To P2, or not to P2? That is the question...

[firehawk]

I hear both sides about P2. Some point out it's robustness, say it's superior in toughness, faster and more reliable.
The others say it's unnecessary now, that SD media has advanced to the point, making it as good, much less costly, and easier to work with.

My guess is that if someone has already invested in it, then it makes sense to stick with it. But if you are not a big company and not already using P2, need long recording times for some of your work, then is it wise to jump on the P2 wagon this late in the game?

I'd hate to invest in P2 cameras/readers/cards now and in 2 years they've moved mostly away from it.
Any thoughts?

 

[Barry_Green]

They've given no indication of "moving away" from it; instead they've been releasing new P2 cameras and devices left & right. HPX3100, HPX250, 3DA1, the new HPD24 deck, and the announcements about AVC-Ultra all seem to point to a long term commitment.

 

[David Jimerson]

If you were to buy a P2 camera today and they discontinued P2 cameras in two years, why would that be a problem for you? Your camera wouldn't stop working.

Besides, I'd choose the camera for the camera, not the recording mechanism. Everyone has different needs and preferences, but pound for pound, the P2 cameras tend to be better cameras regardless of what they shoot on. For example, I'd rather shoot DVCPRO HD and especially AVC-Intra 100 over AVCHD any day, any time.

 

[ullanta]

I love and trust P2. I always use P2 for my main camera... but for my second camera I wouldn't go with P2 at this point... it's nice to have one cam where the media is so cheap as to provide basically "unlimited" recording time. I've found the Panny AVCCAMs to be highly reliable, and at this point, especially with the dual recording capability, I think I'd feel comfortable using an AG-AC of some sort as a main camera if it were on par feature-for-feature... but I like the 4 audio tracks tha P2 cams record. For others, the AVC-Intra codec will be a big benefit.

I'm very careful with SD cards, and test them thoroughly. I haven't had any fail in years, but I have had two fall apart (in one cae, it just split open; in the other case the write-protect switch came off). I didn't lose any data, but this still leads me to prefer the relatively tank-like p2....

I wish P2 readers were as cheap and easy as SD readers, though... that's the primary negative of P2 for me now... it's not terrible, but certainly a lot more cumbersome to offload P2 than SD cards. If I could afford a Panny 5-slot reader it would be on par.... but for now I either use the camera or my networked-4-cardbus-slot PC laptop setup, depending on how clips are spanned... just a bit more work, and more stuff to carry around, than with SD cards.

 

[ggrantly]

+1 to David J. Folks can argue about price of P2 all they want. P2 cams buy you a I-Frame codec which, IMHO, is better.

To the OP, you mentioned SD media as being "easier to work with". That deserves some explanation. File size of AVCHD might be the only real benefit but that doesn't have much to do with SD media.

Grant

 

[MadHMC150]

It seems you answer your own question... I would only go p2 if your workflow already supports it.

I have shot thousands of hours on SDHC cards and not had 1 failure :knock on wood:. The convenience of AVCHD and the SD card slots on every computer makes sense for my work flow. I can transcode to any format and deliver - or just hand off the SDHC card to the client and be done with it... you couldn't pry a p2 card out of my cold dead hands at that price.

Now that a 16gb sdhc card is like $20 and the new cameras have redundant recording - there is less and less reasons why p2 makes sense.

 

[David Jimerson]

there is less and less reasons why p2 makes sense.

Unless you want those things which the P2 cameras give you, which the AVCHD cameras don't have, as I mentioned above.

 

[Mark Williams]

I was on a very tight budget when I invested in a P2 camera. I almost changed my mind more than once, but am glad that I didn't. After my initial HPX170 purchase in 2009 I have been buying P2 r-series cards used at a significant savings. For a card reader I use an Amtron internal unit ($100), import the .mfx files into Edius and I am good to go. Doesn't get much more simple than that as a work flow.

 

[firehawk]

... For example, I'd rather shoot DVCPRO HD and especially AVC-Intra 100 over AVCHD any day, any time.

Other than P2 cameras tending to be better cameras as you mentioned, why do you say that about dvcpro hd and avc intra over avchd, if you don't mind me asking?
Is it due to better color sampling, keying, workflow or ?
Thanks for all the input so far everyone.

 

[David Jimerson]

Is it due to better color sampling, keying, workflow or ?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

 

[ullanta]

As I said before, for me, workflow us not necessarily a benefit of P2… so I wouldn't call that an advantage for everyone… but definitely color sampling in the P2 codecs is better; and the intraframe nature of the P2 codecs is another clear advantage. I'm not 100% sure that I find an advantage of DVCProHD over AVCHD (each has relative ups and downs), but AVC-Intra definitely trumps AVCHD.

 

[David Jimerson]

Workflow is better with an intraframe codec. Of course, I suppose that depends somewhat on what you consider to fall under "workflow."

But there are also distinct workflow benefits in NLEs which can read and take advantage of P2 metadata, whereas as far as I know, none can take advantage of AVCCAM metadata.

 

[digitalgecko]

I just jumped into P2 for the first time with the purchase of the HPX250. David's right. The camera I needed determined my recording format. I didn't pick the camera based on what was the cheapest card I could plug into it. And as a first time P2 guy, I love it. The cards cost half of what they use to go for --and compare reasonably well to the higher end CF cards as far as price. And it's just comforting to know they are going to last awhile and not miss a frame. I only have the two 64Gig cards now so I don't need a reader, just plug the camera into the computer.

 

[MadHMC150]

Unless you want those things which the P2 cameras give you, which the AVCHD cameras don't have, as I mentioned above.

Sure, there use to be a lot more reasons why you would use a P2 system back in the day (less errors than tape, no log&capture, more storage, reusable, etc.)... now what you're saying is its really only codec which is why I said less reasons now why it makes sense. As for codec you can pull 422 in whatever codec you would like to edit in right out of the HDMI/SSD ports with something like the ninja.

Functionality of the camera is of course going to trump whatever media it uses. I use a EX1R with an SDXC adapter and for what I need it is perfect.

 

[David Jimerson]

It's not just the codec (though the codec is a big deal); the P2 cameras tend to have a considerable number of functions that the AVCCAM cameras don't have. Variable frame rates, for one. Film-style shutters, for another (though the AF100 has these).

Of course, if you're bringing up external recorders, then the whole comparison between SD and P2 is entirely moot. Besides, I'd rather not mess with an external recorder.

 

[MadHMC150]

The OP is about media type though... So is there a real reason besides codec to go p2? Codec is extremely important, not discounting that at all... but most are flexible in that respect if they 'investing' in a new system.

We could go on and on but there are new SDHC/XC cameras (ac160, af100, EX1r, etc.) that offer more than some old P2 cams.

It would be helpful to hear about the p2 cams the op is speaking about too.. If you need a high end camera, P2 may be a majority of your option anyways.

 

[Barry_Green]

So is there a real reason besides codec to go p2?

Sure, there are many reasons.
1) P2 is an editable medium. You can stream up to 12 streams of 100-megabit HD simultaneously off of a P2 card. That's a huge, massive advantage for someone who needs quick turnaround, like news or same-day-edit folks. Of course, FCP users never really understood this because they were hampered by the "log & transfer" process, but those who used Windows editors with direct MXF importing were able to drag & drop footage straight from the card into the timeline. When you shoot a four-hour wedding with three cameras and you've got 12 hours of footage and they're expecting to see a cut at the reception three hours from now... it's enormously beneficial to just slap the cards in a reader and start editing, instead of waiting hours for transcoding or even for copying to another medium.

2) P2 is indestructible. It's far more robust than SDHC or CF.

3) P2's the de facto standard for tapeless news worldwide, with (at last tally) about 80% of the worldwide tapeless broadcast market. Using the same format, same codecs, same everything as your client or broadcaster is obviously quite beneficial.

4) P2's much faster than other tapeless media. Which allows it to store the forthcoming AVC-Ultra at up to 440mbps, which they've talked about.

5) P2 has built-in error detection, correction, and handling, including an intelligent controller that will write and rewrite and verify data to the card. You won't find that on most any other type of media, although I think that some of that functionality is on the Sandisk Extreme Pro and the Panasonic Gold and AVCCAM line of SDHC cards.

6) P2 is designed to survive ejecting even when being accessed. You could blow up an SDHC card if you ejected it when it was being written to or read from, but P2 is designed from the ground up to handle that. In fact, P2 cards continuously close out the file system every two seconds, to ensure that even in a worst-case scenario you'd never lose more than the last two seconds of footage.

I've been a happy user of the AF100 and the HMC150 for a year to three years now, and sure it's nice to have access to cheap media, but man, the HPX250 has reminded me of just how much better P2 is as a recording media. I would love an AF250...

 

[David Jimerson]

The OP is about media type though...

Right, which is why the possibility of external recorders isn't a factor.

So is there a real reason besides codec to go p2?

? I just gave you a few.

Between the HMC150 and the HPX170, I'd go with the 170 on variable frame rates, before even getting to any of the other advantages.

That may not be everyone's concern and I don't mean to say it should be. My only point was that perhaps your most important reasons for choosing a camera shouldn't be the recording media.

Codec is extremely important, not discounting that at all... but most are flexible in that respect if they 'investing' in a new system.

I mean to suggest that perhaps they shouldn't be, and they should look before deciding.

 

[firehawk]

QUOTE=MadHMC150;2484311]

It would be helpful to hear about the p2 cams the op is speaking about too.. If you need a high end camera, P2 may be a majority of your option anyways.[/QUOTE]

I'm specifically looking at the hpx250 and ac160.*
AVC ultra brings up a good point. It looks as the the future for avchd is to be 10 bit and 4:2:2 at 35mbs. Whereas intra is going to 12 bit and 4:4:4 at even higher than 100.
So the future avchd is basically what I need now (4:2:2) *and the future of p2 looks to be more than I need. But I can't wait a couple more years since I need hd cameras now. The hpx250 looks like a wonderful camera except it cannot do 1080 60p which looks to be the future of tv, whereas the ac160 can.*

Redundant recording of SD seems to help level the playing field a bit as far as reliability goes.

What's the possibility of today's p2 systems still working with the next evolution?

So, I'm I understanding correctly that with p2, if u have a p2 card reader, you can work with the NLE (cs5) straight from The reader without having to transfer the footage to the computer first? Even with the cheaper $300 reader?

I see an option for avchd and avcintra 100/50 in premiere cs5. Native editing without conversion I assume?

And will my system handle each codec ok or will there be much longer render times with one vs the other?
3 year old system: Dual 2.8ghz xeon, 8 core, 20gig ram, nvidia quadro4000 2gb VRAM *with CUDA. *Cs5 on vista 64bit

Sorry. I'm just loaded with questions it seems. You guys are great!

 

[Barry_Green]

1080/60p is where the TV manufacturers would like to see things head. I have no idea if it will become a broadcast standard, I mean, it hasn't been all that long ago that we swapped over to digital TV at all. It might be five or ten or fifteen years before 1080/60p is broadcast commonly, and whatever camera you buy today will have little relevance to what you're shooting on 10 years from now. Simple way to go is: don't sweat it. Who knows where things may head? They may skip 1080/60p entirely and go straight to 4K at 300Hz for all we know. Don't live in the future, do what it takes to put bread on the table today.

Redundant recording to SDHC has yes, greatly closed the gap in reliability.

What's the possibility of today's p2 systems still working with the next evolution?

Can't guarantee it but I'd say the odds are extremely high. P2 came out almost eight years ago, and every stitch of equipment sold then still works with everything that's sold today.

if u have a p2 card reader, you can work with the NLE (cs5) straight from The reader without having to transfer the footage to the computer first? Even with the cheaper $300 reader?

Correct.

I see an option for avchd and avcintra 100/50 in premiere cs5. Native editing without conversion I assume?

Of course.