When Panasonic first brought out the extortionately priced P2 cards, i had to blink and re-read the press release. Did it really say 8 minutes of HD footage was going to cost 500£ (or whatever it was)?

I was looking for a camera at the time and Canon's XHA1 came along for half the price. I was, and am, happy i went with the Canon in spite of the limitations of HDV.

Times have moved on, and there are various solid state options available, but they're all still relatively pricey and have not tempted me to sell my canon.

The arrival of the new JVC cam that shoots straight to quicktime on cheap storage cards is what many people like me have been waiting for. At least in terms of the storage cards.

My question is this: How on earth will the more expensive cards hope to compete with this storage system, and will JVC's way of doing things be followed by Canon and others?

I don't need a new camera at the moment, and am very happy with my XHA1, but i'm assuming that when i do, i will not have to dig deep for my storage cards.

Meanwhile, those who've invested huge amounts in such things as P2 (or indeed SxS) cards, are going to find their cards belong in a museum.

Perhaps i'm wrong about this, and i'd love to hear other opinions on the subject, but it does seem that the days when storage cost almost as much as the cameras, are thankfully over.

And now is an excellent time for people such as myself to consider dumping tapes for good.

The high-priced memory card formats may continue to have a market with those who want maximum performance and reliability regardless of cost, which still has some value for some purposes. Cameras using inexpensive memory cards are currently limited in terms of recording bandwidth and specialty recording modes like over/under cranking, even though good standard cards should be able to support some such features.

Canon is now the last of the four major manufacturers to offer an affordable, professional solid-state video camera, but their 5D Mark II shows they are probably capable of producing one. We're still not quite to the point where solid-state video acquisition is compelling in every way over recording to tape, but we're getting close.

Thanks Kevin. You've answered the other question i forgot to ask re bandwidth etc. But surely the JVC is capturing the footage in the same way as the sxs cards with the EX1?

So does that mean the JVC does not do under/over cranking? I thought it did.

Meanwhile, those who've invested huge amounts in such things as P2 (or indeed SxS) cards, are going to find their cards belong in a museum.
As Kevin says, with current cameras there are still advantages to using P2 or SxS cards for higher performance, and these current cameras still need them for such as overcranking.

But there is a big difference between SxS and P2 cameras, at least for prosumer use. Buy a P2 camera like the 171 and you HAVE to use a P2 card. Buy a Sony EX and you can EITHER use SxS for performance, OR use SDHC for economy. (As long as you don't want to overcrank.) Also worth noting that it's not the SDHC card that's the limiting factor, but rather the USB connection through the adaptor.

It's also worth noting that although few camcorders suport Compact Flash, it has more than enough performance for high end work, whilst only being a fraction of the price of P2/SxS - as Red and the XDR prove. Only a year ago manufacturers were claiming that you HAD to use their (high cost) products to record high quality video - events have shown that is simply no longer true.

Of the two, I see SxS with far more of a future than P2 as it is natively supported by modern laptops,whilst Cardbus (on which P2 is based) is obsolescent. It's also likely that we will see suitable memory appearing based on ExpressCard, lower than SxS spec, but with the performance and price of such as current Compact Flash. I don't believe a comparable product is viable with a P2 form, due to the high fixed cost per unit.

Interesting. Thanks for that David.

Re P2, i quite agree. I think it was out of date within months of arrival.

As much as i like Panasonic cameras i wouldn't go down the P2 road myself. Particularly since the EX1 - in spite of some well known flaws - is such a fantastic value piece of kit.

"manufacturers were claiming that you HAD to use their (high cost) products to record high quality video - events have shown that is simply no longer true."

Indeed, the same thing happened with tape. I stopped buying HDV tapes, and before that DVCAM tapes, a long time ago, and have never regretted it.

If JVC is offering all the same recording options as the Sony EX1 without using specialized memory, then they've either done something different or disproved Sony's claim that SxS is required for over/under cranking.

What's frustrating in all this is that good stock flash cards have offered plenty of bandwidth for years, and yet we're still being limited to highly compressed recording with most solid-state cameras. With adequate buffering any decent SDHC card should be able to sustain a 50 Mbps I-frame HD codec like AVC-intra, but so far no affordable video cameras take advantage of that fact. It's almost as if there's a conspiracy not to undercut high-end cameras (and expensive memory cards) by offering an affordable I-frame HD camera.

"It's almost as if there's a conspiracy not to undercut high-end cameras"

That would be logical for Sony and Panasonic at least. But i would think Canon and JVC would rather like to produce a camera that undercuts the other two since they don't make high end cameras.
Although in Canon's case it might undermine their lucrative high end lens sales.

I've seen no evidence that the JVC offers overcranking. The EX1 can overcrank on SDHC, but not to 60fps. It does about 40fps before giving up the ghost, depending on card speed. I think the potential to do 50+ fps is there, but not with current card speeds.

Truth in fact, I don't think the market has been ready for i-frame full raster HD. Look at the trouble most people had when HDV was released. Home computers struggled to keep up. Right now, people are STRUGGLING with AVCHD at 1080. Meanwhile, the boys who are shooting 2k and 4k are doing quite nicely with their $10k-$20k editing machines.

It's a hard thing to say to a prosumer or consumer that you're going to sell them a camera that shoots full raster 1080p on solid state, but they'll need 8 disk raid, a $1k graphics card, and 8GB of RAM, to edit and post it. In the pro ranks, that's expected.

We have to look at the entire workflow, not just the camera. Panasonic's P2 cameras should have taught us that lesson already. Even still, consumer based editors are trying to edit full res HD at online data rates instead of embracing the offline/online workflow of their Hollywood brethren, and these forums are filled daily with their struggles. It's as if they look (or refuse to look) at how Hollywood edits these things, and say, "I have a fast machine, I can do better." In fact, no you can't.

I don't think it's a conspiracy as much as it is basic marketing. Market segmentation. You don't sell a $20k workflow to a $5k camera buyer.

If JVC is offering all the same recording options as the Sony EX1 without using specialized memory, then they've either done something different or disproved Sony's claim that SxS is required for over/under cranking.

What's frustrating in all this is that good stock flash cards have offered plenty of bandwidth for years, and yet we're still being limited to highly compressed recording with most solid-state cameras. With adequate buffering any decent SDHC card should be able to sustain a 50 Mbps I-frame HD codec like AVC-intra, but so far no affordable video cameras take advantage of that fact. It's almost as if there's a conspiracy not to undercut high-end cameras (and expensive memory cards) by offering an affordable I-frame HD camera.

2k/4k workflows can still be done on more conventional machines via proxy files. However, IMHO, there's not much point in a 2k/4k rez, unless you're going back out to film. There's no pragmatic distribution vehicle for 2k/4k records. The internet is, at best, a 720 medium. Bluray is not ready for prime time and DVD is a 480 medium. Broadcast television is a 1080 medium. So, outside of claiming to be on the cutting edge, how does a 2k/4k stream benefit an indie producer?

In fact, recent surveys have shown that most viewed content is trending towards pocket sized displays, not even worthy of 240 rez. Sad.

Truth in fact, I don't think the market has been ready for i-frame full raster HD. Look at the trouble most people had when HDV was released. Home computers struggled to keep up. Right now, people are STRUGGLING with AVCHD at 1080.

My point is that it's because inexpensive HD recording formats use interframe compression that they're so hard to edit. This is easily demonstrated by comparing AVCHD and HDV to DVCProHD in terms of the amount of computer power needed to edit raw footage effectively, and by converting interframe source clips to intraframe codecs to improve editing efficiency. I-frame footage isn't harder to edit, it's easier - that's why an inexpensive I-frame HD camera (using inexpensive memory) would be useful to many of us. And it's not memory cards which need to evolve further to make this possible; it's the cameras.

I don't think it's a conspiracy as much as it is basic marketing. Market segmentation. You don't sell a $20k workflow to a $5k camera buyer.

But Panasonic did sell a $20K workflow to $5K camera buyers and made a lot of money as a result; money they don't appear willing to give up by offering a similar workflow using less expensive memory cards with their latest I-frame recording format. And since the other manufacturers don't appear to have any similar alternatives they're not under any pressure to do so, even though it would be a great product for a lot of users. Ah well, maybe in a few more years after everyone's recouped their HD R&D costs...

If JVC is offering all the same recording options as the Sony EX1 without using specialized memory...The JVC HMC100 is *not* offering all the same recording options as the Sony EX1.

...or disproved Sony's claim that SxS is required for over/under cranking.The JVC HMC100 does *not* provide over- or under-cranking. Therefore they have
actually reinforced Sony's claim that SxS is required for over/under cranking.

My point is that it's because inexpensive HD recording formats use interframe compression that they're so hard to edit. This is easily demonstrated by comparing AVCHD and HDV to DVCProHD in terms of the amount of computer power needed to edit raw footage effectively, and by converting interframe source clips to intraframe codecs to improve editing efficiency. I-frame footage isn't harder to edit, it's easier - that's why an inexpensive I-frame HD camera (using inexpensive memory) would be useful to many of us. And it's not memory cards which need to evolve further to make this possible; it's the cameras.


But let's be honest. DVCProHD isn't even the same frame size as HDV, much less full raster. Yes, I-Frame is easier to edit, but I-Frame, depending on it's native format will take up GOBS or room, so we're back to the issue of recording media size. Panasonic's P2 solution takes up 1GB per minute at 1280x1080. So lets be generous and say that full raster would take twice that (I know it's less). So we've JUST gotten to 32GB SDHC cards. So now we are putting 16-20 minutes of video on a $120 SDHC card. And dumping 128GB per hour onto the editing machine. Those coming from the world of HDV and 13GB per hour are going to be in for one HECK of a shock, and their HD systems better be up to scratch.


But Panasonic did sell a $20K workflow to $5K camera buyers and made a lot of money as a result; money they don't appear willing to give up by offering a similar workflow using less expensive memory cards with their latest I-frame recording format. And since the other manufacturers don't appear to have any similar alternatives they're not under any pressure to do so, even though it would be a great product for a lot of users. Ah well, maybe in a few more years after everyone's recouped their HD R&D costs...

P2 is not a $20k workflow. Most users simply moved down to 720p, and bought two 8GB cards. I would suspect that most prosumers don't have anything larger than 16GB cards still, so add a copy of Raylight to that, and the cost to shoot P2 (assuming a decent editing computer) is in the $4k-$7k price range. The workflow price matches the camera price.

XDCamEX workflow is a LOT cheaper than P2 especially when you toss SDHC into the mix, but even on SxS cards, it's cheaper by a wide margin. I think we'll get to full raster intraframe on commodity media, but we're probably 3 years away. With TB sized disks become affordable, quadcore processors entering the mainstream, and 100+ core video cards breaking the $250 barrier, it won't be too long before the home hobbyist can actually handle it. But JoePC user is going to have to become conversant with RAID first.

I've seen no evidence that the JVC offers overcranking. The EX1 can overcrank on SDHC, but not to 60fps. It does about 40fps before giving up the ghost, depending on card speed. I think the potential to do 50+ fps is there, but not with current card speeds.
I thought that the conclusion that had been come to was that the speed bottleneck was the adaptor requiring the use of USB protocol rather than PCIExpress? That the Transcend and Sandisk SDHC cards were more than fast enough themselves to support full 60fps overcranking with the EX, but not via any USB adaptor?

If there was an ExpressCard-SDHC adaptor that used PCIExpress, not USB, the expectation is that such a combo should be capable of operating in full overcrank mode.

By the same token, a camera that accepted SDHC cards natively should be able to able to overcrank to them at a much higher rate than the EX manages via the current adaptors.

I thought that the conclusion that had been come to was that the speed bottleneck was the adaptor requiring the use of USB protocol rather than PCIExpress? That the Transcend and Sandisk SDHC cards were more than fast enough themselves to support full 60fps overcranking with the EX, but not via any USB adaptor?

If there was an ExpressCard-SDHC adaptor that used PCIExpress, not USB, the expectation is that such a combo should be capable of operating in full overcrank mode.

By the same token, a camera that accepted SDHC cards natively should be able to able to overcrank to them at a much higher rate than the EX manages via the current adaptors.

Ah yes, quite true. Forgot that as we were watching various SDHC cards have varying success rates. So the JVC might just overcrank fully.

The new SDXC cards start out at 64GB and 100 MBS and go up to 2 TB & 300 MBS.

That's probably where the future of the card are going, at least technology wise.

I bet the puny 32GB SDHC cards will be $20 USD in a year or so.

The new cards use exFAT instead of FAT32.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

What's frustrating in all this is that good stock flash cards have offered plenty of bandwidth for years, and yet we're still being limited to highly compressed recording with most solid-state cameras. With adequate buffering any decent SDHC card should be able to sustain a 50 Mbps I-frame HD codec like AVC-intra, but so far no affordable video cameras take advantage of that fact.
Yes, exactly. The very fact that the EX can sustain up to about 40fps overcrank *PROVES* that these cards are capable of recording at about 60Mbs sustained. And that's even with the USB interface which is known to be the bottleneck. These cards should be able to go quite a bit higher if directly supported.

And that's before we even start thinking of Compact Flash. The XDR *PROVES* that 100Mbs can be recorded to fairly cheap CF, and RED *PROVES* that a lot higher can be recorded to higher spec CF.

As far as the history goes, I think Panasonic made two bad strategic decisions in the history of P2. The first was initially trying to market it as SD 2/3" P2 only cameras. There was a lot of comment at the time that a P2/tape hybrid would have been more generally useful - use P2 when you wanted the advantages of solid state, tape when you needed to give media away or couldn't easily download.

The HVX200 was indeed hybrid, at least for SD, and that was a big benefit for many at the time, but by now HD use had become much more common. The choice became between the codec benefits of DVCProHD, and the cheap media and long record times of HDV, and especially the Z1. Why on earth didn't Panasonic make the HVX200 a triple hybrid? SD DV to tape, HDV to tape, AND both those codecs PLUS DVCProHD to P2? It would have kept all it's own advantages, and matched those of the Z1 without any sacrifice, and of the two surely would have been the obvious camera to get? But they didn't - the choice was an HDV tape camera or a P2 DVCProHD camera.

As it was, it suited a few people well, but the majority seem to have concluded that the Z1 and HDV was the least bad compromise.

Roll on to now, and I'm left wondering why they didn't just bring out a single tapeless camera combining the benefits of the 171 and the 151. Two P2 slots and two SDHC slots. The former able to record DVCProHD and handle overcrank etc, and the latter able to record AVC-HD on cheap cards. Use as appropiate, just as can be done with the EX, albeit in spite of Sony.....!

Yes, I-Frame is easier to edit, but I-Frame, depending on it's native format will take up GOBS or room, so we're back to the issue of recording media size.

AVC-intra at 50 Mbps only requires twice the storage of HDV or AVCHD, and that's before accounting for the fact that many HDV and AVCHD users transcode to I-frame codecs for editing purposes. At 50 Mbps you should be able to fit at least 30 minutes of footage on a 16GB SDHC card costing under $50, compared to over $800 for a 16GB P2 card. So clearly this is a desirable option from a user perspective and would be an ideal compromise in terms of workflow, assuming that AVC-intra is more readily editable than native AVCHD footage.

P2 is not a $20k workflow. Most users simply moved down to 720p, and bought two 8GB cards.

P2 was developed for TV stations and such with deep pockets, not budget-conscious independent videographers. The fact that Panasonic was able to sell it to the latter is an impressive achievement, but it's not a particularly good solution for this market segment.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a $5K camera recording 50 Mbps I-frame footage on $50 memory cards, and have that footage be directly editable without time-consuming transcoding? This is such an obviously desirable solution it's frustrating no one's doing it, even though today's good SDHC cards should easily support it.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a $5K camera recording 50 Mbps I-frame footage on $50 memory cards, and have that footage be directly editable without time-consuming transcoding? This is such an obviously desirable solution it's frustrating no one's doing it, even though today's good SDHC cards should easily support it.
I'd rather have a camera recording 50Mbs onto $50 memory cards but using long GOP MPEG2. That should be still directly editable (unlike AVC-HD), but be significantly higher quality than I-frame only at the same bitrate.

It's effectively XDCAM-HD422 (as used by the PDW700) and got recent general approval from the EBU for general acquisition, as did AVC-Intra 100 (though not AVC-Intra 50).

Ordinary SDHC cards shouldn't have much problem with 50Mbs streams, but I doubt they'd manage 100Mbs. But fairly cheap Compact Flash should manage AVC-Intra100 without too many problems - you don't need P2.

I'd rather have a camera recording 50Mbs onto $50 memory cards but using long GOP MPEG2.

That would be fine too, and I'd love to see Sony do that instead of limiting bandwidth to 35 Mbps on the EX1. Heck, that camera uses expensive high-end memory with a peak bandwidth of 800 Mbps, why the blue blazes did they limit recording to 35?!?

As far as what's possible on today's stock memory cards, a Panasonic engineer said in 2005 that they need 20 MB/sec (160 Mbps) sustained to record DVCProHD reliably at 100 Mbps, which sounds reasonable. Sandisk had CompactFlash cards which could do that back in 2004, and that level of performance today is both commonplace and affordable. 40 MB/sec cards are also readily available if some additional overhead is needed, and could be brand-marketed by camera manufacturers if necessary to ensure users they're getting what they need. We don't need P2 or SxS today for medium-bandwidth HD recording, except to get fancy features like over/undercranking. And since we already have the over/undercranking cameras, let's see some which skip that in favor of a good, steady 50 Mbps recording data rate. This is an obvious thing to do, and yet no one's doing it...

AVC-intra at 50 Mbps only requires twice the storage of HDV or AVCHD


AVC-Intra is 4:2:0. And if we're going to go intra-frame, give me the 4:2:2 like DVCProHD. That's why AVC-Intra 100 is the way to go.


Wouldn't it be nice to have a $5K camera recording 50 Mbps I-frame footage on $50 memory cards, and have that footage be directly editable without time-consuming transcoding? This is such an obviously desirable solution it's frustrating no one's doing it, even though today's good SDHC cards should easily support it.

Well, I have a $6500 camera recording long-GOP on $30 memory cards and the footage is directly editable. That's close enough for me. If I need something better, I just attach a cable and game over.

Yes, it's frustrating that no one is giving us the goods, but honestly, if we had sub $10k cameras recording 100Mbps i-frame 4:2:2, it would be a TOUGH sell to push the $30k cameras that had....better glass?

That would be fine too, and I'd love to see Sony do that instead of limiting bandwidth to 35 Mbps on the EX1. Heck, that camera uses expensive high-end memory with a peak bandwidth of 800 Mbps, why the blue blazes did they limit recording to 35?!

Because the people who really need more are hooking to the camera with SDI, not writing to memory cards.

Yes, it's frustrating that no one is giving us the goods, but honestly, if we had sub $10k cameras recording 100Mbps i-frame 4:2:2, it would be a TOUGH sell to push the $30k cameras that had....better glass?

Yes, that was part of my premise why memory card technology isn't the limiting factor here. And Panasonic does sell a $5K camera which records 100 Mbps I-frame 4:2:2, but they maintain some of their profit margin by restricting it to P2 memory.

Seems to me someone could make money by selling an affordable 50-100 Mbps HD camera using SDHC or CompactFlash cards, and still maintain market segmentation from higher-end cameras with bigger sensors, better lenses, and more flexible recording options (using more expensive memory). The first company to do this could sell a lot of cameras to independent videographers who don't want to be limited to lower bit rates, which would probably include most of us on these forums.

the whole picture is about to change. here enters the market SDXC card. Up to 2 TB of storage and fast writing speed. Panny, JVC, canon or sony should look at the idea behind RED camera- minimum compression. These cards are the answer.Of course the technology is new, but if it works to the degree it is hyped up the whole compression business should be a thing of the past. Imagine a camcorder with a compression like ProRes 422 HQ, which boils down to 0.82 Gig/minute! This will make SxS or P2 just vanish.
of course the editing systems will have to catch up to this new situation as well.

And that is exactly my point. Joe Blow is going to come back from his kid's HS soccer game with 90GB of ProRes or Cineform, or DNxHD encoded files. What's he do with them? Take up 1/10 of his hard driive for the source files. Then render to what? DVD with Mpeg2? BluRay? You ever try compressing 90GB of video on a common home PC to mpeg4? I've done it on my older editing machine and it is NOT pretty.

The fact is, compression and consumer/prosumer recordinng is following the trends of common PCs. HDV was a bit taxing for home PCs when it came out. Prosumer users upgraded to handle it, now common PCs edit it like we used to edit DV. AVCHD is out, and hard core home users can edit it, but the majority struggle.

At the higher end, the pros are working with 4k RAW, 2K intermmediate, etc. They have machines that cost a year's worth of our mortgages. In 5 years, home PCs will be able to do the same. And they'll be working with 8k RAW.

We'll get there in time, but until dual quadcores become common, manufacturers really don't need to be selling RAW output or lightly compressed output for home users. We have pros here wondering about how to save their mpeg2 HD files now. What would we do when acquiring in better formats than most of us finish in?

Robert and Perrone's comments both dance around what I've been saying for some time now: we already have the technology to make a "pretty awesome" HD camera using SDHC memory, and the camera manufacturers are refusing to offer that to us. So improvements in memory technology won't make any difference unless/until someone decides to break the current price/performance barrier, which would be clearly desirable for shooting anything more important than home videos. The Panasonic HVX200 was a big success using uber-expensive memory, and we could have the same camera today (except for over/under cranking) using SDHC. MEMORY TECHNOLOGY IS NOT THE LIMITING FACTOR HERE.

No, the limiting factor here is that we're already swimming in an embarrassment of riches as far as the affordability and capability of existing camera choices is concerned. We already have pretty awesome HD cameras, and the notion that manufacturers in a crowded and competitive marketplace are "refusing" to produce anything but the best they can deliver at any given price point is just ridiculous nonsense.

There's absolutely nothing at all limiting about the current crop of gear, except the extent of the creative impulse of the person who's holding it.

Higher bit rates, better formats, less expensive long-form media, SDHC, SDXC and all that stuff will be here probably before we now it, but meanwhile, to my eye, the ones who complain the loudest about the perceived "limitations" of what we have right now are either unaware of what this stuff used to cost just to get a quarter of the quality, or are unable due to their own creative limitations to effectively utilize existing tools.

Either way, I have a very short tolerance for conspiracy theories.

SDHC comes in classes. Class 6 can do 6MB/s sustained. Class 4 can do 4MB/s sustained.

So, a class 6 SDHC card should be able to handle 48Mbps sustained video, though probably specing at 40Mbsps would be better.

SDXC is supposed to support 100 MB/s in 2009 and up to 300MB/s in the future. We'll see how it works in the marketplace, how fast it is adopted, etc.

But it does seem reasonable to say that SxS and P2 are deliberately proprietary and expensive as they provide a good revenue stream. For instance, looking at the sony proprietary memory stick format, it costs about twice as much as equivilent SDHC cards do right now. I don't think that SxS or P2 will come down in price nearly as fast as a mass market format -- but I wouldn't be surprised to find adapters in that formfactor that take SDHC or SDXC cards in the future.

"There's absolutely nothing at all limiting about the current crop of gear, except the extent of the creative impulse of the person who's holding it."

Amen to that.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Canon come up with next, since they haven't made a major upgrade since the XHA(L)1 which i already own. Also, they don't make 30K cameras, and have no reason to "protect" the pricier models.

What keeps me using P2 is the incredibly beautiful color, presumably from the 4:2:2 DVCPRO HD codec. The other factor I find important is the ability to examine frame-by-frame video from sports or other high-motion activities. Long GOP just isn't the same when looking at frames. For TV production, none of this is probably important, as they compress everything as much as they can anyway.