Panasonic HDV?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

I just plugged "hdv specification" into Google quick, and it appears 720/60p is one of the formats in the spec. I'm not sure exactly why I thought 30fps was the highest 720p framerate in the HDV spec, but it was something I thought I "knew."

"It's not what you don't know that hurts you. It's what you do know that ain't so."

Hmmm.... I tried that and came up with a few references to 720p60 too. I guess that's a good sign. HDV.ORG doesn't have any mention of it though (that I can find), but maybe they're just outdated - poorly maintained/designed site as it is. Now I have to wonder... We know what 720p30 @ 19 & 25 Mbps looks like... But what happens when we go to 720p60 crunched into the same data rate? Is that a good idea?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

I'll be interested to hear if you still feel that way 14 months from now, after you've had some experience transferring and backing up hundreds of gigabytes of master data onto various forms of storage costing more per hour of video than a typical miniDV tape.

I already deal with HD resolution workflows and footage where I must do automated backup to tape as it is. Even though I save my DV tapes and don't re-use them, I still host my master footageon my tape backups. Video is only about 20% of my workflow... I do mostly animation and all that is originated on the systems. So if I keep my video acquisition primarily at 720p24, I'm only talking about a 40% increase to my video archival requirements. Which means that my entire archival storage load will increase by about 8%... I've already figured a 20% increase overall to be on the safe side. In comparison to shooting a few hundred DV tapes each year, P2 will save me money. I predict in the next 18 months it will pay for my current investment plus save another $200 to $300. Now, I will admit that I will probably buy a couple 16GB cards when they arrive... Not that it matters. I'll have my 4GB and 8GB cards this week (4GB within the next hour or so when the UPS guy shows up). And I can start shooting HD with it and getting the camera figured out (just been playing in DV mode so far). I have a project starting with the HVX next week and it will pay for the entire HVX package, P2 cards, new tripod, etc... If the HVX works out for me, I'll sell my DVX100A and buy another HVX.

Also, have you timed how long it takes just to do the initial copy of your P2 files to some other storage media? I copied some P2 data to my laptop tonight and it took almost four minutes for four minutes of video, or nearly as long as it would take to capture from an HDV tape. Of course that's

Panasonic claims 640Mbps rates with the 8GB P2 cards. They're based on 133X SD chips and those would theoretically offer that rate. I bet real-world numbers are about 520Mbps though. The Cardbus PCMCIA interface can handle a maximum 1052Mbps. My SAN can sustain 3.7GB/s - yes, gigabytes per second. I should only be limited by the P2 card and PCMCIA interfaces and/or USB2/Firewire depending on how I choose to offload my video at the time. My method of choice will be direct insertion of the P2 cards into a PCMCIA slot on a workstation (I just added a PCI to PCMCIA adapter last week).

I of course will have to deal with real-time offloads in the filed as I will have to swap cards out to P4 notebook if I record beyond my P2 capacity.

I'm more impressed with the HVX200 now that I've had a chance to test-drive one, but for me the workflow isn't looking very promising yet. In a few years when solid-state memory is bigger and cheaper than it is today and we have more options for recording HD in highly compressed formats, then something like the HVX200 may make more sense. For those who can make it work for them today, enjoy having so many recording options and the other nice features this camera has to offer.

I think this is the reality that many will face with this camera. Until 32 and 64 GB P2 cards are available at the price of current 8GB (even 4GB) P2 cards, many won't find this a viable platform.

I know my situation isn't the normal... I just get tired of all the P2 doomsayers exclaiming, "ah, it sucks." "you can't do that" and whatever else they like to rant about on a daily basis. I guess my whole point is that there are workflows that can handle the HVX200... Mine practically encourages and needs a camera like the HVX200. But I think many people need to just quit complaining, move on and buy an HD100. The HD100 is a super slick camera at a kiler < $5K price point. I almost bought one because I didn't know how soon my HVX would arrive. I may still buy one as a companion camera if I don't have the incoming projects to justify another $10K for a second HVX. ...Which is where a lot of people seem to run themselves into trouble. The HVX200 is *NOT* a $5600 camera... It's a $10K camera by the time you buy the P2 cards, P2 store and/or whetever else you need to adapt it to your workflow.

[Robert M Wright]

What Panasonic is trying to accomplish with the HVX, is no small feat. I hope they can manage to make tapeless acquisition affordable and workable with this camera (they need to make those cards bigger and hammer the prices down hard!). If they succeed, it will be one of the significant advancements in the history of videography. Tapeless acquisition is the future, and it may be here sooner, rather than later, thanks to the efforts Panasonic is making in bringing this camera to the marketplace. It's a bold step, and they deserve credit for taking the risk. I hope the HVX and P2 turns out to be a huge success, but even if it doesn't, Panasonic has pushed the edge of the envelope, and videography will benefit from that.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

What Panasonic is trying to accomplish with the HVX, is no small feat. I hope they can manage to make tapeless acquisition affordable and workable with this camera (they need to make those cards bigger and hammer the prices down hard!). If they succeed, it will be one of the significant advancements in the history of videography. Tapeless acquisition is the future, and it may be here sooner, rather than later, thanks to the efforts Panasonic is making in bringing this camera to the marketplace. It's a bold step, and they deserve credit for taking the risk. I hope the HVX and P2 turns out to be a huge success, but even if it doesn't, Panasonic has pushed the edge of the envelope, and videography will benefit from that.

Seeing what we've seen with digital still - you would think that is the case.. but I 've lost whole sticks of photos on these. Sometimes they are recoverable with the right program, but there always seems to be some loss. in the years I've shot digital video, I can't remember any significant lost footage.---except with accidental tape overs.. I think it is too early to call that expe5riment a winner.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

But what happens when we go to 720p60 crunched into the same data rate? Is that a good idea?

Simply put, it will have the same artifacts as does 1080i HDV. UNLESS:

1) They use dual heads like DVCPRO50 prodecks and write 40Mbps to tape. Likely only would be done with a camcorder that use full sized DV cassettes.

2) They only allow 720p60 to hard disk like the HVX200 uses P2. One has to wonder if there will be an NAB surprise with a Focus drive recording 720p60 from an HD100B or HD200. Focus delaying their deck to April makes no sense unless something at NAB is coming from JVC.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

The HVX200 is *NOT* a $5600 camera... It's a $10K camera by the time you buy the P2 cards, P2 store and/or whetever else you need to adapt it to your workflow.

The real key is if a BR burner can record RT from a P2 card. It seems the only REAL missing item is a field-based RT back-up system for under $5K.

A Pana ToughBook with a BR burner would be cool. But, I think BR is limited to about 50Mbps. This would be RT for 24n and 25n, but not 60p or 60i.

Correct me if I'm wrong about these numbers.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

The HVX200 is *NOT* a $5600 camera... It's a $10K camera by the time you buy the P2 cards, P2 store and/or whetever else you need to adapt it to your workflow.

Said another way... the HVX200 is a $5600 standard definition camcorder. It's a $10K high definition camcorder.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

I believe Jeff is quite correct that 720/60p is not a format that is part of the HDV spec.

720/60P *is* part of the HDV specification, and was from the beginning. There hasn't been a 720/60P HDV camcorder yet, but it is part of the format. And yes, it's also at 19mbps.

Neither is 720/24p nor 1080/60p either.

That is correct. JVC implemented 24P by actually making it 60P (using repeat flags) so its 24P mode is actually HDV-compliant 720/60P. It's 24P with 2:3 pulldown inserted via repeat-frame flags to round out the sequence to 60P. Because of this, that's why the original HD1 and HD10 and CU1(?) deck can transport JVC footage -- it isn't a new format, it's wedged into the existing specification quite cleverly.

Canon stepped outside the HDV specification to create their own format, 1080/24F and 1080/30F. HDV has no provision for 1080 progressive recording. That's why Canon 24F and 30F won't play on HDV-compliant decks; the HDV spec would need to be extended to include 1080p recording. I don't know if there's been any formal revision to the spec to include Canon's variant.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Said another way... the HVX200 is a $5600 standard definition camcorder. It's a $10K high definition camcorder.

Or, said another way as the XLH1 was presented: the HVX200 is a $5600 high-def camera head. Add recording media of your choice.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Canon stepped outside the HDV specification to create their own format, 1080/24F and 1080/30F. HDV has no provision for 1080 progressive recording. That's why Canon 24F and 30F won't play on HDV-compliant decks.

JVC's use of 2:3 and Repeat Flags is not part of the HDV spec, but is part of the MPEG-2 decoder spec. That's why it works with HDTVs with fireWire inputs.

I would think Sony's MPEG-2 decoder would have to decode any MPEG-2 compatible stream. So, after Canon's 24F, 25F, and 30F is created -- how is it inserted into the 1080i60 data stream that makes it NOT compatible with MPEG-2 decoders?

Will the Sony play Canon's 1080i60?

Even if the Sony MPEG-2 decoder will not decode 24F/25F/30F-- wil like the first generation JVC products at least send the data-out via i.LINK?

HDV is sort of like DV magazine. It started with a specific meaning and now it simply means Digital Video. :)

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

So, after Canon's 24F, 25F, and 30F is created -- how is it inserted into the 1080i60 data stream that makes it NOT compatible with MPEG-2 decoders?

Well, that's the thing -- it isn't inserted into a 60i data stream. The Canon data doesn't get decoded and inserted into a 60i data stream. It stays as what it is. Which is 24 frames encoded progressively (from a 24F source) or 30 encoded frames encoded progressively (from a 30F source). Nothing to do with fields.

Now, the Canon will internally convert that into 60i for output on its analog ports, but that's a frame-rate-conversion feature that the Canon supplies (sort of like cross-converting 720p to 1080i on the JVC). But the Canon 24F is not stored in a 3:2 pulldown system within a 60i data stream. That's why it's incompatible with Sony equipment. It's actually a 24-frame progressive encoding. And 30F is encoded as 30 progressive frames, which is not the same as 60i. 30P can be carried within a 60i wrapper, but that appears to be not the way Canon has chosen to implement their formats.

Will the Sony play Canon's 1080i60?

Yes. 60i is 60i, and the 60i variants are the one place where they're compatible. And Sony transports its CF30 within a 60i wrapper, and its CF24 within a 3:2 pulldown 60i wrapper, so the Canon can play both of those back. But the Canon doesn't do it that way, so the Sony can't play it back.

Even if the Sony MPEG-2 decoder will not decode 24F/25F/30F-- wil like the first generation JVC products at least send the data-out via i.LINK?

Didn't try that, but I don't think so. The Sony won't send JVC data down the firewire, even though it can decode and display it. I don't believe it will send the 30F or 24F out the firewire, but I will admit that's an extrapolated guess and I'd be glad to be proven wrong on that.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

In comparison to shooting a few hundred DV tapes each year, P2 will save me money.

Okay, I'd genuinely like to know how you figure that to be the case. Let's say you shoot 100 hours of footage on the HVX200 in 720/24pn format, which by my calculations would result in at least 1800 GB of data. Since there won't be any master tape to save for backup purposes, this means you'll need to make two permanent copies of this for reliability purposes, for a total of 3600 GB of storage. If you archive on DLT tapes which cost ~36 cents/GB, that's $1300 in archiving costs not including the price of the DLT tape drive. If you archive on inexpensive hard drives costing about the same amount per GB, the price is the same $1300 with no drive mechanism cost. If you archive to DVDs, that's a total of about 800 discs at a cost of at least $200-400, plus the time required to set up and burn 800 DVDs. If we figure it takes just two minutes of your time to make each DVD that's almost 27 hours total, so if your time is worth $50/hour that's $1350 plus ~$300 for the discs for a total of $1650.

Now compare the above to shooting DV or HDV on miniDV tapes costing $3-5/hour for the master copy, or roughly $400 total for 100 hours of footage -- but let's call it $600 for 100 hours since most of us don't shoot every tape all the say to full. Once the data is on the computer it'll be about 1125 GB worth, so saving one copy on hard drives at 36 cents/GB will cost a little over $400. So my total cost for keeping all my DV/HDV tapes plus one copy of the data on hard drives is around $1000 or so, compared to $1300+ using the minimum realistic data rate of the HVX200 camera. Shoot at full 100 Mbps quality on the HVX200 and your archiving cost jumps to at least $3250 for 100 hours of footage, or roughly $750 on 2,000 DVDs. (At which point just the cost of the blank DVDs is almost as much as archiving DV or HDV footage.)

I agree that we should all either move on or focus on this issue from a constructive point of view. I would be happy to hear of a cost-effective way to work with the HVX200, but so far I'm not seeing it. And the current capacity limitation of P2 cards is a deal-breaker for any long-form projects, so anyone doing event work with the HVX200 will be buying DTE recorders and working from those. Like I said before, I think the HVX200 is intriguing now that I've played with one, but for my purposes it's a camera which is at least 2-3 years ahead of its time in practical terms. By then there will probably be many other options to choose from, like recording high-quality MPEG4 video on standard flash memory cards which are cheap enough to store permanently. I'm happy for anyone who can make good use of the HVX200 today, but that won't be the case for most of us.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Okay, I'd genuinely like to know how you figure that to be the case.

Based on your numbers, which seem pretty accurate for the scenario you briefly describe, you're correct in that there is no money savings. But I already have an established workflow that the HVX200 fits into like a glove and it will save *ME* money. I already have redundant backups, having yet another backup copy on DV tape is rather pointless to me -- I already have the master on the SAN (which is in itself redundant) while I work on my project. I have daily backups, which are rotated, and bi-weekly backups which are archived. The video I shoot and incorporate into my projects (or even video-only projects) all account for about 20% of my workflow. Moving to 720p24n from DV will cause my video requirements to swell by 40% as it takes 40% more bandwidth. In reality, it's going to take less than that because I already have a HD workflow with my animation and I've just been incorporating up-res'd SD. But I'll stick with the 40% growth on approximately 20% of my data volume, or what works out to 8% growth of my total storage and archive requirements. I already have a SAN that is only running at a bit over half capacity and my tape volumes are split in a way that I can grow nearly 33% in data and archive volume before I have to increase the size and frequency of my backups. My investment is already in place, my system is operational and has been working as a full production environment for nearly 2 years now. The HVX200 will cut my miniDV tape purchases by $1400 to $1800 year without incurring new, additional cost, which I know won't happen that way... Becuase I already plan to buy 16GB P2 cards before this year is over and probably sell my 4GB cards. In fact, I think I may sell the 4GB cards as soon as I can pick up another pair of 8GB.

I agree that we should all either move on or focus on this issue from a constructive point of view. I would be happy to hear of a cost-effective way to work with the HVX200, but so far I'm not seeing it. And the current capacity limitation of P2 cards is a deal-breaker for any long-form projects, so anyone doing event work with the HVX200 will be buying DTE recorders and working from those. Like I said before, I think the HVX200 is intriguing now that I've played with one, but for my purposes it's a camera which is at least 2-3 years ahead of its time in practical terms. By then there will probably be many other options to choose from, like recording high-quality MPEG4 video on standard flash memory cards which are cheap enough to store permanently. I'm happy for anyone who can make good use of the HVX200 today, but that won't be the case for most of us.

I'm in complete agreement with you. I guess that my whole point is that there are a significant number of people who can make use of the HVX today. And as I was saying before, I'm not sure why so many people want the HVX200 to be another HDV camcorder. HDV doesn't fit my projects very well... And I know I'm not the only one out there who feels this way. I've tried working on a good bunch of HD100 footage and I've rented an XLH1. The HDV codec. Now that I've had my P2 cards for 2 full days and have acquired nearly 10 hours worth of my own footage, I can say that the HVX200 is exactly what *I* have been needing for my workflow.... YMMV. But I know many out there will welcome it as I have. And many who won't. Like you mentioned, long form and live event coverage is pretty much unthinkable at this point until other recording solutions become available. Even on my end... I'm going to try shooting an amature hockey game this weekend (just for fun/practice) and I'll be borrowing a Powerbook to do it as I want to shoot the whole thing start to finish in 720p60. Should be interesting.

[Kevin Shaw]

Jeff: it sounds like what you're saying is that P2 may save you a few bucks in the short run because you've already paid for your initial archiving capacity and will cease purchase of miniDV tapes. As an observation, you could purchase a Firestore drive for DV/HDV cameras and achieve the same basic result in those formats, so there's no inherent cost savings for you in using the HVX200. Just wanted to make sure other people are clear on that.

I suspect we'll be hearing more about solid state recording options in the coming years, and today's HVX200 users can enjoy being pioneers of that. But you might want to keep a few miniDV tapes handy in case you run out of storage capacity in the field and need to keep shooting.

[Robert M Wright]

CompUSA ran a 2 day sale on 200GB Seagate HDDs, about a week ago, for 30 bucks after rebate (that's 15 cents a gig). Those kinds of prices almost start making me think seriously about using hard drives for archiving. Get a USB enclosure that's easy to pop IDE drives in and out of, and use those cheap drives like they were (humongous) floppy disks almost.