8 gig card just over $100
 

Lexar | 8GB UDMA 300x CompactFlash Card | CF8GB-300-381 | B&H

This makes tapeless shooting almost as good as tape. Not quite, but getting closer.

???

How many times do you use a tape? How many times are you going to use that compact flash? There is no way, no how, tape can be as cheap to shoot as tapeless.

Bill is perhaps looking at it from the archive angle. Tape has tremendous appeal in its instant archive-ability.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand it.

We have raw footage. We invest TONS of hours into taking that raw footage and editing it, adding titles, music, graphics, whatever. Do people NOT save that? Just save the raw video and have to recreate the work?

When I archive footage, I am FAR more interested in saving my work product than the raw video. I realize that may not be true for everyone. So I am genuinely curious if people save their finished masters. If so, there is zero difference to doing it with tape. And what are people saving those finished masters on? Are they archiving it back to a second HDV tape?

Or are people simply saving their project files along with the raw files and hoping to open up the entire project again and re-render a final? I guess you could keep the raw tape, not save ANY of that on a drive, keep the project files, and not save a finished master. In that instance, I could see where just having the raw tape on the shelves would be cheaper. But you'd have to recapture, then re-render if anything happened to the video you delivered. Heaven help you if you upgrade to a new version of your software, or buy a new piece of software altogether and you couldn't open up your old projects.

When cards are like 20 bucks each then we might be talking.

Just depends on the work you do. I always save all raw footage. I've had to go back into 10 year old tapes for a client. Not too long ago I went into 12 year old Betacam tapes, and have gone back to 6 or 7 year old DVCAM tapes. If you don't save your original footage, then tapeless is fine.

For me I sometimes may shoot quite a bit and not edit a particular show for a couple of months, and I don't have time to upload and backup all the footage right after I've shot it. Also, on some projects I've shot as many as 20 hours of tape before ever editing, and after an all day shoot I don't want to spend hours capturing footage off cards and making backups and checking them before reformatting the card.

When cards become as cheap as tape so I can stick them in a box until I'm ready to edit and not worry about reusing them, then I'll say that tape is dead. For me at this time shooting with a tapeless camera would be mostly for backup or second camera stuff. I'm not saying everybody should feel this way, it's just the work I do that requires me to do this.

In addition to the time factor involved in loading and backing up, there's the safe storage issue. I'm not talking about archiving in the sense of 25-100 year storage, just normal keeping of original footage for as long as the clients require, ie., 10-15 years. As long as I have the right deck, I can play an old tape and transfer it to whatever I need. If I store things on a hard drive...well, I have seen more than one hard drive die after simply sitting on a shelf for a few months. The solution to this would be, probably, Blu Ray recording. If I could store files on something that is more secure than a drive, that would make me happier. However, there's also the time factor to do all that. If a person is a full time editor and has time during the work day for all the data management necessary to do things right in a tapeless world, that would be different.

I realize, of course, that we are facing a tapeless future. That's the way the world is going, and I'm sure I'll be there eventually. Hopefully by that time those cards will be 20 bucks apiece. But, at around 200 bucks, a 16 gig card isn't all that much more than HDCAM tape if you do high end stuff, so we're getting down there. I'd hazard a guess that 16 gig CF cards will be not much over $100 (USD) by this time next year. Then I could buy about 10 of them for a road trip and would be a happy camper in a tapeless world.

Help me understand this then.

Take me through a workflow of tape (HDV) from out of the camera to archived finished product. Then let's see how tapeless would work. I am really curious about this because I have never had to do it in HD. I went to tapeless QUICKLY when shooting minDV. I'd had my fill of tape with SVHS and hi-8.

Thanks

By the way, this is what I use:

Amazon.com: SanDisk Ultra II 16 GB Class 4 SDHC Flash Memory Card SDSDRH-016G-A11: Electronics

That's a reusable hour of video on my EX1 for $38.

$38 for an hour of EX1 35mbs footage is great. At that price you can stick 'em in a box and buy more.

Best bang for the GB
 

Would it be safe to say the two cards y'all have mentioned are the best $/performance/GB options at the moment?

I'm headed toward a 7D and gotta get a handle on CF cards.

Bill, thank you VERY much for taking the time to explain this. I have a few comments if you don't mind.

I saved my raw footage when I shot tape also. Just put the raw tape on the shelf, and put my finished master onto full-sized Broadcast quality DV tape. So that's about $5 for the BQ mini-DV, and about $10 for the full size. So $15 per hour for media. On rare occasion, I've had to go back and use these archival tapes.

I do the same. I shoot a lot of long-form conferences. 6-10 hour days where I can't edit until I get back to the office. When I do this, I tend to record to hard drive. MUCH faster than fooling with cards. But I understand your point. However, transferring cards while shooting, is also something I've done, and it is easy and works well. I can transfer an hour of footage in 10 minutes or so, verify it and make a backup copy onto a separate drive in 30 minutes. I try not to work that way, but I can.

This is where the wheels fall off the wagon for me. The only format of HD tape that is cheaper than tapeless is HDV. So if that is the sum total of your HD experience, then tapeless looks a bit costly. But if you are coming from HDCam, HDCamSR, DVCProHD, etc., then tapeless looks like a bargain. Especially, if you take into account the need for a deck.


And there is that issue of a deck. How are you going to access that HDV deck in 15 years? Do you have an HDV deck now? With tapeless, they are just files. ANY computer using ANY kind of storage can hold those files. No deck needed. That is a hugely cheaper proposition to me. And you hit the nail on the head. I went to bluray backup for just the reason you mentioned. I can fit 1 hour of raw HD video, 2 versions of compressed final video, and my timeline, graphics, lower thirds, and the raw codecs on a single 25GB bluray. That media costs me about $3.75. Cheaper than a HDV tape.

I don't think the workflow is that onerous. It just takes getting used to like anything else. My tapeless workflow is now MUCH faster than my old minDV workflow.


Again, my 1hr cards are $38. Not $20, but certainly a FAR cry from the $200 you are mentioning. I realize we are in the 7D section and the Sandisk Extreme 3 16GB cards are about $80. Quite a bit more pricey, but still a far cry from $200. Not sure what pricing information you've been looking at.

Amazon.com: SanDisk SDCFX3-016G-A31 16 GB Extreme III CompactFlash Card (Retail Package): Electronics

I think the 7D only uses CF cards, doesn' t it? Too bad they didn't go with SD. But with all the people using CF on all the APS-C and up Canons, CF will no doubt start coming down in price even more.

It's interesting that at B&H they show the Sandisk Extreme IV, while at Adorama they are pushing the III, and yet the III doesn't go fast enough, at least that's what I understand. The IV and the Lexar one I posted above both go to 45mbs, and the camera requires just over 40, I think. Somebody correct me if that's not accurate. The III cards are cheaper at this time.

Exactly Bill. And the prices for CF are already below where you said your threshold was... so... :)

One thing we've learned QUICKLY about the Sandisk cards. Do NOT rely on the class rating printed on the front. Our Class 4 cards (ultra-2) exceed the specs for class 6. That is why everyone gets the Sandisks or Transcends. They are MUCH faster than their rating which lets us buy cheaper cards and use them without issue.

Someone in your 5D/7D community needs to do the benchmark testing like we did in the EX1 community to find the best deals.

$100 for an 8GB? Sorry, but you are being taken for a ride.

I don't think I can post the link (or even mention the name of the retailer), but you can very easily find Transcend 16GB 133X CF cards for $37. That's all I use for video on the 5D.

Remember that video is much less demanding than stills -- 48mbps video is 6 MB/sec (requires > 40X speed card), whereas 18 MP stills at 8 fps translates to 144 MB/sec (theoretically would require > 983X speed card). Since no card is that fast, our cameras have very large RAM buffers to temporarily store files while they're being written, and only once those buffers are filled do you run up against the card speed.

In short, don't blow $100 on 8GB!

I've spent $100 for 4GB earlier this year. I don't think it's being "taken for a ride" considering they're guaranteed zero-failure, plus it's a business purchase, plus it's already paid for itself. Personally I avoid cheap memory. To me it's like saying your images and your work are worth only that much.

Honestly, if you are using respectable brands like Sandisk and Transcend, it's hard to make that argument. This isn't some bargain basement stuff.

Interesting, except I have never lost anything or had any issues on my "cheap" Kingston Elite Pro 133x memory, all four cards, that I buy at a about $30 for a 16gig stick. At that rate, I could buy 48 gigs of memory for same $100.00 you paid for your 4 gig. The same chips are handling Magic Lantern without issue. Doses that price difference make any sense ?

I've always thought highly of Sandisk and Kingston. I'm using Hoodman RAW cards (and I've paid full retail for them, by the way, don't let the Hoodman USA banners here on the site give you the impression that I get free or discounted gear from them, because I certainly don't!) -- I'll have to change my opinion of Transcend, I guess. I've never really thought of it as a Sandisk-level brand...?

I didn't know what to expect when we started the EX1 vetting either, but ONLY Transcend and Sandisk came through as the solid brands. Don't Transcend make the CF cards for RED?

I thought Lexar made the CF cards for RED... whether they do or not, I know it's also a very good brand.

I'm all for brand loyalty... to a point. After years of only buying premium SanDisk, I decided to give Transcend a shot. Well, I've shot tens of thousands of images and hours of video on Transcend cards, and never had a single issue. The Transcends also have lifetime warranties.

I mean, I understand that people only want the best, but buying a $100 8GB card in 2009 is like buying Fiji bottled water to wash your car. Even if it's better water, your car sure doesn't care.

We now have over 100GB of Kingston 133x Elites and have been using Kingstons (SD & CF) for several years now. Never had a problem with them. I'm all for buying the best you can afford (I used to buy SanDisk) but Kingstons and Transcends have been reliable enough for me.

That being said, I won't be surprised if a card failed on me since it's been 7 years of zero problems.

The 8 GB card at b and h has a 65 mail in rebate.... I don't know if anyone noticed that in the link.

Not long ago, word from Canon was that UDMA cards were recommended. Slower cards could cause the codec to record at a lower bit rate.

I haven't tested this, and I don't know the original source, but I'm staying away from slower cards.

In reality, I think the choice comes down to what you shoot. We do narrative stuff and some very short bits, so my three 4GB SanDisk IV cards are all I need - along with a laptop for wrangling. If I were covering day long events, or paddling up the Congo, I'd buy all the 133x cards I could get my hands on.

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon EOS 5D Mark II

In photography sandisk is the gold standard. Few photographers who make a decent living use anything else. CF is not a commodity. One failure may cost more than all the savings with cheap cards. According to Canon, the minimum Sandisk that should be used is the extreme III. The newer version that is UDMA. Says 30mbs on the front. There's no advantage to Extreme IV with video.

Canon needs to switch to SDHC where the IO controller is in the camera. With CF we buy that hardware with every card.

My HDV tapes, as Chris mentioned, are instantly archived... But this is the norm isn't it? You record to tape > capture > tape sits in a box in spare office - forever... Plus reusing HDV tapes isn't the greatest practice in the world unless you love drop outs! (drop outs are the bane of my existence !@#$@*&^!!)

If i was on a tapeless workflow i'd probably expense and archive flash memory too.

That's correct. Using non-UDMA cards can cause banding / contouring / quantization artifacts in HD video.

I've always bought the best tapes available, whether Betacam SP, HD, HDV, whatever. I'd do the same with CF cards.

Guess I'm not making a decent living then! I actually use Lexar 300x UDMA cards day in day out. Also have a couple of Sandisk UDMA as well.

Dan

There was an advantage with the Extreme IV for me - there was a sweet rebate at the time. :)

One thing that big non-UDMA cards are good for is timelapse. If the interval is long enough, speed isn't that big a deal.

Post your income fromthe last three years and we will let you know. :)

The big UDMA cards aren't bad. The 32gb extreme III is under $200. I'm not going to buy any more non-UDMA cards. I don't think we will see any future video cameras without UDMA. Once the 12 minute duration limit is gone some people will want large storage. I guess that will be something like 2.5 inch drives. I saw a 1 TB 2.5 announced.

I believe Nikon is all UDMA. I expect when Sony gets in the HDSLR biz they will invent a new format, or use memory stick.

I still don't have my archiving of non-tape video down. It's becoming pretty clear to me that I need to dump the raw footage after a period of time - maybe a year. The nice thing about tape was the ability, in the worse case scenario, to go back to raw footage. I don't see using CF cards just one time.

Are you averse to dumping to optical? I know I mention it often, but only because it's working so well for me. My cost per unit is cheaper than tape, and my cost per GB is MUCH cheaper than tape, approx 2:1.

By optical do you mean Blu Ray?

Could be BluRay, could be DVD+DL, could be XDCAM. DVD and BluRay tend to be the cheapest options for optical. But I archive to BluRay and DVD depending on the source and length of the project. If I am archiving a :30 spot, no need to burn a BluRay for that. But if I've got an hour or two of HD, then it makes sense.

How long does it take to burn a 25gb blu-ray disk?
At $85/terrabyte, hard disk storage seems cheaper and easier. That's 40 blu-ray disks. Actually a lot more than 40 disks if the average size of the blu-ray is 10-15gb. That's $85 versus $400-500.
Maybe I'm missing something.

In my case, I'm paranoid about hard drives for reasonably permanent storage of original footage. I've seen too many die.

With Blu Ray, can you put some files on it, burn those and then add to the same disc later, or once it's burned, it's burned like -R DVDs?

Yea, you're missing the fact that unlike Hard drives, BluRay has no moving parts, is not susceptible to being dropped (if it's in a case and/or sleeve), water damage, smoke damage, freezing up, head crashes, etc. Unlike tape and hard drive it cannot be magnetically erased.

Hard drive is certainly cheaper, but a TERRIBLE long-term storage solution. The fewer moving parts the better. Film and Optical have zero. That's a winner in my book.


And I honestly don't remember how long it takes to write a 25GB BluRay, but like CD and DVD before it, times are dropping, and I bought in fairly early. So I have a 2x burner. Every time I order a round of discs, they have faster speeds though.

My Roxio software says yes, you can do multi-session. But like DVD, the disk may not be readable on all players or recorders until it's closed.