Scarlet, so maybe this goes into the price...
But one thing is for sure: Using DVCPRO HD (PAL) in the original HVX200 has been a dream. I've been able to produce internationaly Broadcasted TVC's (BBC, CNN, etc), so this says something about how robust the codec is. (Graded in a Da Vinci with professional colorist, this has to be said, which is different than doing your own CC'ing in FCP, for example).
Its a fantastic codec for all aplications EXCEPT very high end productions- Planet Earth like documentaries, formal Short and feature fIlm's (not dogma).
I'm quite happy with my personal HVX, and my job has 2. More than enough for Broadcast and event display usage. Just have to make sure you know the camera limitations, and invest in professional grading and Post-Porduction.
jcoxshooter
Well-known member
It CAN be done. I got my HPX from B&H for $7999 with the $2K rebate. Scored an Angenieux HD wide angle lens for just under $9K.
What do you think about the lens and were did you get it.
How many have you had fail? I know quite a few professional photographers, and amongst them all have not heard of a single instance of failure in years of daily usage. One tells the tale of leaving a card in his pocket when his trousers went in the washing machine. Not only was the card fine and is still in daily usage, all the material on it was fine as well. Tales of accidental deletion, camera batteries failing at the wrong moment, even losing cards and other equipment, yes, but solid state memory failure, no.
In the non-pro market I have heard one tale of failure (and one only), but the person concerned told me he was using a cheap, non-branded card. Needless to say, he doesn't anymore. (And has had no more problems.)
P2 cards seem to be getting larger - but sometimes a small, cheap card is better. A 4GB CF card is big enough to record over 8 minutes of 50Mbs material, but cheap enough to treat like tape. And that can be more than enough for an average interview, say. Be nice if you could still get 4GB P2 cards - cheap.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Hi,
There is a lot about memory that is not really known, like the difference between multi-layer and single layer memory cells. When working with less expensive multi-layer cells, there is a life cycle to them and it is not one of those well known or well publicized issues, but they do have a lower rewrite cycle. The thing is that the rewrite cycle is on the entire Flash memory and it is cumulative. So let's say that you had a 4 GB card and in still photography you did a gig and used it and filled it up to about half full. That would be 1/2 of a rewrite cycle. Now if you fill it up the next time you now have 1 1/2 cyles into it. There is a 2000 time rewrite cycle on the multi-layer Flash memory, less expensive but life limited. So now let's apply a video signal to it, unlike the still camera, in general, we will be filling it up every single time we use it.
This isn't FUD, this is real. I have had only one CF card go bad, and I have laundered my SD cards and P2 cards with the best. I am just saying that one technology is not necessarily interchangable without fully understanding the technologies in question, and where is the back-up. And this is what I am trying to bring to this discussion. You need to think about all aspects of the technology, and its ramifications and apply that onto what you are attempting to accomplish. That's all.
And if you want small 4GB cards, I think there are a number of guys over in the HVX forum that would love to sell them to you. Frankly I think this part of the post is a total hoot as it was on this very forum 2 1/2 years ago I was BBQ'd for having only 4 GB cards. Hah!
That said, I still think the HPX500 picture is vastly more pleasing than that of the EX1 regardless of how you choose to record it.
Best,
Jan
There is a lot about memory that is not really known, like the difference between multi-layer and single layer memory cells. When working with less expensive multi-layer cells, there is a life cycle to them and it is not one of those well known or well publicized issues, but they do have a lower rewrite cycle. The thing is that the rewrite cycle is on the entire Flash memory and it is cumulative. So let's say that you had a 4 GB card and in still photography you did a gig and used it and filled it up to about half full. That would be 1/2 of a rewrite cycle. Now if you fill it up the next time you now have 1 1/2 cyles into it. There is a 2000 time rewrite cycle on the multi-layer Flash memory, less expensive but life limited. So now let's apply a video signal to it, unlike the still camera, in general, we will be filling it up every single time we use it.
This isn't FUD, this is real. I have had only one CF card go bad, and I have laundered my SD cards and P2 cards with the best. I am just saying that one technology is not necessarily interchangable without fully understanding the technologies in question, and where is the back-up. And this is what I am trying to bring to this discussion. You need to think about all aspects of the technology, and its ramifications and apply that onto what you are attempting to accomplish. That's all.
And if you want small 4GB cards, I think there are a number of guys over in the HVX forum that would love to sell them to you. Frankly I think this part of the post is a total hoot as it was on this very forum 2 1/2 years ago I was BBQ'd for having only 4 GB cards. Hah!
That said, I still think the HPX500 picture is vastly more pleasing than that of the EX1 regardless of how you choose to record it.
Best,
Jan
Flash is a mature market that has been in use by pro still shooters for years. We shoot 32-64GB of cards at every event. We fill 6 to 8 cards every time we shoot. We're very familiar with the life cycle of CF and our entire still business depends it.
Sandisk CF has a lifetime warranty. Lexar CF has a lifetime warranty. They're sure you're going to loose it or buy a bigger card before it fails under normal use.
Does P2 have a lifetime warranty?
Even at current prices, we could replace our CF cards 5 times and still have an operating cost thats 50% of P2. In two years, CF is going to be cheaper than DVCPRO HD tape, and could just be held on to and never reused.
Here's some CF durability stories -
http://www.compactflash.org/pr/040823.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3939333.stm
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart_intro.htm
It's all real unadulterated FUD. Can we stop pretending that the flash memory in CF/SD/MMC/P2 is different from each other?
It's all the same flash memory, just with different controllers and form factors.
The irony is that the circuit board and LSI controller in a P2 card make it far less durable than the cheapest CF cards.
What are you going to say when the XDR comes out with SD slots and uses the exact same cards that are inside a P2?
The XDR can run RAID so two different people can leave the shoot with exact copies of the footage. For far less than running P2, you could run dual XDRs in RAID mode and leave with four original copies of your footage.
All that without no field copying, no hard drives, and more importantly, no media re-use.
Transporting redundant CF cards is VASTLY more secure than any P2 field workflow that re-uses media during the shoot.
I love shooting the 500/3000, but lets stop pretending that P2 makes any sense when a CF card with the same write performance is available for 1/12th the price. Or when a CF card with 3.5 times the write performance of P2 is available for 1/4th the price.
Everybody loves the P2 work flow, but the physical card has nothing to do with it. Give the 550/3100 eight CF/SD slots and lets just let the P2 thing die it's inevitable proprietary media death.
Last edited:
The question now begged is whether that was branded or unbranded? I did feel that "I have never gotten a CF card to be replaced." implied you had had more than one failure, branded or unbranded. A single card (EVER) doesn't really seem statistically significant.
A good joke indeed - if it didn't completely miss the point of what I said - "sometimes a small, cheap card is better", with the emphasis firmly on the word *CHEAP* as well as small. How much were your 4GB P2 cards costing 2 1/2 years ago? $35? A tiny bit more? Maybe a LOT more? Because $35 (£ equivalent) is what I have just looked 4GB CF up to be priced at by my normal supplier, and I suspect they are likely to be even cheaper in the States. Not unbranded and too slow, either - these are Sandisk Extreme III rated over 3x fast enough to handle the 50Mbs material I referred to.
If you'd been offering 4GB P2 cards for $35 2 1/2 years ago, do you still think the BBQ's would have been lit?
At that price, the difference becomes that you can start to treat them like tape. Shoot, take out, hand over, forget, simple. No laptops, P2 stores or downloading in the field. Not all the time, true, but I did say "sometimes". "A 4GB CF card is big enough to record over 8 minutes of 50Mbs material, ....and that can be more than enough for an average interview, say."
And the nice thing about CF is you get a choice of sizes and speeds, at appropriate prices. With P2 it HAS to be large, fast - and EXPENSIVE.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
It was a Sandisk. And the reality is that it is much different when you have video on the card. But time will show how the new system works and whether the CF cards will do the work. I have seen where we have replaced a P2 card. And while I am sure that the statistical relevance of one card is a moot point, we really do not know what the failure rate is as I have lost more cards than I have had go bad. See it is sort of hard to equate video usage on the CF vs Still use. They work much differently. One requires sustained recording and the other does not. What is relevant is that the multilayer cell design will change the capacity of the card over the re-writes and the time available will go down. This isn't that noticeable on the Still camera use, but would most definitely noticeable in video use.
Aha, it has to be cheap in order for it to be a good thing. You are right I missed that key word cheap. But we are not talking about 50Mbs recording but rather 100Mbs recording. And it was one of those 4GBs cards we replaced. The cost several years ago was about $550 just before it was discontinued. The point that we keep dancing around is that you don't happen to buy into the P2 recording system and that is your perogative. I happen to feel that it is one of the most reliable out there. I like the fact that the card is doing something in the background, doing a parity check on the video. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy, it is not the same with the CF card. Maybe you don't need this, but I think it is part of the benefit, and it is working with a well established workflow.
Yeah I do, it was about the lack of time that most of the fires were about.
I really do not believe that this is good workflow in the data domain. I get confused with the SD cards and my still photography. I have to be somewhat diliget in my offload and back up, and if not I lose pictures and they are not pictures that I can go back and take again(documenting a rehab on an old house) But we will not come to an agreement on this, as You feel the way you do and I feel the way I do.
We shall see in the long run which really does the job, as for right now we are only dealing with the theoretical recording of 100Mbs for sustained times on the CF, and working everyday in the P2 domain.
Best,
Jan
Other than the file size, there's no difference at all. This is complete FUD BS.
Really? How?
When we shoot a high frame rate sequence on our still cameras are writing a huge volume of data continuously to the card. In most cases, simultaneously to CF and SD card (You know, that same cards inside a P2), and in all cases the data rate is limited by the card speed. So when we use an Sandisk Extreme IV, we're writing sustained data rates that are six times that of DVCPRO HD.
This is same behavior in P2 cards, which still uses flash memory, stop pretending like P2 isn't the EXACT SAME FLASH MEMORY IN CF. Yes single layer memory has a longer lifetime. You can still buy single layer CF. But when CF is 1/12th the price of P2, who cares if you have to replace it twice as often.
(And do you really think pro shooters don't notice how much space they have on thier cards?)
Your warm fuzzy goes out the window when you have to field off load P2 and rely on hard drives to move data.
Leaving the set with redundant copies of footage on untouched CF makes your warm fuzzy feel like an long night on an ice flow.
What complete and total FUD BS.
Pro still cameras write and data rates that far exceed sustained 100Mbs in normal use.
So are all those RED users on some delusional drug? Thinking that their data stream that's 3x AVC Intra actually isn't being written to CF?
RED writes on a daily basis to CF, at rates that far exceed anything your codecs can chuck out.
This FUD is really hurting your credibility on a forum where your participation is greatly appreciated.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
No it is not, the pictures are taken at 60 frames pers ser cond sustained over several minutes, Most still cameras do not do this that I am aware of.
I don't think it is the same, as I don't know of any still camera that can record still frames for minutes at a time at 60 frames a second.
Actually this is not true. The P2 uses a single layer and does not diminish in size of memory over time. The Cheaper CF uses multi-layer.
Actually I find that is the big warm fuzzy in as much as I have more than one copy of the data.
Not really because the data will have a shelf life on the card as well. The multi-layer and it does depend on which technology they use to manufacture, but the data is not long time secure on the card. You may like to think this is true, but it is not uniformly true.
For minutes or longer at a time. I mean I know that some folks actually record interviews that last an hour or longer. I don't know of many still cameras that are taxed to writing for that sustained period of time.
They are not writing to the cheaper CF cards, those are more likely the singl-layer cards. Their cards are not the $40 cards that have been thrown up here.
And they use the more expensive memory to record it to, $199 for 8GB, last I checked.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's exactly the same when it comes down to the physical aspect of writing data to a card. It's the sustained data rate, not the content.
Any Canon 1 series camera will max out the data rate of any CF card, which on a high end card, is six times that of DVCPRO HD. There's no shortage of pro shooters who spend a great deal of their time waiting for the card to catch up, which means continuos sustained writes.
Sustained data rates are properties that can and are measured, known properties, not some 'theoretical' thing you keep dancing around.
I don't know if you're just not paying attention, but the XDR can write identical streams to two cards at the same time. So I have two copies on CF without the known real world liabilities of hard drives.
CF is incomparably more secure and robust than even mil-spec'd hardened hard drives.
It's vastly more robust than a hard drive, and it's lifetime is far greater than needed to deliver footage to a client, or get it into a normal workflow.
You mean the cards that are only 1/2 the price of p2, soon to be a 1/3 the price, and in a year 1/4 the price?
What about the single layer CF cards that easily capable of sustained 200Mbps that are 1/4 of the price, soon to an 1/8 the price?
The simple fact is that independently verifiable sustained data rates that are more than adequate to handle 100Mbs are available at prices that are so much cheaper than P2, that their lifetime doesn't even matter.
Multi layer cards have a lifetime that is more than adequate for anyone, and don't forget the Sandisk and Lexar cards have a lifetime warranty.
What's the P2 warranty again?
I really don't see what this has to do with it. The cells have a limited no of write/rewrite cycles, true (and true for P2 as well) but whether a card with 1,000 still images or 1 video file what's the difference? Every cell has been written to once in either case, so surely the same amount of wear? My understanding is that it's the WRITE cycles that are limited, reading has no effect for lifespan. Hence video use is kind to a cards lifespan - CF, P2 or whatever.
Jan, you earlier stated that "There is a 2000 time rewrite cycle on the multi-layer Flash memory, less expensive but life limited." Can I ask what grounds you have for stating that figure? Because a more technically minded colleague has described it to me as (quote) "total and utter nonsense", and everything I've come across tends to confirm vast pessimism on your part. As just one example, try http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007
So...... "many, many thousands of erase/write cycles"......"a busy photographer's flash memory card ...... many years of service". What evidence do you have for asserting only "a 2000 time rewrite cycle on the multi-layer Flash memory"?
Aren't we? The Convergent Design XDR has 50Mbs MPEG2 (same as the Sony PDW700 uses) as a mode good enough for all but the very highest work, (and good enough for unrestricted broadcast acquisition). And are Panasonic not promoting AVC-Intra 50 within their own range?
No Jan. It's not a case of "I think A, you think B". For some types of work I wholeheartedly agree with you - big cards make sense. For other types of work, small cards make sense. I've had this discussion many times with people and generally it's accepted wisdom, and I suspect deep down you know I'm right.
But CF suits big and small cards, P2 only suits big, and you're a Panasonic employee and have to defend P2 whilst it's a current product range. OK. But are you not worried about losing credibility?
Now this is getting silly. "Theoretical" recording of 100Mbs to CF for sustained periods!?! A lot has been said about the Convergent Design XDR, and that company is promoting their product as being able to record 50 and 100Mbs streams to cheaper types of CF. It's just not "theoretical" any longer.
And the XDR will record a 160Mbs mode to higher spec CF, even full raster uncompressed to several raided cards, still at cheaper than DVCProHD to P2 prices!
Add to that the use of CF by Red, Infinity, Z7, S270 and you just cannot ignore it now. There was a time when solid state meant P2 - no more. (And that's before we even think about SxS.)
Smelni - interesting point, but may it not be due to proprietary technologies in P2 equipment? To ensure you HAVE to buy P2 cards.