New Poll - FS100 or P2?
- Thread starter MDKfilms
- Start date
Luis Caffesse
Admin
As far as I know there is nothing you can record with a P2 card that you can't record with an FS-100.
But there are definitely things you can do with a P2 card that you can't do with an FS-100 on the playback/review side.
Granted - some of those (like the inability to play clips out of the camera in HD off an FS100) are limitations from Panasonic's side, not Focus.
Basically it's differences in the ease of the use on set.
On the one hand it's nice to be able to record for 4.5 hours without worrying about recording space (as long as you have the battery power for the FS100 to go that long). On the other hand it's nice to be able to quickly review shots via thumbnails and preview clips in HD off the P2 cards (and with audio when shot in PN mode).
These differences in workflow are exactly why I was saying there is no reason to categorically choose one or the other. I've been on shoots when the long recording times meant the FS100 was a better option - on other shoots (commercial shoots with short takes for example) the quick review and HD output possible with P2 cards made them a better choice.
So even though it's possible to record the same thing on both P2 and the FS100, there are still differences between the capabilities of the two - no doubt. I mean, if recording was the only thing that mattered - then why not just go out to a deck? Or straight into a computer?
Recording is only part of what goes on on set - which is why I like having both options available to me.
In fact, on some shoots the capability of the camera to record to both simultaneously is the best choice, so that I have an immediate backup of all my footage.
If anything though - the question would have to be turned around to make sense.
Considering that to shoot with the FS100 you are adding a piece of equipment to the chain which adds another pound (at least) and requires a mounting solution of some kind, as well as another battery to worry about, another set of menus which can potentially be set incorrectly, and a cable hanging on by a small 4 pin firewire connector.
Given all that I think the question to ask would be -
What can you do with an FS100 that you can't do with P2 that makes it worth adding those factors to your shoot?
As far as I can see the advantages are:
1) Cost per gig (upon initial investment)
2) Recording time.
The first one quickly becomes a nonissue, I think (if you shoot even semi-regularly in a professional environment).
The second one can easily be an advantage in certain situations - and can outweigh the on set abilities you might lose, and the disadvantages you add.
Edited to add:
I can't seem to find the thread I was thinking of.
Maybe Barry will chime in here with a list of differences - if he doesn't mind repeating himself one more time.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Metadata, for one thing. But it's not about what you can record, you said the FS-100 "does" everything the P2 cards do, and that's not accurate. You can't do a live DV downconvert from the FS-100. You can't play back clilps by thumbnail from the FS-100. You can't sort clips by shot mark or by text memo on the FS-100; you can't even mark text memos on the FS-100 at all. You can't play back clips and see 'em in high def from the FS-100 (unless you're using a P2 Gear as an HD pass-thru). You can't record absolutely silently on the FS-100, I'm pretty sure there are some underwater housings for the HVX that wouldn't be able to accomodate an FS-100, and there's no doubt that you couldn't jump out of an airplane with the FS-100 (hard disks don't work at those altitudes), and there will be environmental conditions that the FS-100 isn't going to be able to cope with (whether it's extraordinarily cold temperatures like the south pole or the Iditarod, or extremely massive heat and humidity, or any other situations that exceed a hard disk's operational temperature parameters). I doubt an FS-100 would do all that well strapped to a plane or helicopter or other high-vibration environment, but I haven't tried that...
There are things the FS-100 can do that P2 can't, such as recording directly to Quicktime files. But there are lots and lots of things that the P2 cards can do that the FS-100 can't.
But for recording footage, the FS-100 is the functional equivalent of a p2 card, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not talking about ergonomics, or shooting underwater, but recording footage.
I'm not talking about ergonomics, or shooting underwater, but recording footage.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
As long as you're not counting metadata and only the actual image - then yes, the FS100 would be the functional equivalent of a P2 card...
...an external 1 pound independently powered P2 card that allows for longer recording times while tethered to the camera by a 4 pin firewire cable.
My point is - given the inconveniences that an FS100 brings - we have to ask what it can do 'better' or 'in addition to' a P2 card to make it worth the compromise.
And the answer is, not much - other than offer us longer record times.
Sometimes that is necessary.
Sometimes it is not.
They each have their place for now - but just because they can both be used to record the same footage doesn't mean it's accurate to say they are 'the same.'
As P2 cards increase in size and lower in price the need for any third party direct to drive solutions will go away.
Louis:
I'm not pushing one over the other, but I've owned both, and other than Panasonic's unfortunate (to say the least) implementation of the 4 pin firewire port in an awkward, unprotected place, then the FS100 is a definite tool for DVCProHD acquisition
Barry emphasizes metadata capabilities, but I would venture not all or most shooters here necessarily replicate his workflow.
I've never had a need for meta data to the extent Barry does.
I'm not pushing one over the other, but I've owned both, and other than Panasonic's unfortunate (to say the least) implementation of the 4 pin firewire port in an awkward, unprotected place, then the FS100 is a definite tool for DVCProHD acquisition
Barry emphasizes metadata capabilities, but I would venture not all or most shooters here necessarily replicate his workflow.
I've never had a need for meta data to the extent Barry does.
Last edited:
MDKfilms
Well-known member
I think everything Barry G posted is a valid argument against the FS100, BUT what if Focus can rectify those problems in a future upgrade? And the whole argument about P2 cards getting cheaper per gig I think there has to be a physical limit as to how many memory chips you can squeeze into that little card, that is why we evolved from 5.25 diskettes(remember those) to hardrives( slightly different technology but relevant I think) So to sum up,
FS100 Pros,
long record time
multiple formats
cheaper cost per gig(so far)
easy to upgrade with future advancements( ie;metadata maybe)
Cons,
No metadata
No HD preview out
No clip assignment tool
No down convert(at least on site)
I did not list sound because I don't think it a major problem if you are setting up properly.
P2 cards pros,
Metadata
Jump out of plane or while climbing Everest altitude
clip assign functions
HD preview
no extra battery
snake repellent
charm against demonic possesion
inflatable life raft
Cons?
none I guess.
I guess in closing the two media have their uses, but I think the FS100 has the ability to adapt with larger disk size and software upgrades to overcome some of its limitations where as the P2 card can't, and maybe it doesn't need to. Could the P2 card have the multiple format options embedded on it? Only time will tell. So now I want you all to go to your windows, throw them open and scream, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore.
Quote; Caleb Deschanel to Doug Kropla,"Thats a big TV"
FS100 Pros,
long record time
multiple formats
cheaper cost per gig(so far)
easy to upgrade with future advancements( ie;metadata maybe)
Cons,
No metadata
No HD preview out
No clip assignment tool
No down convert(at least on site)
I did not list sound because I don't think it a major problem if you are setting up properly.
P2 cards pros,
Metadata
Jump out of plane or while climbing Everest altitude
clip assign functions
HD preview
no extra battery
snake repellent
charm against demonic possesion
inflatable life raft
Cons?
none I guess.
I guess in closing the two media have their uses, but I think the FS100 has the ability to adapt with larger disk size and software upgrades to overcome some of its limitations where as the P2 card can't, and maybe it doesn't need to. Could the P2 card have the multiple format options embedded on it? Only time will tell. So now I want you all to go to your windows, throw them open and scream, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore.
Quote; Caleb Deschanel to Doug Kropla,"Thats a big TV"
ullanta
Veteran
Hmmm... I think in some of this you're comparing Apples to Orangutangs...
The FS100 is a computer containing a storage device. The P2 Card is a storage device.
The HVX is a computer that can contain P2 cards.
The FS100 doesn't have an advantage of "multiple format support" over P2 cards; it has that advantage over the HVX. For example, if I take my P2 card over to an HPX3000, it starts recording AVC-Intra. If I want, I can copy a (small) 4K RAW file onto it.
The main advantage of P2 over FS100 is that you're cutting out half the complexity of your system. You're cutting weight and bulk; cutting your battery worries in half; cutting out potential problems in 2 very fragile Firewire ports and 1 cable; cutting out the need to monitor 2 separate devices to make sure you're recording when you think you're recording; cutting out many recording options that may complicate your post. Cutting out a mechanical device and hard drive in favor of more robust solid-state.
Again, I don't know what you're recording. In my world, the FS100 doesn't solve the long-recording-time problem. I often need to shoot six hours a day, in 2 3-hour chunks, without enough time to empty an FS100 in between. So while the FS100 extends the boundaries a bit, it still falls short for long-form in that there's no possibility of hot-swapping at all. With P2 cards at 32GB, the amount of recordable time is no longer significantly different.
One unmentioned ADVANTAGE of the Firestore, I think, is that it plays nicely with computers. P2 requires special drivers, and, of course, a Cardbus reader which is problematic on desktops, whereas (I think) you can plug a Firestore into any computer....
The FS100 is a computer containing a storage device. The P2 Card is a storage device.
The HVX is a computer that can contain P2 cards.
The FS100 doesn't have an advantage of "multiple format support" over P2 cards; it has that advantage over the HVX. For example, if I take my P2 card over to an HPX3000, it starts recording AVC-Intra. If I want, I can copy a (small) 4K RAW file onto it.
The main advantage of P2 over FS100 is that you're cutting out half the complexity of your system. You're cutting weight and bulk; cutting your battery worries in half; cutting out potential problems in 2 very fragile Firewire ports and 1 cable; cutting out the need to monitor 2 separate devices to make sure you're recording when you think you're recording; cutting out many recording options that may complicate your post. Cutting out a mechanical device and hard drive in favor of more robust solid-state.
Again, I don't know what you're recording. In my world, the FS100 doesn't solve the long-recording-time problem. I often need to shoot six hours a day, in 2 3-hour chunks, without enough time to empty an FS100 in between. So while the FS100 extends the boundaries a bit, it still falls short for long-form in that there's no possibility of hot-swapping at all. With P2 cards at 32GB, the amount of recordable time is no longer significantly different.
One unmentioned ADVANTAGE of the Firestore, I think, is that it plays nicely with computers. P2 requires special drivers, and, of course, a Cardbus reader which is problematic on desktops, whereas (I think) you can plug a Firestore into any computer....
Barry_Green
Moderator
Note, I wasn't necessarily arguing "for" or "against", I was answering the question that was posed. There are things that one can do that the other can't. It's up to you to decide if those differences impact your workflow.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
I didn't mean to insinuate that you were, if that's how it sounded.
I'm not trying to push one over the other either - only describing the differences between the two as I see them.
I have both - and use them both almost equally - if anything I shoot with the FS100 more often than not.
Can p2 cards capture directly to QT? Or to QT PN?
No. So end of argument.
No. So end of argument.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
Nice.
Hey, just edit on FCP - it has the 'feature' of turning MXF files into QT files.
THAT's how they should spin their lack of native MXF support.
"FCP bridging the gap between P2 and the FS100"
Hey, just edit on FCP - it has the 'feature' of turning MXF files into QT files.
THAT's how they should spin their lack of native MXF support.
"FCP bridging the gap between P2 and the FS100"
HeMustveBledAScarf
Member
I was working on a music video not too long ago and the d.p. was renting a firestore because his was being repaired because it randomly lost all his footage on a previous shoot. Guess what happened to us 3/4 of the way through the shoot? Luckily we were able to reboot it with no issues, but considering that this had happened to him twice in a couple weeks, with 2 different firestores, I'd stay clear of em personally. I have heard most people who own them say that they're fantastic 99% of the time, but when something goes wrong, it can be pretty catastrophic. At least with P2 you probably won't have your whole day's worth of footage sitting on one card.
Last edited: