|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 14th, 2007, 08:17 AM
|
#16 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,015
|
even with the HPX500 packed to the gills with 16GB of P2, you're only getting an hour of continuous record time, and that just isn't cutting it for field recording.
32GB P2 is nine months away, but my RED camera and 2 x 320 GB storage will ship in September or October--nice! |
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 09:04 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Go Go Godzilla
|
Quote:
Here's an example of HPX500 run times based on card size: With (4) 4GB cards- 1080p24 = 16 min 720p24PN = 40 min Double those numbers for 8GB cards; double them again for 16GB cards, which means you'd have just a tad over 2.5 hours of continuous record time in 720p24PN on the 500. I was just at the 48 Hour 'Filmapalooza" last weekend and had many discussions with shooters who work on various genres, from long-form documentary to full-length feature films. The consensus about constant, single-clip shooting and the need for ultra-long single clip record time for media was unanimous: Nobody has ever had a single clip that lasted an entire hour - or even a half hour long. There are always pauses for various reasons; eye-strain relief for the shooter, talent breaks, breaks between takes, lighting rearrangement etc, etc. Especially those - like myself - who have worked on film-based projects where a typical film load doesn't last more than 11 mintues, the added time currently available on P2 media is plenty, if you know how to plan your shoot properly. The point being that even (4) 8GB cards easily handles the requirements for any long-form job and at 16GB the available record time becomes a convenience factor, not a must-have to complete a job. |
|
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 09:25 AM
|
#18 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,015
|
on march 30, i'll be shooting a documentary and a commercial in bhutan for two weeks. so no, an hour of shooting in the field doesn't cut it. sounds fine for the studio, though.
|
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 09:33 AM
|
#19 |
|
Go Go Godzilla
|
So, you'd only take one tape for a two week trip?
I think you've missed the point about a tapeless workflow; the concept is you fill up the storage, copy it off (or put in a second set of cards while the first is being copied) wipe the cards and keep shooting. Or, if the production workflow allows use the hot-swap feature where you are constantly swapping cards in and out of the camera as they fill up and NEVER stop shooting. You certainly can't do that with any other system; no tape-based camera can hot-swap and niether can XDCAM. For my own productions, 70% of what I shoot is location-based work; between using hot-swap and or the HOST mode to transfer off clips I've never run into a situation where I didn't have enough record time in the field. In fact, it's always been human endurance - or the lack of - or weather that has limited our time on location, not the camera and certainly not available record time. If you haven't figured this workflow out yet then you're missing out on one of the biggest benefits of the P2 workflow. Come to NAB; I'll be there and be happy to demonstrate exactly how it works. Trust me, once you get the hang of the workflow you'll never go back to anything else. |
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 09:39 AM
|
#20 |
|
Wrangler
|
Robert, I see what you are saying about tape being an hour long medium. The thing is, with tape, spares are affordable. P2 is still a bit pricey at this point to be hauling around a lot of spares. True, you can offload to a computer of P2 store, but I think Meryem is postulating that she'll have X amount of total media storage time with her in terms of spares that are cost prohibitive to many would-be P2 users.
That's really my only knock against the P2 system. Cost of the cards. If they were less expensive, folks could buy a stack of them to carry along and not have to worry about erasing over their camera masters (and that's very scary to some folks). Some don't want to stop shooting long enough to dump the cards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it take longer to dump and erase the card than it does to fill it while shooting HD? If that's true, your production is going to have to stop to play catch up at some point. I agree that scheduling around this can reduce or eliminate the problem. I guess that's why the system works for some, and not for others. -gb- |
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 09:56 AM
|
#22 | |
|
Wrangler
|
Quote:
The points I raised are from personal knowledge of folks who tried the P2 and then left it because of things like erasing the camera masters. They simply don't have enough faith in the integrity of modern hard drives to do that. For others, juggling all those cards, erasing and re-using makes them think it's an accident waiting to happen. Again, these are things that I am not personally concerned about, just actual reports of the experiences of others. Even though I'm shooting XDCAM, my main delivery method to a producer at this point is via a file dump to a portable hard drive. Not unlike how P2 would be delivered. And that brings up another point. There are people who feel these two main tapeless formats we have are great for closed-loop operations where the footage stays in house. It's the delivery from a freelance operator standpoint that has some avoiding both P2 and XDCAM because their clients can't or won't accept it for delivery. -gb- |
|
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 10:35 AM
|
#23 |
|
Go Go Godzilla
|
All valid points, Greg. It's the same thing early adopters of HDV went through; new codec/format, how to deliver it to clients? What this really comes down to is 2 things: pre-production planning and understanding output options for the client. It doesn't really matter what format/codec/system you're using there's always a way to deliver the final client-version in a format they prefer. It just might mean more work in the edit suite making a conversion.
As I always say, it's not about "which system is best", it's which system is best-for-you and your clients that's most important, and there just isn't any single system that can address 100% of every possible need - but you can get close. |
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 11:04 AM
|
#24 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,015
|
offloading P2 efficiently requires assistance that i cannot count on being available in this situation, otherwise i could be offloading P2 and missing the shot. affirming what greg said....
robert, i'm not trying to knock P2--the fact is, i'd *rather* be able to output DVCPRO HD without any transcoding or funky workarounds. my frustration is that none of these off-in-the-not-too-distant-future solutions, even my RED camera, is available right now, when i'm taking the trip of a lifetime, an opportunity that i may never see again, so of course i want to record the absolutely best images possible. but we're talking about 3 years from now! what's master magician jim jannard gonna have cooked up in 3 years, when the specs on RED one are already in excess of what any other camera at this price point can do? it really came down to choosing between XDCAM and HDV for this application, and i'm going with HDV, mostly because the RED purchase will eat up my available resources very soon. i can take 2 HDV cams for less than half the price of an XDCAM. bring on the funky workarounds and transcoding!...should still have beautiful images.... |
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 01:56 PM
|
#25 | |
|
Go Go Godzilla
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 08:32 PM
|
#26 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 59
|
and I guess those larger chips, better dynamics, better audio, better lenses don't count for anything, right Robert?
|
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 08:37 PM
|
#27 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
|
as one person has commented, i actualy dont have an issue with the P2 workflow.. what i have an issue with is reliability of the drives which the p2 is offloaded to, in addition to the actual capacity of the cards themselves..
Lets face it, for most studio work, its works a treat, theres no denying that... however in some instances, where long continuous recording with no breaks, the P2 jsut doesnt do it.. not efficiently as tape anyway... in addition the cost of the P2 cards themselves are ridiculaously high. I dont really care to hear justification for prices, however if i COULD go out and buy 10x 8gb cards and not go bankrupt, i would. Alternatives such as firestore IMO are not reliable for one off live events. I Have tried these units on numerous other cameras and ive had nothing but issues. But that too is not the point at hand.. Ths real issue is how the HVX can be utliised by those who come from the DVX camp. The requiremetns to edit P2 are there.. the means to edit is also there. The means to deliver is now coming to the fore with DB and HD DVD. the means to archive masters onto BD and multiple HDD's has been there for a while now.. The point is.. that this entire workflow is an ENTIRE rebuild of how one prodiuces.. frm shooting through to editing to delivery and its a MAJOR change for many studios. But thats not a problem. thats progress When you consider that HDV only requres a PC upgrade to get the most out of it, P2 and the costs involved cannot be compared. When you look at cost of tape vs P2, irrespective of the re-usability of the cards in question.. vs the current cost and capacity of SD media it just cannot be justified for the average studio. Dont get me wrong, i think solid state is the way to go.. ive always looked upon it as being the next step up and noone can deny that DVCPRoHD is probably the best format available, however that in itself doesnt change the fact that for me to get the most out of this camera, i need to wait at least 2 years for the capacity to catch up with the camera... and by then, the camera will have been superceeded, be it recording format medium, codec, or basic hardware upgrades such as CCD... Like i said, the entire element of P2 is not an issue.. Aside the camera, the issue is about the fact that in addition to cost of P2, we have to wait to get the most out of P2 due to stupidly low capacities of the cards available... Does Pana really beleive people are willing to buy a camera now and have it collect dust while they wait for storage to be made available in a couple of years? Or have the camera only used for certain types of work? I want to use it for EVERYTHING.. bugger... i cant.. I for one CANT use the camera becuase of these P2 capacity issues.. I shoot ceremonies and stage shows that go for about an hour 20 minutes each sometimes longer.. and running 2/3 cameras... how many P2 cards would i need? laptop offloading time??.... u can do the math.. Its not viable cost and time wise Sure i also do alot of studio work, but a mojority of my work requires me to focus on the shot at hand, not juggling P2 cards and transfering content to a laptop in the hope that the Lappy wont crash by the time i get home and transfer the footage to the main system and back it up onto blueray... see where im going with this? Give me 6x WELL PRICED (ACCORDING TO MARKET VALUE OF SD) 64gb P2 cards this year and i'll buy a camera TODAY I'll even fork out 1500 bux for a BD burner so I can archive this footage. I'll even fork out another grand to build another 2tb tower But Pana cant do this with P2, so i have no choice but to look elsewhere as i need a solution quick smart... I said once before this cameras was before its time.. and from the spec of the CCD, in addition to the current issues surrounding P2, those CCD's will be superceeded and replaced soon enough.. all the while the P2's will be trudging along trying to keep up.. The cam is incredible and what it can do for those who are accustomed to shooting film or short takes, its a wonderous piece of equipment BUT The public have made it clear that the CCD of the camera is barely acceptable for 720p and nigh on laughable at 1080i/p so it wouldnt surprise me if the next instalment carries a different pixel count with less weight put upon the in-cam scaling.. By then, capacity of P2 will have increased... so whats the point in buying a HVX now? I for one have always said theres more to an image than sharpness, and the compression of DVCProHD cannot be faulted for what it is.. especially compared to the other offerings... This is what has me tossing the coin.. Again, like i said on another forum, if they were wise, they would allow the camera to shoot in its native pixel count on P2, and then allow us to convert this to HD res with appropriate software... i dont see why it cant, and it would definately take care of the P2 recording capacity issues expereinced TODAY. i guess now with the HVX/HPX, Pana not only have P2 to worry about, but with AVCHD they also have all these newer codecs being made available In addition to ensuring the future of the HVX/DVX type formfactor camcorder in years to come, this form factor is the bread and butter of sales, so its imperitive that it survives, else we'll be dealing with a PreDVX like market saturated by other manufacturers as it was prior to the launch of teh DVX itself.. . Hell, im yet to have a client ask me for a price on ANY p2 camcorder.. except for this one.. I would hate to guess how many poeple have already jumped ship... for one, i know 6 who have... and thats just people i know.. not actual clients who i train and not counting supplies ive sold gear to... Its not the camera thats putting them off, its the P2 and its lack of capacity and cost effective archivability I just hope Pana havent spread themselves too thinly with this current transitional period from SD to HD.. because from the look of it, they have. Theyve got so many eggs in so many different baskets now, that i think theyve started to lose focus on the fact that most of those DVX users WONT be upgrading to the HVX anytime soon.. and that is a trully sad fact because the camera itself is astonishing. In the end, Its one thing to bring out a camera that does all this, but its another thing to ensure that it can be used by almost everyone in almost every situation |
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 08:51 PM
|
#28 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 221
|
I don't get people's negative stances on P2 and Panasonic.
Panasonic is ushering in a new era of solid state recording. It expensive. Everyone buying into P2 right now is an early adopter. That comes with a price. It is not Panasonic's job to make the whole work flow package meet people's budgets for a new camera model just because people are used to the "good ol' DVX" Get over it, if you cannot afford the HVX and the whole P2 work flow that comes with it, then get something else. If you need long record times, get something else. Jeez, buy an A1 for $3,800 and keep on chugging. The actual P2 card is a very complex piece of equipment whether you believe so or not, as evidence by the complete lack of third party alternatives. If someone else could come out with a P2 solution for half the cost of Panasonic's, don't you think they would have? And please don't blame Panasonic for coming out with a business model that you cannot afford. |
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 09:18 PM
|
#29 | |
|
Go Go Godzilla
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
March 14th, 2007, 10:50 PM
|
#30 | ||||
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Port St. Lucie, Florida
Posts: 2,614
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What system do you have?
__________________
Chapter one, line one. The BH. |
||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
