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.


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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

That's correct. My investment and hardware is/was already in place because of what I already do. The HVX200 will allow me to quit buying miniDV tape, and it may save me a few $$ in the end. But the overall convenience factor (other than long-form recording, obviously) is a huge improvement over capturing DV tape. IMO, the cost of P2 cards justify themselves right there in the amount of time spent capturing. I can read data off my 4GB P2 cards at a sustained 580Mbps... In other words, I can dump my 4GB P2 cards to my SAN and clear the card in about a minute. I'm expecting the 8GB cards to be a bit faster (although they may not be), but still the fact I can copy 21 minutes of 720pn24 from the P2 onto my drives for archive/edit in 2 minutes or less is huge.

Oh, I plan on that. :) Silly me, I keep a DV tape in the HVX200 just in case. I won't have to buy DV tapes for a while, I still have about 250 Panny DVM63MQ in a large box here. Besides, I'm using a Sony HVR-A1 for my underwater work. :) Considering the A1 + UW housing combo is cheaper than the housing alone for my HVX. By switching to the HVX as my main camera, that's another 250~300 tapes I don't have to buy this year.

Jeff: have you tested that yet to confirm you do get transfer speeds like that? Just wondering. Also, any reason why you didn't bother to buy a DTE drive for your DV cameras to save on tape costs?

Jeff - Forgive me if I missed it somewhere in your posts, but I would like to ask what your tape cost is, per gigabyte, with the tape system that you currently use for backup.

I won't try and predict what Panasonic will do, but if I remember my history properly I wouldn't want to be one of the 'never ever' posters here either --

Seems to me when DV hit the scene, Panasonic was a 'no way' -- no way to DV tape (ME) no way to no linear audio tracks, and no way to Firewire. Over time, and watching both the consumer DV market grow and the prosumer one get dominated by Sony ... Panasonic changed its tune. Firewire appeared on devices, VTRs accepted ME tape, and ultimately DVCPro was relegated to a niche market as DV became a dominant format.

Do I like the HVX? Yes. Am I ready for the P2 workflow? Yes. Do I wish that the HVX had the ability to record and play HDV if so requested ... Yes again. Will this feature seem even more desirable once Panasonic joins the consumer HD market (at this point, they offer nothing -- and a visit to my local Best Buy finds consumer HDV is the 'growth market') ... Yes yet again.

Panasonic has a best in field prosumer HD camcorder, IMHO. But the field is a tough one, and prosumer is a small market. HDV looks likely to be the next consumer DV -- which means we'll still be buying tapes for years to come.

Add HDV as an option to the HVX -- what has Panny got to lose?

Cheers,
GB

Yes, I have tested the transfer rates from P2 to my system. Reading directly from a PCMCIA slot on an AMD 2.4GHz dual-core workstation to our fiber-connected SAN. The limiting factor is the P2 card itself as the 4GB cards can only sustain about 520 to 570 Mbps (between 65 and 70 MB/sec usually). Pretty quick overall - Panasonic claims 640Mbps, but I've heard people reporting 4GB cards that are slower (perhaps older units using slower SD chips?). AFAIK, the 8GB cards all use 133X SD chips, which running the numbers, would yield the 640Mbps claim that Panasonic makes about P2 speed. The maximum speed limit of the 32bit Cardbus PCMCIA standard is 1052Mbps. I received my 8GB cards yesterday, but haven't had a chance to test them out.

For many people, the limiting factor will be the firewire or USB2 interface if they use the camera as the reader or a device like Panasonic's P2 Drive. For raw speed, the best is a PCMCIA interface connected directly to the PCI bus in a desktop workstation. I have the one from Spec-Comm ($80). The only drawback is that cards are inserted on the rear of the computer, but the system I have installed this in is a SFF 9"x10"x13" box and it now sits sideways on my desk. The speed of the storage system a person is copying too will also be a limiting factor.

I don't use DTE drives for DV because so far I haven't seen any that I have liked. Firestore has never impressed me, especially for the price and hopefully their offering for the HVX will be a huge advance over their previous products. But having a single 2.5" HDD to work with, it's not going to be a speed demon, it's only going to let me copy the video from it to my SAN at real-time or slightly better. For in-studio situations, I would capture direct to a workstation that has a direct connection to the LAN/SAN.

So far, DTE drives haven't been truly Direct To Edit. Sure, I can plug one in and start editing, but not before I make a master archive of the video. And the drives thus far have been little faster than capturing off tape. Tape was/is an established workflow, but IMO, it's time to move on.

The last crate of tapes I bought was about $2180 after tax/shipping. $2180 / 100 tapes = $21.80 per tape.
$21.80 / 240GB = $0.0908 per GB.

At < $0.1 per GB, it doesn't seem too bad. But admittedly, I have over $6K invested in the rack-mount tape archival system. Like anything else, it's just a tool for the job. While I know I'm not the normal guy around here, I'm not unusual compared to others doing the same work... In fact, I am the normal. For those with a more IT-centric workflow, handling large volumes of data, a comprehensive backup and archival system is a necessity. The majority of what I do is created entirely from scratch on the computer and a large-scale tape backup and archival system is currently the only solution that makes sense in terms of reliabilty and cost. It was a small investment in the scheme of things and once established is not a big deal or huge cost to operate. But as video professionals who deal mostly with just video, are increasingly faced with more IT issues, such systems will become more commonplace in their workflows. Tape is on the way out and other means of recording are on the way in -- and just as we have seen with photography and audio/music industries, the initial medium used for acquisition will more often than not only be a temporary means of transport and not intended or suitable for a master archive.

...All the current pre-orders and sales to initial adopters. HDV? That's something to consider for the HVX200B. ;)

And maybe not even then, if P2 succeeds in this marketplace. There's several credible rumors out there saying that HVX200 pre-orders were on the order of 2 to 3 thousand units. That's a lot of P2 cards to go with those cameras.

But then aren't you proposing to do the same thing with your P2 data? Seems to me the only difference is a higher transfer speed at a significantly higher cost, at least from the perspective of anyone who doesn't already own all the equipment you have. Anyway, congrats to you for finding a way to work with the HVX200, and keep us posted on how that works out.

Doubtless there will be version B sometime -- buyers that are always waiting for the 'next' model will wait a long time!

I have no problem with the P2 workflow, and I don't doubt for a second that P2 prices will, by today's standards, plummet. The first HDD I bought cost me $5,000 ... and held 10MB, IIRC. In more recent memory, I paid $300 for a memory stick ... that held 32MB. Memory prices fall -- that's a fact.

But volumes in the thousands, or even tens of thousands are fine for a niche product, but will never make a real dent in the broader marketplace. Assuming that Panasonic wants into the consumer HD market, it is unlikely we are talking P2 -- HDV is selling orders of magnitude above these numbers.

Keep P2 -- I like it. But add/include whatever consumer HD format Panny comes to market with ... and the writing on the wall looks pretty clear, HDV on 6mm tape is the home consumer HD standard.

Won't stop me from buying an HVX200 -- I can make money from it now, and I like the way it handles. But absolutism in all things is a barrier, and I fear that in 'denying' HDV Panasonic may paint itself into a corner.

Cheers,
GB

One irony here is that Panasonic apparently miscalculated how quickly standard flash memory cards would reach a level of performance necessary to support a camera like the HVX200. SanDisk claims their Extreme III CompactFlash cards can sustain a minimum of 20 MB/sec read/write speed, which is the level Panasonic reps say they need for DVCProHD data. B&H just dropped their price on the 4 GB SanDisk cards to something like $216, compared to maybe three times that price for 4 GB of P2. Perhaps Panasonic can adjust their technology for the HVX200B to take advantage of more affordable memory options, which by then should be even bigger and cheaper. But then where would that leave all the P2 card owners?

These HD camcorder prototypes were shown at CES by Panasonic but without any supporting information.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/ces/p...pes-146633.php

Now that the GS400 has been phased out (and replaced by the lower priced/spec`d GS500) they might be the basis for their consumer HD camera. It is difficult to tell from the photos whether there is any provision for tape, but it doesn`t look like it. My impression is that they are card based. If so presumably their launch will depend on large enough SD cards being available to shoot DV and 720p.

Actually, that's not how P2 works... P2 uses a multichannel, interleaved memory controller - at least the current P2 cards do. By using a quad-channel array in serial, interleaved fashion, each SD chip only needs to sustain 3.125MB/sec in order to accommodate DV100. Current 133X SD chips have a theoretical I/O rate of 14.9MB/sec - over 4X what is needed to handle DVCPROHD100 when used in an interleaved array. I don't think Panasonic miscalculated anything.... If anything, third-party memory card vendors miscalculated the demand for these cards and I'm surprised that we haven't at least seen announcements from Sandisk, Viking, Patriot, etc... announcing P2 cards coming soon. Panny is charging a premium for theirs and given current prices, I'd bet a third party manufacturer could beat Panny's prices by 30%. I'm soooo tempted to try it myself. The only reason I'm holding off is because I'm sure that if I do it, I will suddenly find myself with tons of competition and a lot of money invested into a product with a low profit margin. OTOH, if I don't, there's also a chance that nobody else will jump in either. I'm shocked that Spec-Comm hasn't announce P2 cards as well.

FWIW,

Street price on 133X 4GB SD chips with a zero-fault rating is about $280. I would say that a manufacturer like Sandisk could sell a 16GB P2 card through discount channels and keep it at $1500 or less. Panasonic is charging a 25% to 35% premium for P2 cards, but being the big name provider and sole-provider, it only makes sense. Look at what they charge for batteries vs. the DVXuser or Spec-Comm batteries.

Yes.

But like you said, there is the better transfer rate. I would use DTE drives for DV if they provided a significant advantage over DV tape - they don't. Now some of the newer DTE units that can handle DV100 would offer 4X realtime transfer to a PC when shooting DV. That would be of interest to me... However, now that my HVX is up and running and doing great, I have no interest in going back to DV. It's HD only from here on out... I sold my DVX100 Original about a month ago. I still have my DVX100A, but I haven't decided if I want to sell it or ship it off for an Andromeda conversion. I'll wait for prices to die down a bit and supply to catch up, but I will probably be replacing the 100A with another HVX.

Right, my point is that the latest high-end standard flash cards wouldn't have to be interleaved to sustain the data rate required to capture DVCProHD data. In other words, it should be possible to build an HVX-like camera which uses off-the-shelf memory costing 1/3 or less per GB compared to P2 cards. If Panasonic had planned for this the HVX200 would be a more practical tool today and become mainstream a lot sooner than it will now by being tied to expensive memory. Ah well, hopefully we'll see more options along those lines in the next couple of years or so.

Would be nice to see a firestore like device that records to SD or CF cards.

...which is exactly what I've been prophesying on this forum as well as on another UK forum.
If Firestore don't produce one themselves, I'm sure there'll be another manufacturer who will...
I shot some material for the BBC with the Panasonic AJ-SPX900 last week alongside a Digibeta - we're looking at going over to tapeless acquisition for some of our drama series. I just loved the way that I could flip out the LCD at the end of a take, go to the thumbnail of the scene and play it back instantly on set, whereas the Digibeta guy had to unload the tape, take it out to a van to check the tape, as well as to make sure that it was reloaded so as not the record over part of the last take.

Robin

It just wouldn't be that tough to design one. The cost of production, on even a modest scale (at least 1000s) would be pretty low, if done properly. It could be a very small unit.

I just gave it some thought, and if anyone wanted to put up something in the neighborhood of $500k (USD) for a small business venture, I'm pretty sure I could put together a small team of very bright gents who could design an excellent device (there are a couple key people I would need to see if they would be interested), and I know I could do the product development (marketing) work to bring it to the marketplace, in probably less than a year. I've got to think that reaching a sales volume of at least a thousand units per year, at reasonable prices (sub 1k USD) with reasonable gross margins (into the hundreds USD), would be fairly easy to achieve rather quickly (almost certainly until there is competition). Contracting with a flash memory manufacturer, to be able to sell branded cards for the device, would boost the bottom line. I'm thinking a pretty small, light weight device that could mount easily on a hot shoe (perhaps no batteries, to keep the unit small), with perhaps 3 or 4 card slots, a few buttons to control the basic functionality, and a small LCD panel to display pertinent information, total unit sized something like 4"width x 3"height x 1"depth. Heck, could maybe even throw in extra mic inputs (to have the ability to record discrete 4 channel live onboard, either at 32khz within the DV or HDV compliant streams, remuxed essentially, or lay down a synched, additional 2 channel soundtrack at 48khz). Might even be worthwhile to fully incorporate Beachtek like device functionality, although that would increase the size of the unit and increase the number of input and output connectors substantially (perhaps two models, one with, and one without).

Here's what I've been able to find about BR burners:

According to Blu-ray.com, the Blu-ray Disc Association has plans to bring Blu-ray up to 8x, or more. A Blu-ray speed of 1X works out at 36Mbps, which is 4.5MB/sec. Which means to get to 640Mbps one would need an 18X drive.

Release Date - May 2006 -- Pioneer BDR-101A or BDR-102A
Price -- $995.00 US
Blank Media Price -- $50.00 US
Quality? -- tbd
Speed -- 2x

So the 8X drive for an optical disc solution that can archieve multiple P2 cards during a shoot may be several years away. Even when 8X is reached, it will take 2.25X real-time to dump the contacts to BR. A 10 hour shoot will require almost 21 hours to achieve. Since you can be dumping while shooting you probably could get 10 hours dumped per day -- assuming you have an intern stay awake for 24 hours. :)

But you would still need enough P2 cards for 8 to 10 hours.

Since P2 is a data storage device -- someone could build a BR RAID 0 device with a pair of 8X drives that would get us to about 12MB/sec. Still far short of the 18MB/sec to 20MB/sec required for real-time.


Recordable HD-DVD-R and rewritable HD-DVD-RW discs will have 15 GB with one and 30 GB with two layers. Maybe HD-DVD technology will be faster. But I'm not sure it offer the 18MB/sec to 20MB/sec required for real-time.

Steve, what do you think of Iomega Rev & Rev Pro disks.
A player burner is about $500.
They hold about 35G's each.
Are supposed to archive for 30 years
Burn rate is "up to 25MB/s"
(still too slow but better than 4.5)
They cost about $70 @ I think.

http://www.iomega.com/direct/product...=1141535159229

That's what the Thompson/Grass Valley camera will record on.

HD-DVD is slower than BluRay, but the exact numbers escape me right now... It's advantages are that media should be a bit cheaper and there are manufacturing benefits as current DVD manufacture processes can be easily adapted to press HD-DVD discs in most situations. However, BluRay is the superior disc format in terms of technical capabilities. On the software side of things as far as encryption, AACS, player features, etc... The two formats will be identical. BluRay should be the format of choice for delivering high-quality content due to its larger capacity and higher bitrate. However, I think any of us who want to deliver HD content in the coming months will probably have to invest in a recorder for both formats.

As for a backup and archival solution, I don't think BluRay and HD-DVD make a lot of sense right now. The cost per GB is far higher than current DLT, AIT and LTO tape solutions and the archival shelf-life and reliability are yet to be proven. Anyone creating HD-DVD and/or BluRay projects will have to invest in a tape drive of some sort as most replicators will request submissions on tape rather than disc - just as many still do with regular DVD.

And concerning the 35GB REV drives, they have their advantages/disadvantages too. Reliability should be better than HDD, but probably not as good as DLT or most quality optical media. In the end, they're still a magnetic HDD platter in a plastic shell. The only reliability factor they have over a conventional HDD is that the significant moving parts (heads, motor) are located in the drive itself and not on the disc mechanism. And I would seriously question their 30-year lifespan claim. Especially in a magnetic medium with such high density. Rev aren't a bad deal though... Shop around, I've seen drives for quite a bit less than what Iomega charges on their site. Some places sell packages with the drive and a pack or two of discs.

If I recall correctly (I could easily be quite mistaken), I think I read somewhere here that the HD-DVD-R blank media is expected to be available at around $15/ea. If that's indeed the case, a buck a gig isn't all that bad really, and no doubt the price will fall quickly, once burners are commonplace and widespread demand for the media makes it feasible to produce, transport and sell in bulk (inviting serious competition).

I have an inherent distrust for magnetic media as reliable for long-term archiving purposes. I'm old enough that I've seen it degrade and fail many times, and know of no example where any magnetic media has super reliably stood the test of time. Not to mention, magnetic media is, by nature, vulnerable to magnets, which requires one to be absolutely sure no powerful magnetic field gets near the media in storage, handling or transportation, which in turn, can sometimes be at least a little bit difficult, particularly over a long period of time. In theory at least, optical disks should be able to be made, to withstand the test of time (although laser disks didn't make it, and I'm not sure about audio CDs), without being particularly vulnerable to anything but relatively extreme handling/storage/transportation conditions if kept in a relatively inexpensive container. Also, write once optical media has a significant inherent advantage, in that there is no danger of unintentional erasure or overwriting of data. Simply put, magnetic media is volitale, whereas write once optical media does not have to be, if produced withing tight enough tolerances (no air pockets or leaks, leading to "laser rot").