Looks like 2010 will go down as the year new DV TAPE cameras really did disappear from the consumer and prosumer markets.

At this years CES there's a mix of Standard and HiDef, with your choice of hard drive, SD, SDHC and SDXC memory cards. Zoom lens can now go out to 78x, very advanced image stabilisation, face recognition, scene detection, night vision, wireless upload and more.

Panasonic released 6 new models, Sony 13, JVC 10, Canon 9, Samsung 3, Sanyo 2, Toshiba 2 and Yashica 1 .. are there any others?

So that's 46! NEW DV cameras with only ONE running tape .. it's the current Canon HV40 so it's not a new release it's still in production from last year.

But it looks like being the very last mini DV tape cam .. and I think that signals the end of magnetic tape as a recording medium. If so it's a historic year bringing a tear to many an eye including mine.

Of course tape cams are still on sale and in use by TV and production outfits but they'll dry up ... and faster after folk read this.

My point is .. crunch time is coming for all DV camera owners who have a tape camera and a library of valuable tapes and who among us doesn't.

To continue to be able to play that library you've got to make some choices, not right away but soon.

1. Put a tape camera aside only for playing the library.
2. Edit and transfer all tape videos to DVD, too hard for most folk.
3. Cull the library then transfer to DVD at a camera shop somewhere.
4. Set up and start a business doing this.
5. Forget it.

But have folk lost interest? Is there a head in the sand attitude to these new cameras? Is the choice of CMOS or 3CCD together with solid state storage too difficult for people? Has the economic downturn affected things?

The introduction of the Canon 5D and 7D still cameras that shoot great quality video hasn't made the choice easier for folk and has just confused the issue even more.

So where are we now?

Cheers.

Interesting but I'm having a little déja entendu here.

When CDs were introduced, that was going to be the cue for throwing away all audio cassette tapes. I didn't, and they all still play. The audio recording of my wedding in 1979 was transferred to CD in the mid 1990s. The CD no longer plays, but the audio cassette does. (It is backed up on HD and remote server as well).

I remember reading nostalgic articles about how turntables and vinyl disks were once used to reproduce music, and how everyone ditched their LPs. I didn't, and am interested to observe the healthy number of USB turntables currently on the market.

My Super 8 film archive was backed up on VHS, and more recently on DV tapes and hard drives. I still prefer to watch them on the original film. It is useful to have these backups though. I can still buy lamps for the Standard/Super 8 combo projector which I bought in 1980, and if the joints in the film come apart, it's fun to cement them back together. The cement and editing kits are still available.

All my 9 years' worth of DV tapes survive in perfect health to the best of my knowledge. Not so the hard drives in the cameras of a couple of unfortunate acquaintances, and three USB flash drives and two CompactFlash cards of mine.

Where I am now? About to buy an HV40 to add to the 2 work owned HV30s I use and I have been thinking about option 4 for a wee while now.

I did ditch quite a few films on VHS because the DVD version was better quality, easier to use and had extra features so I'm not a total Luddite, more of a realist.

All change is not progress. But some really, really is. I won't wax nostalgic about cheap consumer video tape, or the myriad of professional tape formats out there. They have/had their place. But for those of us trying to deliver product via tape it was an absolute nightmare. This one only could read DVCPro ($8k deck), that one could only handle DVCam ($10k), the other had some proprietary thing I couldn't deliver to so everything had to be transcoded. BAH!

Tape can be ok for archival purposes, but for moving things around from production to post, or post to broadcast, it was the pits. I'll take tapeless any day over that mess. And amazing, I don't have to buy any decks. And it doesn't matter what kind of computer the two parties may have. It all just works.. even though it may take a little massaging sometimes. And I can make copies without loss. And I can review my archival material without causing further degradation.

During production, I can put 24 hours of footage in my jacket pocket. Try that with pro tape or film. I can make copies of an hour of footage for $30. How much does an hour of film cost? And what's the cost to copy it?

So we can walk down memory lane all we like. There is a reason that we move forward. And often they are good reasons. Or maybe you guys would like to hand back your 52" plasmas for a B&W Philco.

Perrone wrote:

During production, I can put 24 hours of footage in my jacket pocket.

Yes, but i can also lose 24 hours of production from my jacket pocket..:)
I couldn't resist that one..It was too easy.

No, seriously, this is a topic that keeps coming up, and an issue that keeps going around in circles.
I strongly believe that it's up to each individual's industry, needs, workflow and output..There isn't any finished forumula..
Tape is still viable to many people, including myself. But until all the manufacturers abandon tape, it will still be around for many people.

I will be giving up that massive time spent putting data into the computer in real time, then turning around and meticulously working on seconds of the video for minutes, taking 60-100 times as long as it takes to toss the video onto the computer.
then outputting it to BruRay for 24 HOURS. wow i am soo gratefull they improved the "workflow" to save me that 2 hours out of the month :-)
now i will have to figure out how i am going to spend that extra 1-1/2 hours i saved , what will i do?? i know figure out how to archive it without tape :-)

not everyone tosses out thier camera the day the new kid comes to town, some people hold onto things untill all the bugs are worked out. as professionals we might be forced into playing the $$$$ game to stay up to date, but there are still consumers out there who thier single closet camera will last 8-10 years, and who arent going to replace it on a whim.

Who can make us feel that tape completly dissapeared this year better than the people selling/reviewing the new stuff. but since when did reviewers/sellers actually have to pay for anything or even use it :-)
SD DVD is going to be running for a lot longer, making viable still recording on any good ol stuff out there, unless your feeding broadcasters.
Look at the STUFF on youtube that has 1 million + views do they Require chips to do that? the web still dont know if you used tape or chip, because it cant deliver what the tape could even.

These Video SALES shows dont live in reality, just because THEY are trying to re-sell us all the new round of equiptment doesnt mean that they will immediataly. If i was to believe everything i saw on the sales floor i would have 2 perpetual energy machines running my house :-)
I could go to a home show and have someone show me a $2500 refridgerator, and be wowed by it, it doesnt mean i will own one, or even EVER will. shows dont define what everyone does, even if they define what we might like to have.

I have spent over 1 Million dollers on equipment throughout the ages, and can still pull up tape stuff done 20+ years ago for a customer, it is still Good if the content and the work were done well, even if the master it is on is fully obsolete. If your script is good, if your content is good, if you put the work and thought into it, it wont die as quickly at all.
no i dont watch 50 year old black and white films or use the word classic :-) but people do.

So while digital takes over eventually, and tape beomes obsolete, except for the 7000 hours i have stored , i think it would be good for everyone to remember the Quaility of the content they deliver, can be more important than the media it comes on this week.

It's a bit like the Mac vs PC (and related software) argument for doing graphic design layout work. You can't tell by looking at the finished art.

In the end, it's just a toolset. The artist is where the difference is.

Andrew

I defy anyone here to name 1 HD tape format that meets broadcast muster that a person NOT in broadcast can afford at home.

Sure, you've got mini-DV, SVHS, and even the odd person with a Betamax or whatever. But MODERN TV is HD. And sorry, the average person is NOT going to drop $18k on a DVCProHD deck or $80k on HDCamSR, or $50k on basic HDCam hardware. It's a no go for *TODAY'S* production.

Even in the world of modern SD production, with IMX and similar standards you're still talking about $30k decks. You guys really consider that an option for the wedding guy? For the guy doing docu, with an HMC150, or even with a DVX100, when he has to deliver?

@Marty Sounds like you need to spend some of that $1M sorting out your HD workflow. My BluRay's are done in 2 hours with a 1.5 year old burner. Not sure why you're having issues.

""@Marty Sounds like you need to spend some of that $1M sorting out your HD workflow. My BluRay's are done in 2 hours with a 1.5 year old burner. Not sure why you're having issues.""

I spent 1 Million on Stuff over Years, that now i couldnt get $500 bucks for, its a money PIT, i am not spending 1 million in any single year just to pleasure japan :-)

you Fully Encode a 2 hour blue ray in <2 hours? when it takes me some 4+ hours to fully 2 pass encode Plus 30+min to properly write a regular DVD master DVD-RW. with 2 processors running floored at almost 4Gig. they must have made some amasing advancements, or some major corner cutting.

and let me guess, it only takes you an hour to color and luma correct 300 seperate clips too right? 15 minutes to edit a movie ?

we used to do tape to tape analog edting, in 1/10th the time it took to shove stuff into the computer and piddle with it there. Live color and luma correction, live sound and equalisation, live cuts edits, even live transistions when done right.
so now they are saving us an hour or so with Flash chips, i am just saying that for vast quantities of people, the difference between chip and tape isnt all the difference in the world, its 2 lunch breaks :-)

""@Marty Sounds like you need to spend some of that $1M sorting out your HD workflow. My BluRay's are done in 2 hours with a 1.5 year old burner. Not sure why you're having issues.""

you Fully Encode a 2 hour blue ray in <2 hours? when it takes me some 4+ hours to fully 2 pass encode Plus 30+min to properly write a regular DVD master DVD-RW. with 2 processors running floored at almost 4Gig. they must have made some amasing advancements, or some major corner cutting.

and let me guess, it only takes you an hour to color and luma correct 300 seperate clips too right?

I thought you were talking about burning. Encoding can take a while depending on source material. Especially if you are doing 2-pass. I rarely use VBR so I don't do 2-pass often.

I've never had to do 300 clips in one sitting, but it would certainly take longer than an hour.

oh :-(
i am just saying people shouldnt fret about thier tape being obsolete tomorrow, there is much and much Stuff beyond getting it in the computer working on it and getting it out again. a few hours extra feeding it into the computer isnt going to be the thing that destroys a video.
Potentially you can even use those hours of feeding into the computer to View the thing, take notes, or see what needs to be done. Can you even watch the video when feeding in a chip?
the tape to chip change ONLY doesnt make a world of differance.

the tape to chip change ONLY doesnt make a world of differance.

My contention is that it does, when you've got to foot the bill. What is the cost for a single tape and a deck that can play 1080p. Any full raster format will do...

An hour's worth costs me $38 on the EX1. Assuming I don't reuse it.

And the opposite is also true
why would you pay for someone to do Nothing?
say i have an editor hired for $50 an hour, if the data is painfully slowly going into the computer in real time, and i am paying $50 for it, then they better be taking notes, and watching for what they are going to do.
if the chip is going in in 1/4th that time, am i going to pay them to sit there watching the data move, when they cant even SEE it?

yes good HD cost a billion dollers, but many people are making much and much good stuff in HDV , so there still is HD on tape, mabey it doesnt meet your specs for being up to par, but it is still HD and looks pretty good.

yes good HD cost a billion dollers, but many people are making much and much good stuff in HDV , so there still is HD on tape, mabey it doesnt meet your specs for being up to par, but it is still HD and looks pretty good.

It has zero to do with *MY* specs. I still shoot HDV (tapeless) when necessary, but it doesn't meet broadcaster's specs for HD. For the home shooter that's immaterial. But in the big boy game, that equals a no-sale. And you know this.

in what they are saying and all valid points. But it still comes down to JVC tape based camera owners are stuffed if this is the way its heading. Stuffed because depending on the punter they can't afford to now buy a solid state recorder to continue using their camera, or simply they can afford it ,but now I got to fork out $5000 for a Nano flash to keep working, plus another $1000 for CF cards, and then a CF reader.

I buy the HDPro tapes at $10 each, so $6000 is a few years worth of safe and secure tape shooting.
True tapes are a pain to capture, I use the DRDH100 recorder to dump onto my computer for editing, but firewire is a little unreliable and the connector losses contact easy causing drop out or stopping of recording, that's where ol reliable tape comes back into it to save the day. Sure dropouts do occur, but honestly with the ProHD tapes i very very rarely do get a hit

Until solid state media is priced the same as tapes, and then can be used as a viable archiving medium, I think tape demise is still premature.

Until solid state media is priced the same as tapes, and then can be used as a viable archiving medium, I think tape demise is still premature.

Remind me again what it costs to shoot full raster 1080p onto tape like we do to solid state...

Remind me again what you solid state guys have to do to hand off footage to a client at the end of a day of shooting?

Tape and SS each have their strong points and their weaknesses. The way I see it today is that tape's BIGGEST weakness is it appears to be on the endangered species list!

Remind me again what you solid state guys have to do to hand off footage to a client at the end of a day of shooting?

Tape and SS each have their strong points and their weaknesses. The way I see it today is that tape's BIGGEST weakness is it appears to be on the endangered species list!

Depends on the client.

If it's a paying gig, I hand them them the SDHC cards if they so choose. They bought them. But usually, I am doing post, so I don't hand them anything that day. I hand them a DVD or BluRay of the footage upon request. I can buy a day's worth of SDHC for what 2 hours of full raster tape costs. And I don't need a $80k deck to record it.

Tape has been on life support since $400 consumer cameras were shooting to solid state two years ago. The writing has been on the wall for YEARS. Manufacturers have quickly abandoned offering new tape models. I think the last time I looked at B&H, the count was something like 50:1 of solid state to tape offerings.

NLEs have been embracing solid state centric workflows for years now. Even Avid has been phasing out it's tape capture workflow in favor of solid state (AMA) workflows.

Ok but also consider that that full raster tape (I'm assuming you're talking HDCamSR) comes with a LOT of extras, like 12 channels of 24 bit uncompressed audio, a much higher bitrate... If you want to point out one format's weaknesses, you need to point out the weaknesses of the other.

FTR, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I AM however engaging in debate. I quite respect Perrone and his positions. Even when (as it sometimes happens) we disagree.

And likewise I have a deep respect for Shaun and I am too engaging in healthy debate here. This kind of discourse is sorely lacking on a lot of subjects and it's really nice to be able to hash some of this stuff out without the petty bickering that too often happens. So on that note...

Yes, HDCamSR brings a LOT to the table. The problem is that there is ZERO middle ground. If you want full raster on tape, you get to spend $75k-$85k on the deck, and my check on B&H showed $139 per hour for the tapes. There is no "bargain" 1080p tape. Contrast this with the plethora of options in solid state. Everything from $500 handycams shooting 1080p, to dedicated units like the NanoFlash (220Mbps, I-Frame 4:2:2), or the Wafian units, up to the uncompressed units from people like Codex. There is something for every budget.

So in solid state, the media is significantly cheaper, we move away from real-time capture, you save thousands or tens of thousands on a deck (and so does your client), And if you really need to handle a lot of media (say a remote documentary where you need 200hrs worth of footage storage) you can carry that in a small bag. Try doing that with tapes.

Solid state wins in nearly every category you can name for storage media. The exception might be archival suitability. But with 25GB BluRays sitting at about $1.50 in bulk pricing, that's pretty darn cheap for short term archive needs. I don't know what the long term archive solution will be for solid state. Hollywood doesn't know either, though printing to film seems to be the solution du jour at the moment along with data tape backup. My current solution is opticals rotated every 2 years. Price is right, and it's easy enough to do. Current speeds are about the same as tape, but by that point of the workflow, the pressure is off.

I went through this decision process in 2003, and couldn't find a solid reason to stay on tape. So I moved to solid state. Best decision I ever made in video. Never regretted it for even a second. Early on, I did archive finished work to full-size DV tapes, but eventually that gave way to DVDs.

also guys, the issue here is the small minidv tape used for JVC HDPro cameras, sorry haven't read any media release statements to know what other formats are inclusive, but we're talking about a $10 Aus tape. And I use my camera as a deck if I need to refer to the tape if my HDD capture fails. So my HD251e is rarely used as a vtr, but it's there if I need it.
And agree the prices they ask for pro vtrs is pathetic. But anything with pro added to the title adds to price, and im glad the industry is moving away from HDCam deliverables etc. With Blueray and all the rest it is antiquated. But still doesn't help us with Tape Driven cameras.

I really hope this doesn't mean they are going to quit making the tapes anytime soon. I would however like to have a sony nxcam, but with the price of the cam there is no way for me not to mention the expensive sd cards that not included with the cam itself.

but with the price of the cam there is no way for me not to mention the expensive sd cards that not included with the cam itself.

SD cards cost WAY less than tape. Not sure what you mean.

Tapes from much older formats are still available, so I think we might be right for a while. Hopefully.

Andrew

SD cards cost WAY less than tape. There is no math in any part of the known Universe where this is true if you use them identically. Single use, archive on shelf or give to client, tape is infinitely cheaper. Multiple use over and over, although not sure why you'd do this with tape (but many people do), tape is still infinitely cheaper.

It's only when you compare hundreds of re-uses of cards to single use of tape where cards come out cheaper. But this is apples and oranges.

Not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to go tapeless, including quicker capture/transfer and fewer dropouts, but cost isn't one of them. Unless you can find 16GB SD cards for two bucks.

There is no math in any part of the known Universe where this is true if you use them identically.


Use them identically? How about if you use them as they are intended to be used? Tape get's one pass, cards get as many passes as your heart desires.


Single use, archive on shelf or give to client, tape is infinitely cheaper. Multiple use over and over, although not sure why you'd do this with tape (but many people do), tape is still infinitely cheaper.


Come on now...


It's only when you compare hundreds of re-uses of cards to single use of tape where cards come out cheaper. But this is apples and oranges.



Cards are *designed* to be used over and over. Tapes are not. Using each medium as designed is not apples and oranges. It's apples to apples. Using each medium as it was NOT designed to be used (single pass solid state, or multi-pass tape) is the apples to oranges.



Not saying there aren't plenty of reasons to go tapeless, including quicker capture/transfer and fewer dropouts, but cost isn't one of them. Unless you can find 16GB SD cards for two bucks.

Where are you finding 1920x1080 tapes for $2? Since we're comparing apples to apples... In fact, where are you finding HDV tapes for $2? Or are you just talking about finding the absolute cheapest media that will fit in your camera?

Cost for 1 hr of SDHC (~40):
Amazon.com: Transcend 16 GB Class 6 SDHC Flash Memory Card TS16GSDHC6: Electronics


Cost for 1hr of full raster tape (~140):
Sony BCT64SR HDCAM SR Videocassette, Large BCT64SR - B&H Photo


Cost for 1hr of decent quality HDV tape (~$8)
Sony DVM-63HD HDV Cassette (63 Minutes) DVM63HDR - B&H Photo


Assuming we allow the apples to oranges of full raster solid state SDHC to thin raster HDV tape, the SDHC is 5 times higher if each is used a single time. That's hardly what I'd call infinite, as you referred to it. More expensive certainly, but hardly outside of the realm of "normal" in the world of professional video. Frankly, I don't know anyone who uses their solid state cards less than 5 times, so that would seem to put the cost favor to solid state. If we do what I consider the apples to apples test of full raster solid state to full raster tape, the solid state option is 1/3 the price. Even if just used a single time. That is assuming we ignore the $80k worth of recording equipment. Because that would certainly pay for a LOT of hours of solid state.

Maybe THAT should be the apples to apples comparison.

Total costs out the door to record one hour of 1920 x 1080p onto:

1. Solid state as cheaply as possible
2. Tape as cheaply as possible.

Sony Premiums at various online vendors are about $2 each, or 1/20th of the cost of the $40 SDHC card. I'm still in the HDV world so that's apples to apples for me.

Of course you can find horrendously expensive tapes. HDV tapes are a waste of money and I know you already know that. It's misleading to imply that they are the most economical "decent" quality.

Matt's point was that SD cards are more expensive than tapes of the same length. And he's right. For a kid like him, this can be a significant expense. You're in a different league than he is and your workflow and logic don't apply to him.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the re-use issue. But there still isn't a good, economical archiving option with cards. And I say this as a guy who no longer really uses tape at all. When I switched to MRCs and CF cards, I had to spend thousands on cards so I'd have plenty to see me through long multicam shoots. It took me years to spend thousands on tapes. Of course this will amortize out in the long run but it was and is a significant upfront expense.

And I still don't have an archive solution that is both as economical and reliable as tape.

Sony Premiums at various online vendors are about $2 each, or 1/20th of the cost of the $40 SDHC card. I'm still in the HDV world so that's apples to apples for me.


Ok, 1/20th. About the gap between my SDHC cards and the Sony SXS cards.


Of course you can find horrendously expensive tapes. HDV tapes are a waste of money and I know you already know that. It's misleading to imply that they are the most economical "decent" quality.


I don't know that HDV tapes are a waste of money. I've never shot HDV to tape in my life. And I am not in the habit of saying the manufacturers don't know what they're talking about. Maybe HDV tape and DV tape are exactly the same. Maybe they aren't.

When I said economical, decent quality, that came from surveying the HDV tape options on B&H which ranged from $7.29 to 19.99. I didn't peruse the DV tape options since we were talking about HD.


Matt's point was that SD cards are more expensive than tapes of the same length. And he's right. For a kid like him, this can be a significant expense. You're in a different league than he is and your workflow and logic don't apply to him.


SD cards have no length. That's another one of the beauties about solid state. I can put 4 hours of video onto $40 card, or I can barely fit 1 hour. Heck, I could put 20 hours on it if I wanted. I have the choice.

Media costs are ALWAYS a significant expense. For me, looking at the 50 miniDV tapes I have on my wall right now with no other purpose in life except to gather dust... that represents a significant expense. If those were cards I had bought, even at 5x the price, I'd have saved a ton of money. I tend to look at costs overall. Not just the upfront costs. That's false economy.


I'm not disagreeing with you on the re-use issue. But there still isn't a good, economical archiving option with cards. And I say this as a guy who no longer really uses tape at all. When I switched to MRCs and CF cards, I had to spend thousands on cards so I'd have plenty to see me through long multicam shoots. It took me years to spend thousands on tapes. Of course this will amortize out in the long run but it was and is a significant upfront expense.


I consider BluRay a good, economical archival solution. It's not perfect by any means, but it's as cheap as tape, if not cheaper.


And I still don't have an archive solution that is both as economical and reliable as tape.

We may not have one for a very long time. So do we stop shooting? Or do we press ahead with what we have and do the best we can?

We most assuredly do the latter.

As operations manager at a production house, I insisted no one go out to shoot without capturing to two media. A few years ago that might be to cards and hard drive (via Firestore DTEs) or tape and hard drive. It was simply too expensive or impossible to reshoot certain events. Being a pro means never having to say your sorry and we never had to explain to a client: "We goofed on the recording." We never lost a second of coverage due to a medium failure. That doesn't mean media failed. We saw losses on tape, cards, and hard drives. But we always had a backup which saved the day.

Today, I see a lot of folks recording to one piece of medium. I wince at that but it's your skin. While I record to hard drives, my tape becomes my backup and easy archive method: Label it, throw it in a box.

HDV is still better for most applications in which I'm again. I don't have to upgrade. And if someone needs the occasional 100mbps quality, I go to the NanoFlash. Tape will still backup the whole deal.

Finally, folks believe there is something inherently wrong or obsolete about tape. In fact, it's crutch is that it's far more expensive to make tape drives than card drives. Tapes could have been the medium for AVCHD capture. In fact, research had shown that miniDV is capable of bit rates as high as 60mpbs and beyond but it comes to down to price. Tape is going away not because of any quality or technical issue. It's going away because of its relative high price.

Dave Burckhard

I'm a proud XL2 user, I do plan to get some solid state recording going on it too but that is ASWELL. I like tape, I won't be ditching it until I feel 100% secure to do so.

Well said Jace, glad you like tape so much. I have just had two consecutive tapes screw up on me, they are now in the bin. I did my last tape job in August 2010 and have never looked back. As for archival quality, my bin can give you an honest answer to that.

Will be selling both my Canon XL1s and a1

That sucks, I'm weary of tape so I like to have 2 methods of video storage/capture.
I've only ever had 2 tapes fail on me, 1 from the condensation issue Sony cameras had and the other was hit by a car (inside the camera) the tape was taped together and partly works.

Hi Shooters:
There are a few points in this thread which have not come out, which I think are well worth pointing out. I work in a professional production and post production environment. First, we always shoot double system. We shoot HDV recorded to wonderful tape inside the camera, plus we simultaneously shoot solid state as our primary source acquisition using a Convergent Design solid state digital HD Flash XDR Recorder/Player. The XDR is a much more versatile unit, but uses the exact same technology as the smaller Nano Flash device. Here a few points to consider.......

1. Unfortunately, through no fault of Convergent Design, Avid Media Composer has a serious realtime capture limitation in regard to source Time Code recorded in the XDR or the Nano Flash.
*Neither the Avid Adrenaline, or Mojo DX, or Nitris DX external Digital Non-Linear Accelerator I/O boxes can De-embed the source TC in the HD-SDI stream output from the Nano or Flash XDR ! This is huge for our post workflow and many other post facilities ! Why ? I can think of about 12 reasons why you would want to capture source audio, video, and TC information in realtime to Avid's DNxHD codec. Almost all of them are for post audio re-synchronization, and realtime output reasons.

I have been on the phone with CD and Dan Keaton pleading for them to enable the RS-422 interface on the Flash XDR just so the TC signal can be passed out during in box play back in the XDR allowing us to feed source TC into our Adrenaline box during realtime capture to Avid DNxHD codec @ 23.976p!

2. The fallacy of clip based import from solid state media being faster than realtime capture. We have not found this to be true at all ! Even with what Avid refers to as "fast clip import," realtime capture is by far faster from tape ingest - particular HDV. HDV offers one the added possibility of ingest via standard fire wire as well as via the Adrenaline interface. HDCAM SR decks allow for 2 x times high speed realtime capture !

**Again, through no fault of Convergent Design's Nano or Flash XDR SSDR's, or Canon, who manufacture excellent quality HDV cameras and Sony who make great HDV VTR's, Avid cannot capture Canon's 24F format (24p over 59.94i via realtime 3:2 pull down removal) via fire wire with source TC ! The only way to get Canon's 24F in via fire wire interface in MC is to crash record with the source TC capture button turned off ! This is a serious functionality oversight on Avid's part !

3. Thick Raster HD HDV format is not acceptable for broadcast. Well, this is not strictly true. Discovery's Deadliest Catch and Storm Chasers both have used much HDV source material in their programs. We shot a high profile documentary last year in Montreal on the homeless using a heavy mix of both full raster HD 1920 x 1080 23.976p 4:2:2 on the Flash XDR along with HDV 1440 x 1080 Canon 24F (23.976p) and hand held Kodak Zi8 at 1080p30. You go watch that Doc online by clicking here at A Home is More than Four Walls and a Roof - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Fyb-0Jp1w) then come back and tell me which is the HDV footage and which id the Full Raster HD footage ?

4. The HDV m2t MPEG - 2 encoder in the XL H1 produces images on HDV tape far superior, in my opinion, to that of comparable HDV in Sony Camcorders. HDV can be primary and secondary color timed up to match very well with full raster HD images, as you can see in the Doc we shot. I think tape has a continued place in TV stations as well as for backup to solid state digital HD acquisition.

5. HDV tape should not be re-used and has inherent drop outs. False ! We have not experienced a single HDV audio or video drop out from HDV tape acquisition. Not even once. We re-used Sony 63 and 80 minute HDV cassettes up to 5 times and we still cannot see or hear any glitches whatsoever.

6. HDV tape is no different than DV tape. False ! HDV uses a completely different Long GOP signal recording method, which allows for a higher bias and wider signal path than DV. For this reason, HDV head tracking is less critical with more error correction, thus virtually eliminating video tape drop outs. The HDV format is actually fairly robust in comparison to DV.

Mark Job

Well said Jace, glad you like tape so much. I have just had two consecutive tapes screw up on me, they are now in the bin. I did my last tape job in August 2010 and have never looked back. As for archival quality, my bin can give you an honest answer to that.

It's all due to cost-cutting. Tapes maufactured within the past year or so are of generally lower quality than those of even five years ago: The oxide or metal-particle layers begin flaking off too soon on these newer-manufacture tapes.

I was involved with tape manufacture and that can't be true, the majors are still using the same plants with the same quality manufacturing processes they've used for years.

Even from a marketing recall situation there'd be trouble, re the bad shipment that Sony admitted and publicised recently.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/487572-sony-admits-bad-batch-es-hdv-tape.html

The major players have understandably slowed the development of new tape formulations and eventually when new tape sales fall below a certain level, they'll sell their plants to start up outfits who want to make a quick buck. They'll cut costs like packaging etc.

But the gigantic third world market for tape is as big as ever, it'll be a while yet.

Cheers.

Although most of the time this is not an issue, there is another aspect no one mentioned yet: uninterrupted recording. Sure, it doesn't happen too often, but sometimes you just can't afford to stop for tape replacement.

I record to $200-300 64GB CF cards - can put up to 6 hours of uninterrupted 720P24 video on one card. Use this card only 8-10 times and it comes to the price of good quality tape; use it 100 times and it's practically for free.

And the recorder is under $1K...

Looks like Canon finally called time on the HV40, but is still listing some other tape models on the UK site at least:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xa-vixia-series-avchd-camcorders/502956-farewell-hv-series.html

Uh oh Col. The next news we'll read from Canon will be ..

'From (date) Canon will no longer support the HV20/30/40 series of video cameras'.

Hopefully years from now but that will signal the end of that famous line. As I said in post 1 if you have a library of DV tapes it's worthwhile keeping one in good condition to play your library.

Cheers.

Allan,

You make a good point here. All the tapes that have been archived will only be valid as long as you have a player/reader. Just take a look at audio cassettes or VHS, how many players can you buy now? Probably a handful today, but what about next year or the year after ........

Tape is not quite dead yet. In the data world, LT0-5 and LTO-6 are gaining traction as the more viable long-term archival medium. I'm all P2 and solid state acquisition. But what I noticed is that 1 Tb hdds archived past 4-5 years won't spin up. I didn't perform the yearly refresh to minimize the demagnetize effect. But it's a very scary thing to find out that hdd is not ideal for cold archive.

I'm seriously considering getting a new LTO-6 tape drive to archive those priceless footage + regular 3 Tb hdds. This will give better peace of mind vs. two 3 Tb hdds. Do not want to wait 5 years later and find out that the 3 Tb hdds will not be readable.

The trouble is that everything eventually becomes redundant, that is the nature of technology. The only sure way of preserving data is to move with the times. As a photographer I was seeking the best way to archive my digital files, the solution was found in old technology, simply print the photos and you have hard copy. Using pigment inks the prints will last for 200+ years.

Not sure how I can do the same with movie files.

Looking for a solution to tapeless capture for my Sony Fx-1. Is there an easy way of capturing to a tapeless format?

I was thinking component to HD or something to that effect. However, I'm not finding much of a solution...
I can't seem to find anything doing searches on the forums.

The only solution I can find plausible is using a Kanex Pro component to hdmi and using something like the atmos ninja. Is this the only solution?

Thanks.

Do you mean shooting to tapeless? Sony makes the MRC1k for shooting to card or the DR60 for shooting to Hard Disk. Both are specifically designed to work with your cam.

There's a specific subforum here for those:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-hard-drive-memory-card-recorders/

Looking for a solution to tapeless capture for my Sony Fx-1. Is there an easy way of capturing to a tapeless format?

I was thinking component to HD or something to that effect. However, I'm not finding much of a solution...
I can't seem to find anything doing searches on the forums.

The only solution I can find plausible is using a Kanex Pro component to hdmi and using something like the atmos ninja. Is this the only solution?

Thanks.

My friend, the FX-1 is a tape cam from 2005. Purchasing something like MRC1k (750 $ more or less) in 2013 is a waste of money.

Sony HVR-MRC1 Memory Recording Unit HVR-MRC1K B&H Photo Video
Sony Product Detail Page HVRMRC1K (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-HVRMRC1K/)



Actually, you have a CANON HF-G20 for little more money and... probably better video quality. Is VERY similar to your SONY FX-1.
Or CANON HF-G30, similar cam but with x20 optical zoom, 50p and classic zoom rocket. All tapeless, with dual sd card slots.
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : VIXIA HF G30 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/consumer_camcorders/vixia_hf_g30)

But if you want more info about external recorders, watch this video.
Datavideo's DN-60 versus Sony's HVR-MRC1K HD Video Recorder part 2 - YouTube

I bet for Canon HF-G30 versus external recorder (and don't forget that external recorder needs external power, external batery or something similar!!!!!; another thing that can go wrong working).
I bet

if you skip on the tape, the FX1 is an excellent camera, , one of the last 3 CCD at its best.
Picture blends very well with my EX1 and do not suffer from all the inconvenience of CMOS.

I bet for Canon HF-G30 versus external recorder (and don't forget that external recorder needs external power, external batery or something similar!!!!!; another thing that can go wrong working).
I bet

If bet I would have had a sony hvr-dr60 a few years ago when I just got my brandnew canon xh-a1, I wouldn't have lost 1 full hour of wedding footage due to over a 100 dropouts on a brand-new tape and a camera that never gave any type of warning. When I got my sony hvr-dr60 just after that to prevent that kind of disaster again it had been the best investment I made. With one battery I could film 4,5 hours continuously and still have battery power left and the recorder performed flawless in about 4 years. I sold the camera and recorder a few months ago but if it wasn't for it's poor low light performance I certainly would not have gotten rid of that combination.

An aside, since this is audio tape; BBC News - Press rewind: The cassette tape returns (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22533522)

I'm not sure if the tape retro will apply to imaging, since film seems to have the retro corner.

A few months ago I started the process of migrating away from tape when I bought a Canon XA10 and incorporated it into my camera package for wedding and event videography, along side my venerable pair of Sony V1U HDV cameras.

Still somewhat leery of using memory media every shoot I have had the XA10 in the mode where dual slot SD's are both recording simultaneously. However I have been using Canon approved media and have not ever had a single problem with a SD card.

This week I got in my first Atomos Ninja to use with the Sony V1U. After a quick test shooting with it and then editing on our Sony Vegas Pro 11 system I ordered a second one for the second V1.

I will still simultaneously record to tape as a safety, at least for a awhile!

I have 3 tape-based video cameras and have owned the XF305 for six months now. I bought the Focus FS-CF Pro to make sure I could use my older cameras in case my laptop firewire quit working or I replaced it with one without firewire, as I've noticed they are getting scarce.

I don't mind the capture process. If I have a large number of tapes to capture, I use multiple laptops where possible.
My workflow with the XF305 is currently not saving me any time when it comes to handling the footage.

I can't just pop in a fresh tape once the media is full. In the field, I have to copy the CF cards to my Nexto portable HDD storage device, erase the cards and reinstall them in the camera. Once I get access to a laptop, I transfer the files off the Nexto to a portable HDD as an archive copy, then open the Canon XF Utility program and copy the files yet again (using the EXPORT AS .MXF files function) and these files are what I use for editing. In the future, I know I'll need to have a better archival scheme, such as "off-site" and more reliable media.

With tape, I slap a label on it, stuff a fresh one in the camera and ready to shoot. After capture, the tape goes in a safe place as my archive.

Bottom line is that my experience so far with a tapeless workflow is that it didn't make anything easier and in fact I find whenever I'm about to reformat one of my CF cards there's a bit of a pucker factor as I hope I didn't mix things up and end up erasing the only existing copy.

You avoid that kind of mixup by having enough extra CF cards on hand. When you reach about 75% capacity on one (I avoid filling up media cards) simply remove it (after stopping the recording), pop in a fresh one and "roll on".

Using something like the Pelican media cases place unrecorded media cards in with brand label facing up, already recorded go in face down. You can have the media cards permanently numbered (I'd use a Sharpie marker) and an assistant can "log" the card number and what's on it in a small notebook).

I would never erase/reformat a used card on location.

I "archive" original files on a pair of 2TB external hard drives with a third standing by in case one of the pair exhibits the slightest indication of a problem.