Little venting and frustration

[Brian@202020]

My issue is not so much compressed or non compressed, but dependability. Is the NanoFlash / CF route as safe as the P2?

edit: What about the Atomos Ninja or Samurai?

It's not. In fact technically it's more unsafe than SD since CF cards can't be locked making user error more of a possibility. Atomos products can use HDD's so the moving parts if dropped can cause an issue. The one benefit of these recorders is they are a redundant system so if either the SD of CF fails you always have the other to fall back on.

 

[chromeboy007]

It's not. In fact technically it's more unsafe than SD since CF cards can't be locked making user error more of a possibility. Atomos products can use HDD's so the moving parts if dropped can cause an issue. The one benefit of these recorders is they are a redundant system so if either the SD of CF fails you always have the other to fall back on.

Thanks. This is the primary reason why I wish there is a P2 option for the AF100 (another reason being I have already bought over 200GB's of P2 cards). Brides and corporate execs can't tell the difference between AVCHD and DVCPROHD (but shallow depth of field perhaps). I don't ever want to explain to a bride why I lost her ceremony due to 'Check Card error".

 

[Barry_Green]

My issue is not so much compressed or non compressed, but dependability. Is the NanoFlash / CF route as safe as the P2?

One two-letter answer: no. Of course not. No compactflash card is going to compare to the purpose-built, ultimately-reliable P2 system, period. I am a nano user, I think the nano is a great device, but it isn't a P2 card.

Not that reliability of the Nano is the question -- it's all down to common sense and media choice. You can make the Nano more reliable, of course -- first and foremost, use the SDI cable and not the HDMI! Second, media choice is a huge determining factor -- I only use SanDisk Extreme Pro, because they at least advertise that they have advanced error correction circuitry in their cards. And by all means, get the accessory slot protector device to avoid accidentally ejecting a card.

Now, the much longer answer: when using the Nano, I am always at all times simultaneously using the onboard recording. And the combination of having two separate recording mediums has created a scenario that I consider to be nigh unto bulletproof. So is an AF100/nano combination as reliable as a mythical/hypothetical AF200 P2 version? I'd say it's about 99.999% of the way there, if you're using high-quality cards and simultaneous recording.

edit: What about the Atomos Ninja or Samurai?

Again, depends on how you use it. The Ninja with a spinning hard disk and an HDMI cable? No way, not for this soldier. I wouldn't use a spinning hard disk to record from a moving camera, and I know that other people will disagree with me (just like other people may choose to use off-brand no-name SD cards to record to) but for my own standards, no way. A top-quality SSD drive should avoid issues, but I wouldn't use a spinning hard disk. And sorry for the Ninja, but I hate HDMI and I wouldn't trust my footage to it. I know other people will and they're entitled to their opinions, but I would never use HDMI for a recorder if I had any other choice. The Samurai with an SDI cable and an SSD should be a quite reliable recorder, presumably. We are all awaiting user test reports; as far as I know they haven't shipped yet. But presuming it holds up, and I have no reason to doubt it, I think the combo of recording onboard to SDHC and externally to a Samurai/SSD should provide a bulletproof system that should be 99.999% as reliable as the P2 system.

 

[chromeboy007]

Thanks Barry.