the big question to be asked is what P2 OR SxS offer that user that CF or SD don't?", and I've yet to hear an answer to that.

The standard CF and SD mass market cards get memory chips that aren't spec'd as rigorously. It's not really about transfer speed.

The P2 card has 4 ZERO DEFECT SPEC memory chips inside. They use 4 in a RAID configuration. The specs for the memory to the supplier command a top tier price because they are in shorter supply and require a lot more environmental testing in the QC process.

-gb-

The P2 card has 4 ZERO DEFECT SPEC memory chips inside.
I don't dispute that, but my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) was that chips with defects don't produce errors in data handling, but that the errors are "mapped around" - slowing the chips performance overall, but maintaining data integrity. Put a MB of data into two chips, one with defects, one without, and that data will be recovered intact in both cases. Just that the zero defect one will be able to do it with less effort, and hence be faster. (And a lot more expensive!)

In the past, it was difficult to achieve adequate speed to record the video at all, and hence only the highest standard of chip could do. Now, general performance of flash memory has so improved that even allowing for the remapping, non-zero defect memory is still more than fast enough. At least for most customers of sub $10,000 cameras.

moved to another thread

P2 can live on as a high-end format for producers with deep pockets, but hopefully we'll see more affordable solutions become common now that that's technologically feasible.
That's always been the plan -- P2 for those who need/demand indestructible top-end performance, and SD cards for the masses. AVC-HD has yet to really get fired up. Imagine an XHA1 recording directly to SD cards, or an HV20 at half its size because they drop the tape drive and record straight to a tiny SD card. I expect we'll see an overhaul of all of Panasonic's low-end cameras soon -- the DVX, DVC30, DVC60 etc. are all rather long in the tooth, and Panasonic really doesn't have any sort of HD answer to the FX1/XHA1 etc in the $2000-$3000 price bracket. Obviously they'll have to develop something or watch that entire market segment shift over to their competitors.

P2 isn't best suited to wedding/event guys, or for home users either, and not really for stringers (at least not yet; when 64GB and 128GB cards hit there's really nothing it couldn't handle well). But as for today, it's most suitable for broadcasters and mid-sized to higher-end production houses. And it's moving upscale, not downscale -- the HPX500, HPX2000, and HPX3000 are all P2-based. I doubt we'll ever see a smaller-than-HVX P2 cam; that arena will probably belong to AVC-HD. AVC-HD should deliver HDV to XDCAM-HD quality on a simple/cheap SD card. That's what the large base of small business/prosumer-type shooters will likely find attractive.

AVC-HD should deliver HDV to XDCAM-HD quality on a simple/cheap SD card. That's what the large base of small business/prosumer-type shooters will likely find attractive.

The thing is that we shouldn't be limited to highly compressed formats like AVC-HD in order to get affordable flash-based video cameras, but it looks like that's the choice we're going to be given.

But a highly compressed format is *not* a limitation. If the compression engine is efficient and produces nice results, then the amount of compression is a complete non-issue. I was sold on H.264 (the basis for AVCHD) when I saw it projected on a thirty-foot screen at Apple's press conference during NAB2006. And that was an 8Mbps datastream.

If it's done well, highly compressed video is a *good* thing. And the compression efficiency is getting better and better all the time.

There ain't nothing wrong with AVCHD.

The amount of compression doesn't matter. All that counts is how good it is.

The thing is that we shouldn't be limited to highly compressed formats like AVC-HD in order to get affordable flash-based video cameras, but it looks like that's the choice we're going to be given.

Versus what? A highly compressed format like HDV? Or XDCAM-HD? They're both highly compressed, yet certainly have their adherents and can, in most circumstances, deliver great imagery.

AVC-HD will go to 24 megabits. As Chris points out, 8 megabits of AVC-HD can look fantastic, 12 megabits of AVC-HD should outperform HDV, and 24 megabits of AVC-HD should rival XDCAM-HD toe to toe (assuming an equivalent camera head, of course).

High compression ratios are necessary, but doesn't inherently imply that the footage won't look good (or, at least, good enough). Look at RedCode, that has a massively high compression ratio but still looks plenty fine; they're taking 324 megabytes per second and compressing it down to about 200 megabits.

But as for today, it's most suitable for broadcasters and mid-sized to higher-end production houses. And it's moving upscale, not downscale --

And suitable for documentary filmmakers...

And this all goes back to the issue of back-end support. The P2 Store was a good idea (I've never used one, but take this from many here who bemoan it's loss)... It's too bad that there isn't a device like that available that holds, say, 500g - because pros may be able to afford up to 10 cards, but they still gotta reliably off-load 'em eventually - and in the field that can (currently) be a major pain.

P2 will continue to be a viable acquistion tool if filmakers don't have to lug around laptops and hard drives and power supplies.

I know - be patient, there will be sollutions to this in the future - but I'm getting on a plane for NY tomorrow...

To conclude: Panasonic will stick with P2.

Thanks to all who have participated.