P2 Media Cards vs FIRESTORE 3 hour Value price test.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : Hi Mathieu Ghekiere!

Since you are talking about a movie, in this case Snake eye's. Well that's a 24fps production. No problem....

There are at least two slots on the HVX200 and if your filming at 720p 24fps and you have 2 4gig P2's loaded, then that is going to give you around 13 minutes on each one. With two in the cam you have 26 minutes. Not a problem. And since you said 12 minutes, one P2 4gig will do.

That's great news isn't! Well for your example at least.


Michael Pappas
http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS -->>> -->>>

Well, yeah it's great news, but I don't have the money for the cam anyway :-p But maybe I'll rob a bank or something ;-)
I think some third party maybe, will come with a hard disk that will give you the ability to record longer times, I don't worry so much about the whole P2 thing, I think panasonic and other companies will realise they would have to come with a solution at one time, and I'm sure they will, even if it isn't for right away.
So I still have time to rob my bank ;-)

[Zack Birlew]

Eh, I think some of you guys are being a little childish about this. I wouldn't necessarily compare my work to something such as "The Player" and I wouldn't even say that my work may some day resemble another movie. Most of us here on DVinfo.net wouldn't find a reason to even attempt a long take exceeding 4 minutes unless:

1. It's an effects shot, such as blowing something up.

2. It's a one time deal shot, such as a natural weather occurence or a current occurence like a family of bears walking right past you.

3. It's an artistic shot that expresses something about the movie.

4. It's a documentary and it calls for a long take.

Other than that, there's nothing to complain about. Event videographers, sports guys, and documentarists, this camera can work for you right away, but you will need to buy a couple more P2 cards than an indie filmmaker would. P2 can shoot continuously, all you have to do is swap cards out and put them back in. When I think about it, 3 cards is ideal:

Card 1 is full, continue shooting on Card 2 and offload Card 1, replace with Card 3, Card 2 gets full, continue shooting on Card 3 and offload Card 2, replace with Card 1, Card 3 gets full, continue shooting with Card 1 and offload Card 3, replace with Card 2, ect. ect.

The answer also lies in rental houses. If the shot is something like blowing up a car and many angles are needed, use your 1 camera that you own and rent as many P2 cards and additional cameras as needed for the shot. That should be only one day's charge. Not much at all.

Another thing to do is have your actors/actresses run through the scene and practice as many times as possible to cut down bloopers/flubs/burfers/screw ups/ or whatever as much as possible. Yes, it takes longer initially, but it saves both time and money in the long run because what's better, dumping an entire P2 card of bad takes or dumping a P2 card with one or two bad takes with a good and terrific take? Happens in film all the time and Jackie Chan complains about it all the time, "You'a wase owa film!" in all the bloopers.

Finally, if you know what you're doing with movies, then you would know that long takes bore the audience to death most of the time, their eyes get tired even if they see Harrison Ford in the same position for 3 minutes straight, no cuts at all. Fast cuts, smooth cuts, whatever cut you do is necessary to keep the audience's attention and to, most importantly, keep them awake. "The Player" got away with this because it was an interesting introduction to the movie and it doubled as an opening credits shot, so the audience was kept in attention thanks in part to the credit flashes. Forget the camera, how many of you would actually take the time and money to rent enough microphones and block every single little thing in one long take perfectly so that everything matched exactly how it was supposed to? "The Player" though cinematically great, had some pretty bad audio in my opinion and most of it was during that beginning shot. See? Even the pros mess up sometimes.

I for one, appreciate the limb that Panasonic is climbing on to with this new camera. They're not stupid, they knew many would be cheesed off about the P2 capacities ATM and some would even be turned off by the camera. I'm sure poor Jan is having to tell the higher ups about people complaining about the small shooting times of P2 on almost a daily basis. I just don't think many of you are taking it in that we now have 720p and 1080i both with 60p and 24p modes all in one freaking camera! How can you not be excited!? Imagine what can be achieved now that we have a truly progressive digital camera in our prosumer hands. $10k on the spot? I'm sold. Less? Gravy.

P2 is going to be the camera's only media option for HD, if you can't accept and deal with the format's limitations, then don't buy it now, wait a few years until something better comes and then buy it off of eBay with a smathering of P2 cards and some cheapo WA and Telephoto lenses and a tripod to go with it. If you can, then things are going to get easier from day one with support, falling media prices, and admiration for being a pioneer. Plus, you'll have the most kick arse camera on the block that will last you for years no matter what you're doing. Whether you can handle this revolutionary camera or not is up to you.

As for me, I'll see you guys at NAB.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jack Felis : Eh, I think some of you guys are being a little childish about this. I wouldn't necessarily compare my work to something such as "The Player" and I wouldn't even say that my work may some day resemble another movie. Most of us here on DVinfo.net wouldn't find a reason to even attempt a long take exceeding 4 minutes unless:

1. It's an effects shot, such as blowing something up.

2. It's a one time deal shot, such as a natural weather occurence or a current occurence like a family of bears walking right past you.

3. It's an artistic shot that expresses something about the movie.

4. It's a documentary and it calls for a long take.
-->>>

I have to disagree: why not? It's not because our movie isn't as good as a big budget movie, that we wouldn't want to make a movie with shots over 4 minutes long. It's not because most of Hollywood action movies have fast editing, other movies also have this editing.
I agree what you are saying, that people have to lighten up and be very happy about this camera, but that doesn't mean you can just say: because we don't make movies as good as The Player, we wouldn't need to make such long shots.
I for one, won't decide such a thing for somebody else, I make my movie, he makes his, and if he wants a shot that's more than 4 minutes long, that's his decision, and I think he should have the means to do it.
I don't think you can just decide that for other people. Let other people decide what they wanna do.

But as I said: I don't worry too much about it, a solution will come eventually.

[Luis Caffesse]

"I make my movie, he makes his, and if he wants a shot that's more than 4 minutes long, that's his decision, and I think he should have the means to do it."

I completely agree.
And those who require longer recording times do have the means to do it. They have HDCAM, DVCProHD tape, XDCam based cameras, HDV, DigiBeta, BetaSP, DVCPro50, DVCPro, DV.... you get the point.

A year ago pretty much everyone here would have thought it was a prank if someone said we'd have a 1080/24P camera for under 10,000. I for one am thrilled. Am I a bit concerned about the space and price of P2 cards? Of course. But, I don't understand why people seem to be 'freaking out' about it so much.

We have about a week until NAB.
All questions will be answered there.

After that, it's up to each and every individual to decide on their own what they can and cannot work with. For those who feel they have to shoot in 1080/24P without the compression of HDV...then they'll find a way to make it work. For those who have to shoot longer takes, well...they still have every single other camera system available to them.

This camera is only adding one option for aquisition...it's not taking any of our current options away.

P2, like every single other recording media and format out there, is not meant to be the answer for everything. It is the answer for some, and not for others.

In eight days at least we'll be able to debate specifics, as opposed to hypotheticals. I'm pretty sure Panasonic knows what they're doing. For all we know, after next week these issues may be completely irrelevant.

[Zack Birlew]

<<<-- Originally posted by Mathieu Ghekiere : <<<-- Originally posted by Jack Felis : Eh, I think some of you guys are being a little childish about this. I wouldn't necessarily compare my work to something such as "The Player" and I wouldn't even say that my work may some day resemble another movie. Most of us here on DVinfo.net wouldn't find a reason to even attempt a long take exceeding 4 minutes unless:

1. It's an effects shot, such as blowing something up.

2. It's a one time deal shot, such as a natural weather occurence or a current occurence like a family of bears walking right past you.

3. It's an artistic shot that expresses something about the movie.

4. It's a documentary and it calls for a long take.
-->>>

I have to disagree: why not? It's not because our movie isn't as good as a big budget movie, that we wouldn't want to make a movie with shots over 4 minutes long. It's not because most of Hollywood action movies have fast editing, other movies also have this editing.
I agree what you are saying, that people have to lighten up and be very happy about this camera, but that doesn't mean you can just say: because we don't make movies as good as The Player, we wouldn't need to make such long shots.
I for one, won't decide such a thing for somebody else, I make my movie, he makes his, and if he wants a shot that's more than 4 minutes long, that's his decision, and I think he should have the means to do it.
I don't think you can just decide that for other people. Let other people decide what they wanna do.

But as I said: I don't worry too much about it, a solution will come eventually. -->>>



I agree Mathieu. I was just using "The Player" as an example because some people were talking about it a couple of posts back and "what if" they wanted to shoot something like it, that was my response. In most cases, nobody would shoot an enormously long scene like that because it takes a lot of work to pull off effectively. I didn't mean that nobody couldn't do so, it's just that it wouldn't come up in most cases. It's possible though, it just requires some P2 card switching. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jack Felis : Sorry I didn't make that clear. -->>>

No problem :-)

[Shannon Rawls]

<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse :
This camera is only adding one option for aquisition...it's not taking any of our current options away.
-->>>

Huh, what do you mean?? It's taking away affordable, long running-time, long shelf-life, available at your neighborhood 24-hour drug store MINIDV TAPE! That's now GONE for HD recording.

Only to be replaced by grossly expensive, short running-time, long shelf-life, available only through special order-shipping-and wait time P2 CARDS!

_______________

- People, this is no way the same comparison of bulky VHS tapes vs. versatile DVD-R discs. Hell, DVD-R's are cheaper then fat bulky VHS tapes for me.
- This is no way the same comparison of small & slow 1.44mb Floppy Discs vs. versatile, large data capacity and cheap from Day #1 CD-R's that replaced em'.
- This is no way the same comparison of my old 35mm camera that required rolls of film at only 24 pictures per roll that required expensive developing that AT MINIMUM took an hour to HOPE&PRAY that i got a good shot on vs. versatile Digital Cameras with lcd screens and the cheap from Day #1 Compact Flash cards that they use.

We are talking cheap from Day #1 $3.00 each 1/hour minidv tapes that are so cheap, instead of re-using the tape, you just put it away in your closet for viewing at anytime in the future vs. only 13/minute expensive as hell from Day #1 and still expensive as hell on April 10th, 2005! $1,700.00 P2 Cards that require you to save your footage on expensive hard drives (in comparison to CD-R's like Digicameras use to store photos).

Dude, we can talk about this till the cows come home.....but the current AND foreseeable near future P2 CARD option is a losing argument for more people then not. Yes, I'm sure P2 will work for some...but for MOST, it wont, and I say that with all assurity and to argue that statement would just be.......um.......just to argue with me.

over 1 hour of HD on a Tape = $3 bucks
only 52 minutes of HD on P2 Card = $6800 bucks

That's not a guess, thats not an assumption, thats not a hypothesis...THAT'S A FACT!

"Chage your workflow" you say "Prices will come down" you say "It's the future" you say...
man.... if someone pays me $6787.00 bucks to remain old fashioned...then everybody here get used to callin' me Grandpa!

How long is it going to take for P2 cards to get near $3 bucks each??? THink about it, we pay $75 bucks for a 1 gig CompactFlash Card that will hold HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS of CD Quality Audio, or THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of high-resolution digital photos....and some of us even complain about $75 bucks and do bargain shopping trying to find a 1gig CF card for only $60 bucks!!!! LOL

If that's the case, and that's what we are used to in this Digital Media era.....then WHAT in the HE-Doulbe Hockey Sticks makes you think I want to spend over ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a measly 13 minutes of footage????

man puhleeeeeeeze.

Panasonic better surprise me with some type of 80gig+ hard drive solution, or they can hang it up on that P2 mess.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Kevin Dooley]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jack Felis :
Finally, if you know what you're doing with movies, then you would know that long takes bore the audience to death most of the time, their eyes get tired even if they see Harrison Ford in the same position for 3 minutes straight, no cuts at all. Fast cuts, smooth cuts, whatever cut you do is necessary to keep the audience's attention and to, most importantly, keep them awake. "The Player" got away with this because it was an interesting introduction to the movie and it doubled as an opening credits shot, so the audience was kept in attention thanks in part to the credit flashes. Forget the camera, how many of you would actually take the time and money to rent enough microphones and block every single little thing in one long take perfectly so that everything matched exactly how it was supposed to? "The Player" though cinematically great, had some pretty bad audio in my opinion and most of it was during that beginning shot. See? Even the pros mess up sometimes. -->>>

I guess simply because it's a blanket statement, I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

There was an extremely long steadicam shot in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Say what you like about Tarantino, but I was at least 5 minutes into the shot when I realized that he hadn't cut in a while. I was so wrapped up in the movie that I didn't notice. I actually ran it back to make sure I didn't just blink at the wrong time. You can have some amazingly long shots that work... you just have to do them right. Is it a good idea to do it all the time? Of course not, that would ignore a little thing called pacing... But it can work.

[Jason Brunner]

The movie I shot last winter (Headed for TV) we used plenty of 400' 35mm loads.
They run less than 4 minutes. About $60,000 dollars spent on film.
Total camera rentals, (4x35mm cameras) another 15 grand.

Shooting 1080 or 720 for under $10,000 + few thousand bucks in reusable cards,... priceless.

(But you know, like it says under my name:)

[Aaron Koolen]

Man, who cares about P2 for long running times. If you want some mega long shot for something, use a hard disk. I will bet my house that this will have some sort of HardDisk support, even if that is just Firewire out and we can use a Firestore.


Also, the described workflow of shooting, swapping, offloading, repeating won't work if you need continuous shots. You will bump your camera for sure.


Aaron

[Zack Birlew]

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Dooley : <<<-- Originally posted by Jack Felis :
Finally, if you know what you're doing with movies, then you would know that long takes bore the audience to death most of the time, their eyes get tired even if they see Harrison Ford in the same position for 3 minutes straight, no cuts at all. Fast cuts, smooth cuts, whatever cut you do is necessary to keep the audience's attention and to, most importantly, keep them awake. "The Player" got away with this because it was an interesting introduction to the movie and it doubled as an opening credits shot, so the audience was kept in attention thanks in part to the credit flashes. Forget the camera, how many of you would actually take the time and money to rent enough microphones and block every single little thing in one long take perfectly so that everything matched exactly how it was supposed to? "The Player" though cinematically great, had some pretty bad audio in my opinion and most of it was during that beginning shot. See? Even the pros mess up sometimes. -->>>

I guess simply because it's a blanket statement, I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

There was an extremely long steadicam shot in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Say what you like about Tarantino, but I was at least 5 minutes into the shot when I realized that he hadn't cut in a while. I was so wrapped up in the movie that I didn't notice. I actually ran it back to make sure I didn't just blink at the wrong time. You can have some amazingly long shots that work... you just have to do them right. Is it a good idea to do it all the time? Of course not, that would ignore a little thing called pacing... But it can work. -->>>


Good grief, Kevin, ^_^ I didn't say long cuts didn't work! =D It's just that most of the time, they don't work or don't add anything that the average Joe would get. Long shots work when done right, like you said, I agree, man... maybe I should have just left that part out. =)

[Michael Pappas]

Geoff..

Well, if your needs are 24fps 720p then all you need is a drive that can sustain at least 7 mega bytes per second.

Since DVCPRO HD 720P at 24fps is 40mbs ( that is mega bits per second ) which translates into a ball park of 6.5 mega bytes per second there will not be any issues at all.

Ofcourse 100 mega bits per second DVCPRO HD is 14 mega bytes per second. We will have to see. I don't belive there will be any issue either.

Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com




<<<-- Originally posted by R Geoff Baker : Maybe I'm not reading this graph properly, but it would seem to me that these 2.5" HDD are not able to sustain 100Mb/s transfer rates:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/9-25-hdd_5.html

GB -->>>

[Luis Caffesse]

"Since DVCPRO HD 720P at 24fps is 40mbs ( that is mega bits per second ) which translates into a ball park of 6.5 mega bytes per second there will not be any issues at all.

Ofcourse 100 mega bits per second DVCPRO HD is 14 mega bytes per second"

Actually, 40mbs would equal 5MB/s

And 100mbs would equal 12.5MB/s


8 bits in a Byte.
40 / 8 = 5
100 / 8 = 12.5

Or am I missing something?

[Michael Pappas]

Luis.......

I like your numbers even better!


<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : "Since DVCPRO HD 720P at 24fps is 40mbs ( that is mega bits per second ) which translates into a ball park of 6.5 mega bytes per second there will not be any issues at all.

Ofcourse 100 mega bits per second DVCPRO HD is 14 mega bytes per second"

Actually, 40mbs would equal 5MB/s

And 100mbs would equal 12.5MB/s


8 bits in a Byte.
40 / 8 = 5
100 / 8 = 12.5

Or am I missing something? -->>>

[Luis Caffesse]

"Luis.......I like your numbers even better! "

I thought you might.
Of course, I'm not sure how much actual recording space you would get on a 4GB card... but I think it's safe to assume that it would be slightly less than 4gb (I assume there is some formatting space needed).

So, your original numbers may be a safer estimate.