Thoughts on SxS and Archiving ...

Chris Medico · December 15th, 2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Gottshalk

Regardless,

Drives are NOT long term storage solutions. If you rely on them to be so, you will get burned.

Its your money.

Matt,

I was agreeing with you. I also wanted to pass along some info to maximize storage better regardless of duration.

When affordable high density optical storage is a reality most of this discussion will disappear and we will all be using our hard drives online again.

Also to point out a different opinion. Here is a snip from Cineforms website:

Quote:

"Some other workflow benefits of are worth noting:

* An entire two hour feature can be mastered to a single 350GB hard drive for long term archive which offers longer shelf life than tape"

Full text here - http://www.cineform.com/technology/1...tyAnalysis.htm

Peter Wright · December 21st, 2007, 07:24 AM

I was talking with a friend about this today and we came up with an interesting thought ...

When considering a Solid State future,many are wondering how to archive, because we previously kept camera tapes.

What about the development of WRITE ONLY SxS cards, which could be produced in huge numbers and become very cheap, so that we can do the same thing - shoot, then keep 'em on the shelf.

Or is this not economically feasible?

Andrew Wilson · December 21st, 2007, 09:06 AM

There are those of us in the video business who are ready to make the leap from SD to HD and our product will look better. I think the EX1 is a good way to go for small video producers like myself to go what way. You can bill more for a better looking product. Plus you can go to your clients and say,

"Back when I was shooing in SD, I didn't charge you to archive your footage because my cost was really only about $7 per hour of footage. The good news is that now that I'm shooting in high-def, your footage is essentially future proof. The bad news is now it costs significantly more money to archive. Would you be willing to pay our fee of $50 per hour of footage for archiving? That way, it's available if we need it again."

Look at that... all of the sudden the 'problem' of archiving becomes an opportunity for another revenue stream.

Craig Seeman · December 21st, 2007, 09:41 AM

I'm looking at archiving a bit differently.

Burn to DL-DVD in 8GB increments. First copy is for me. Then 2nd copy if the client wants, the client pays. I can do the same with blu-ray at a higher price. In that case I can change the extension to .ts so they can play on Blu-ray player or PS3. I can charge even more than that (and there's no need to encode).

The thing to be careful about when marketing archival to clients, many might chose to go with HDV if you're going to charge them a fee. Many clients don't know or get the technical difference between 25mbps CBR (HDV) and 35mbps VBR (XDCAM HD). You have to present it as an advantage.

For me the advantage is that you can now hand them an optical disc they can use in their computer vs needing a tape deck (that must be compatible with the specific form of HDV) or camera (to play back the tape). A Blu-ray player can be had for under $400 and a computer drive for under $600. Both way cheaper than an HDV deck. DL-DVD they may have in their computer already. You've now presented the shooting with the EX1 and backing up to optical disc as a great CONVENIENCE to the client over tape.

Andrew Wilson · December 21st, 2007, 10:15 AM

That's an excellent way of looking at it, Craig.

For me, showing the advantage over HDV is easy. Hold up a miniDV tape and tell them that this is what I've been shooing on for 10 years, it holds an hour of footage. Then put the tape down and pick it up again. Now say, this is an HDV tape, the image it records is twice the size as SD and this tape also holds an hour of footage. How do they get all that extra information on there? I could bore you with the technical mumbo-jumbo but that's why I chose to go with this higher quality solid state recording codec. HDV was (is) a great stepping-stone high-def format but this is the way of the future.

Brian Luce · December 21st, 2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Wilson

HDV was (is) a great stepping-stone high-def format but this is the way of the future.

Wait, isn't the EX also HDV? I was under the impression it's HDV but with a data rate of 35 instead of the usual 25.

35mbps is still highly compressed, so that mini dv tape demonstration could get you into trouble with a client if he has any technical knowledge. I'd be careful on that one.

Chris Hurd · December 21st, 2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

Wait, isn't the EX also HDV?

Nooooooo. XDCAM is not HDV. Between these two formats, the only similarity they share is that both formats are Mpeg-based, but the encoding processes are different (as we've explained before in our XDCAM HD forum). Besides, as defined by the HDV consortium, for a camcorder to be HDV it must have a tape transport mechanism.

Brian Luce · December 21st, 2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Nooooooo. XDCAM is not HDV. Between these two formats, the only similarity they share is that both formats are Mpeg-based, but the encoding processes are different (as we've explained before in our XDCAM HD forum). Besides, as defined by the HDV consortium, for a camcorder to be HDV it must have a tape transport mechanism.

Okay that's good to know. But the XDcam still uses a gop and is compressed at ratios comparable to HDV right? If so, that still would make Andrew's explanation to clients dubious wouldn't it?

Andrew Wilson · December 21st, 2007, 09:38 PM

Dubious? Maybe slightly. There aren't any lies in that explanation and not having tape also allows me the flexibility of shooting in other formats as well as over/under-cranking. JVC doesn't have 1080... Canon only shoots in 1080i, Panasonic P2 allows this flexibility but with 1/3" small raster chips.

So I really think the Ex1 hits a sweet spot... If only it was a shoulder mount. (But I'm not going to hold my breath for the EX2) You know what SONY stands for, right? Soon, Only Not Yet.

Anyway, you're right that someone who really knows MPEG GOP compression could carry on a worthy argument with me on set but Chris is right, it's not HDV and XDCam is readily accepted as a hi-def format.

Eric Pascarelli · December 21st, 2007, 09:45 PM

35Mbps is 40% more than 25Mbs. 40% is a lot of marginal difference when it comes to a GOP codec.

Also, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong here) 25Mbps of HDV includes audio, whereas the 35 of XDCAM does not.

And, the EX1 codec supposedly can peak momentarily higher than 35Mbps for difficult compression situations whereas HDV has a ceiling of 25Mbps.

These things might not be easy to explain to clients, but they definitely contribute to the visibly superior picture of the EX1.

Rob Collins · December 21st, 2007, 11:23 PM

Aside from the eventual bulk of storing so many discs, what is the downside of archiving to regular DVD-R's at 20 cents each? This would be in addition to hard drive. I know they aren't as durable as some of the other formats mentioned, but for someone on a tight budget, might this be viable? I don't shoot a lot of events BTW.

Craig Seeman · December 21st, 2007, 11:47 PM

I'm thinking DL-DVD. With 8GB per disc being about 25 minutes, it's not much different than the days of storing 30 minute betacams . . . although DL-DVD is smaller and cheaper than 30 minute beta tapes.

Actually when you consider the cost of Blu-ray now under $600 (heck that cheaper than my DSR-11 DVCAM Deck) Blu-ray disc might be an option. Given that a 50GB disc will store about 2.5 hours at around $35 it might be reasonable. More expensive than miniDV tapes but . . . Sony 63 minute HDV tapes can cost about $9 each. Panasonic DVCProHD 64 minute tape $29. Blu-ray discs holding 2.5 hours are competitive.

DVD-R might be viable given that FAT32 of the SxS cards split clips at 4GB though. Keep in mind the cheapest discs might not be the best choice if you're thinking long term archival.

December 21st, 2007, 07:24 AM	#47
Peter Wright Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 193	Thoughts on SxS and Archiving ... I was talking with a friend about this today and we came up with an interesting thought ... When considering a Solid State future,many are wondering how to archive, because we previously kept camera tapes. What about the development of WRITE ONLY SxS cards, which could be produced in huge numbers and become very cheap, so that we can do the same thing - shoot, then keep 'em on the shelf. Or is this not economically feasible?

December 21st, 2007, 09:06 AM	#48
Andrew Wilson Tourist Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vermont, USA Posts: 123	There are those of us in the video business who are ready to make the leap from SD to HD and our product will look better. I think the EX1 is a good way to go for small video producers like myself to go what way. You can bill more for a better looking product. Plus you can go to your clients and say, "Back when I was shooing in SD, I didn't charge you to archive your footage because my cost was really only about $7 per hour of footage. The good news is that now that I'm shooting in high-def, your footage is essentially future proof. The bad news is now it costs significantly more money to archive. Would you be willing to pay our fee of $50 per hour of footage for archiving? That way, it's available if we need it again." Look at that... all of the sudden the 'problem' of archiving becomes an opportunity for another revenue stream.

December 21st, 2007, 09:41 AM	#49
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	I'm looking at archiving a bit differently. Burn to DL-DVD in 8GB increments. First copy is for me. Then 2nd copy if the client wants, the client pays. I can do the same with blu-ray at a higher price. In that case I can change the extension to .ts so they can play on Blu-ray player or PS3. I can charge even more than that (and there's no need to encode). The thing to be careful about when marketing archival to clients, many might chose to go with HDV if you're going to charge them a fee. Many clients don't know or get the technical difference between 25mbps CBR (HDV) and 35mbps VBR (XDCAM HD). You have to present it as an advantage. For me the advantage is that you can now hand them an optical disc they can use in their computer vs needing a tape deck (that must be compatible with the specific form of HDV) or camera (to play back the tape). A Blu-ray player can be had for under $400 and a computer drive for under $600. Both way cheaper than an HDV deck. DL-DVD they may have in their computer already. You've now presented the shooting with the EX1 and backing up to optical disc as a great CONVENIENCE to the client over tape.

December 21st, 2007, 10:15 AM	#50
Andrew Wilson Tourist Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vermont, USA Posts: 123	That's an excellent way of looking at it, Craig. For me, showing the advantage over HDV is easy. Hold up a miniDV tape and tell them that this is what I've been shooing on for 10 years, it holds an hour of footage. Then put the tape down and pick it up again. Now say, this is an HDV tape, the image it records is twice the size as SD and this tape also holds an hour of footage. How do they get all that extra information on there? I could bore you with the technical mumbo-jumbo but that's why I chose to go with this higher quality solid state recording codec. HDV was (is) a great stepping-stone high-def format but this is the way of the future.

December 21st, 2007, 09:38 PM	#54
Andrew Wilson Tourist Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vermont, USA Posts: 123	Dubious? Maybe slightly. There aren't any lies in that explanation and not having tape also allows me the flexibility of shooting in other formats as well as over/under-cranking. JVC doesn't have 1080... Canon only shoots in 1080i, Panasonic P2 allows this flexibility but with 1/3" small raster chips. So I really think the Ex1 hits a sweet spot... If only it was a shoulder mount. (But I'm not going to hold my breath for the EX2) You know what SONY stands for, right? Soon, Only Not Yet. Anyway, you're right that someone who really knows MPEG GOP compression could carry on a worthy argument with me on set but Chris is right, it's not HDV and XDCam is readily accepted as a hi-def format.

December 21st, 2007, 09:45 PM	#55
Eric Pascarelli Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 498	35Mbps is 40% more than 25Mbs. 40% is a lot of marginal difference when it comes to a GOP codec. Also, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong here) 25Mbps of HDV includes audio, whereas the 35 of XDCAM does not. And, the EX1 codec supposedly can peak momentarily higher than 35Mbps for difficult compression situations whereas HDV has a ceiling of 25Mbps. These things might not be easy to explain to clients, but they definitely contribute to the visibly superior picture of the EX1.

December 21st, 2007, 11:23 PM	#56
Rob Collins Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 229	Aside from the eventual bulk of storing so many discs, what is the downside of archiving to regular DVD-R's at 20 cents each? This would be in addition to hard drive. I know they aren't as durable as some of the other formats mentioned, but for someone on a tight budget, might this be viable? I don't shoot a lot of events BTW.

December 21st, 2007, 11:47 PM	#57
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	I'm thinking DL-DVD. With 8GB per disc being about 25 minutes, it's not much different than the days of storing 30 minute betacams . . . although DL-DVD is smaller and cheaper than 30 minute beta tapes. Actually when you consider the cost of Blu-ray now under $600 (heck that cheaper than my DSR-11 DVCAM Deck) Blu-ray disc might be an option. Given that a 50GB disc will store about 2.5 hours at around $35 it might be reasonable. More expensive than miniDV tapes but . . . Sony 63 minute HDV tapes can cost about $9 each. Panasonic DVCProHD 64 minute tape $29. Blu-ray discs holding 2.5 hours are competitive. DVD-R might be viable given that FAT32 of the SxS cards split clips at 4GB though. Keep in mind the cheapest discs might not be the best choice if you're thinking long term archival.