Paolo- The only way I could think of to cover that type of shoot, using those P2 cards, is to stagger the swap between 2 or more cams. While cam 1 is swapping disks, cam 2 covers the shot. When cam1 is online again, cam 2 would swap out. And you would have one intern, their sole purose, is to dump and save that footage as fast as they can!

I would rather run cables back to either a switcher, or straight into some raids. It is just an interview, right? No cops, guns, explosions, car chases,right? Not really a whole lot of movement on the operator's part.

Basically, to summarize, the HVX200 sucks for long form recording.

Well, actually I wasn't talking about the camera but about the specifics of the P2 system. I can't comment on the camera since I didn't work with it. It's just that the workflow imposed by the P2 doesn't fit my way of working and I think it creates un-necessary problems. If the HVX200 had the same encoding to tape as the HD100, I think it would be much more convenient.

Troublemaker :)

(But, at least you never mentioned the dread P2 "corrupted card error" issue :))

How do people even come up with this analogy? You would have to be comparing the HVX200 with 35mm film (400ft. load). I can't believe that anybody would actually think there is even a minutely close comparison.

Not even the Panavision Genesis compares with 35mm film at this point in its evolution.

A more reasonable comparison would be to 16mm film (S16 aspect), but even there, it's not going to hold its own in any area you want to compare except workflow, and workflow never takes precedence over quality in commercial film making (plus, a 400' load lasts ELEVEN minutes).

Even if the quality was in the same ballpark, the HVX200 is nowhere near a production camera. How are you going to pull focus to the same mark every time between the camera rehearsal and the take, or do a precise, repeatable rack focus? What if the DP also wants to adjust frame during the shot (adjust focus and tighten frame)? How can you mount it to a pro fluid head and give the operator (who is acclimated to shooting from the left side of the camera) enough room on the dolly? How do you do the same off of a gear head?

The HVX200 is fine for "funny shots" and some digital holds, and I use it as a DV Polaroid occasionally, but even if it had the promised cross compatibility between the P2 system and tape ("and/or", which didn't happen), it would never make a decent production camera the way commercial film crews work because of its consumer orientated uni design.

Here are a couple of photos I shot a little bit earlier this evening showing a professional crew at work on a current production, and another of the HD100 mounted on a dolly. You can easily see that the HD100 would make a good production camera, and as soon as JVC gets off their butt and makes an extension for the split eyepiece, it will more than likely make an excellent production camera.

http://www.enzogiobbe.com/production_stills.htm

My two 'pence worth...

I know some reviewers like the DP from 24 made that comparison in terms of workflow. They say, "Hey we're used to loading film pretty often and P2 is similar to that. If you're used to shooting film then P2 will be no problem".

They aren't comparing picture quality of the HVX to film.

Yes, that's true. But we use 35mm film for its high resolution and very wide latitude, and in choosing that recording format for those qualities, are restricted by the physical limitations of the film stock (and forced to use practical 400', 500', or 1000' loads because of it).

Since the P2 format dosen't offer the same advantages, it should'nt demand the same limitations.

When people compare the HVX to 35mm, I believe they are specifically referring to workflow and nothing else.

Enzo- At least you don't have to send those P2 cards out to be developed ;)

But you don't have film for the archieve either. :)

Enzo's point is well taken. For the very significant advanges of film, folks will deal with the short (compared to tape) running time. But to shoot with a camera that up-scales "wide PAL" CCDs to "HD" -- fuuggeetttabout it. :)

Oh, believe me Steve, you don't have to tell me about the downside of the P2s. When I first heard about them, I thought it was a cool thought, but it really missed being practical. It's almost like the old days of PCs, trying to save huge programs on a stack of floppies. Just like that in fact, only completely different ;)

I find this comment rather amusing, I've done a lot of shooting with both the DVX100 and HVX200, and I've manage to do repeatable focus pulls. The focus ring might turn continuously but you can in fact do repeatable focus pulls, it goes back to the same place when you move the focus ring. And if you want the creature comforts of a follow-focus they are available. I don't get the comment regarding fluid heads and room on the dolly at all. Hey, don't get me wrong, I like the ENG form-factor of the JVC H100, which I've also used, but come on, the HVX200 can do most anything the H100 can do, practically speaking. Maybe I'm missing something here? Seriously, help me understand how it is that I can't do things that I've actually done. I'm in a twilight zone here...

:) The reason I posted this is because I'm constantly amazed that the P2 system is presented as an advancement in workflow. As a "Good Thing"(tm) when I think it's really a bad idea. It's incredible how marketing can makes us believe the darnest thing.

As Steve pointed out, at least with film you can save the original negative. You have an archiving medium. With P2 it's like you obtain an DI by destroying the negative. It's just a bad idea and an incredibly expensive one. It's surprising to me that it didn't cause a public outcry and a product recall.

Anyway, just MNSHO ;)

FWIW I think P2 is an excellent basic idea but - like so many good ideas - it's great in theory and lousy in practice. The price of the cards (after all 4 x SD cards in a fancy case) is absurd in my opinion as is the current capacity limit for most practical purposes. I'm sure most or all acquisition will be tapeless in the not-too-distant future but for most of the filming you'd be likely to try on a low budget camera like the HVX, P2 is pretty silly in terms of logistics. If you're planning on making a feature on a huge palmcorder (which I find strange in itself) then I'm sure P2 makes a bit of sense but if you want to use it for anything else you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. The HVX could have been a viable competitor to the Z1, which must be selling like hot cakes.

And where are all the DVX/HVX evangelists? I'd have thought they'd be all over this thread by now...

Exactly, that's part of the reason I sold my HVX and bought an HD-100... which squares with Paolo's initial post. For the pain P2 is in actuality it ought to offer a lot better quality to counteract that. It offers portable 60p for the moment. Other than that Panasonic has done an amazingly good marketing job IMHO.

@AntonyMichaelWilson:
The evangelists probably stick to HVX friendly boards. I'd be really curious to hear HVX vs. the competition sales numbers. I think the HD-100 got a boost after the HVX information really got out there.

I'm really glad they are sticking to the dedicated board. It's a pleasing surprise that the 'religious war' hasn't started yet. I agree that the HD100 must have had a boost after the HVX finally appeared. All the same, the HVX - coming out so much later with more time for improvement/development and having a far superior codec with a similar form factor - had the potential to challenge the Z1 head-on and steal from some of the HD100 market as well. It could have been a cracker but I suppose it is seriously hamstrung by the higher end cameras from Panasonic. We should be grateful that JVC does not produce popular, serious contenders in the middle and high range because it means that they can include all sorts of professional features that would be unthinkable for Sony and Panasonic at this price point.