What do you mean by "no longer supported"? It's still, and always has been, only supported by Panasonic. And they're rather attached to it, so I don't see them giving up on it for at least a little while longer.
There's no getting around the expense of P2. The cards are expensive, you need expensive hard drives to replace cheap tape backups, and it generally calls for an extra crew member on set to act as a P2 card wrangler. Despite that, the alternative for acquiring footage at this quality is full-size DVCAM tape like what the larger Varicams use, which are big, unwieldy cameras that go for $60,000 (not to mention $25,000 for a DVCPRO HD deck)
The HVX200 is a fantastic camera. Expensive, yes, but for under $10,000, I don't think you can find a camera that produces better footage.
"Please note that the PC Card Standard is closed to further development and PCMCIA strongly encourages future product designs to utilize the ExpressCard interface."
PCMCIA is dying! Slower bus speeds compared to ExpressCard media, OUTRAGEOUS pricing when compared to ExpressCard media.
What are you talking about when you say "hard drives are expensive"? A 750GB HDD goes for $199 on Newegg.com right now, compared to $1,650 for 32GB PCMCIA media? What the crap is that about?
And check out the Sony PMW-EX1 if you're looking for a camera for under $10,000 (under $6,500 actually) that produces better images!
So, to sum up, P2 is an inferior, over-priced product!
Stevie Wonder - FYI the Sony PMW-EX1 records at maximum 35 mb/s, while the HVX is 100mb/s. Put it this way - I get 112min of footage on my 100gig firestore, whereas the PMW gets 100min on 32mb of memory cards.
That might not make a difference to you, but it does to industry professionals.
Poor, poor, misguided Colin. Bitrate has very little to do with "how good" a camera is. At the end of the day, all that matters is image quality, and the Sony beats the HVX in that department using a more efficient, higher-quality codec on the PMW-EX1.
So, FYI, you're flat out wrong, my friend. Do a little more research before making blanket statements like that, as they tend to make you look like an idiot! LOL!! OWNED!
Except that XDCAM (EX or HD), while certainly more efficient in bitrate than DVCPRO HD, is not necessarily the better codec. It's basically the pro version of HDV, so it's still a 4:2:0, long-GOP MPEG2 compression, compared to 4:2:2, Intraframe DVCPRO HD. On that PMW-EX1 you're talking up, the SP quality setting actually is just HDV video with uncompressed audio. HQ mode bumps up the bitrate by 10mbits, but you're still dealing with the same limitations.
Not saying DVCPRO HD is always better-- the lower disk space requirements of XDCAM definitely make it a more affordable option, and in terms of straight resolution, the EX1 will beat the HVX, but you're making a tradeoff in ease of chroma keying (reduced colorspace) and fast motion scenes (higher compression) that could easily be a dealbreaker for a lot of projects.
You are absolutely right that bitrate is irrelevant compared to image quality, but there's a lot more to image quality than just resolution, so to say that XDCAM is universally the higher-quality codec just isn't true. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and do a little more research before making blanket statements?
*** Q:By and large no one complains about DVD quality, so here are we not looking at maintaining quality, whilst reducing bandwidth? Can it not also be said (with reference to DVDs) that it enabled far, far better than VHS quality at a sensible cost? So it WAS developed for quality?
A: Yes, but now you've stumbled exactly into the quagmire that is MPEG-2 interframe recording. MPEG-2 works quite well as a DELIVERY medium. MPEG-2 is not a synchronous codec with equivalent encode/decode times. DV and its variants are. It takes equal amount of time to encode as it does to decode. So realtime encoding at best quality is easily achievable.
But MPEG-2 is not that way. MPEG-2 was designed as a DELIVERY codec, not for acquisition! It can be very extensively processed, running multiple passes to optimize it to extraordinarily high quality within a given bitrate. But that means the encoding time might be 2x, or 10x, or 50x, or 100x as long as the decode time. Optimizing and improving and making the very most of the available bandwidth.
Can't happen in a camcorder. In a camcorder you're getting realtime encoding at nowhere near the efficiency of what's possible in a standalone encoding station. By very design you're getting the least-efficient MPEG encoding possible, being done not on a full program stream but on each individual group, and the differences from group to group can be extreme.
It's a great idea for delivery. But it's a lousy idea for source footage. ***
There's a reason that I can go down to my local Panavision and pick up a HVX, but I can't find a XDCAM anywhere. And to top it off, the 16gb SxS cards are expected to be around $900 - which is right in line with P2 cards.
So is it a terrible camera? Absolutely not. The PMW is a great addition to the marketplace. So check your fanboyism at the door and be excited that there are so many choices for HD Video- Each with it’s own pros and cons.
The P2 cards are joke. The price of the cards is a slap in the face. What does flash memory in other formats cost now?
When P2 was announced a few years ago, I knew then what's obvious now. Bait and switch. They're in the business of selling those cards. The delays on the 16gb were ridiculous. And now this thing comes out for a grand!?!
This is the thing. The quality of P2 and XDCam is substandard. Nobody shoots live sporting events, car commercials, etc. with some crappy handheld using a consumer-quality codec. The substandard quality is only good enough for news and reality shows. And those two sweatshop businesses actually benefit from the minute amount of time saved by going tapeless.
Point is, why P2 over XDcam? Yeah, the codec quality is slightly better. So what? They both suck if we're talking about the HVX. I know the DVCProHD can look rather good using a Varicam, since it's a real pro camera with real lenses. But who shoots with a Varicam AND requires a tapeless workflow? Nobody.
But let's pretend that you do need DVCProHD and you do need tapeless. Why not just get a Firestor box?
"Nobody shoots live sporting events, car commercials, etc. with some crappy handheld using a consumer-quality codec."
Actually that's the whole point of the HVX - it shoots full spec DVCproHD. Granted the lens/chipset isn't as good as a Varicam but it can be intercut. In fact a Ford commercial I worked on shot Varicam for the majority of the commercial, and used a HVX for all of the car mount stuff. Think of it as an Eyemo for HD.
Sean O: Actually the HVX can produce really impressive results and the industry has taken quite nicely to it (Sony too, for Sony lovers, but the 4:2:2 colorspace is just better, imho). You are correct in saying that the limiting factor on these cameras lie in the glass, however, there are many vendors - (red rock micro, cinemek, etc.) that offer 35mm kits that allow you to use PL lenses of the Cooke/Arri variety, or at an even lower cost point, standard SLR lenses from the likes of Nikon and Canon. The picture quality is actually quite good, and there has been a well-documented push for commercial use with such rigs (including mtv). Check out sample footage from one such vendor:
I agree that a FireStore box may be a better dollar-for-dollar route vs P2, but prices will inevitably come down. Even with a $1500 firestor, $5000 panny hvx (which uses the same DVCPROHD codec as more $$$ rigs), $2500 for a 35mm conversion kit, and $1000 in some used Nikon or Canon primes, you're looking at a Varicam-like rig that still costs just under 10k. Plus it still has a tapeless workflow that won't require an expensive deck. Can't beat that, imho. (especially for indie producers)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
$1,650? What a joke for an inferior, out-dated and no longer supported product.
P2 is going the way of the Dodo, I'm afraid!
replaced by what exactly? compressed hdv? expensive varicams that shoot on tape?
What do you mean by "no longer supported"? It's still, and always has been, only supported by Panasonic. And they're rather attached to it, so I don't see them giving up on it for at least a little while longer.
There's no getting around the expense of P2. The cards are expensive, you need expensive hard drives to replace cheap tape backups, and it generally calls for an extra crew member on set to act as a P2 card wrangler. Despite that, the alternative for acquiring footage at this quality is full-size DVCAM tape like what the larger Varicams use, which are big, unwieldy cameras that go for $60,000 (not to mention $25,000 for a DVCPRO HD deck)
The HVX200 is a fantastic camera. Expensive, yes, but for under $10,000, I don't think you can find a camera that produces better footage.
...and you're uninformed.
A quote from PCMCIA.org:
"Please note that the PC Card Standard is closed to further development and PCMCIA strongly encourages future product designs to utilize the ExpressCard interface."
PCMCIA is dying! Slower bus speeds compared to ExpressCard media, OUTRAGEOUS pricing when compared to ExpressCard media.
What are you talking about when you say "hard drives are expensive"? A 750GB HDD goes for $199 on Newegg.com right now, compared to $1,650 for 32GB PCMCIA media? What the crap is that about?
And check out the Sony PMW-EX1 if you're looking for a camera for under $10,000 (under $6,500 actually) that produces better images!
So, to sum up, P2 is an inferior, over-priced product!
Word.
Stevie Wonder - FYI the Sony PMW-EX1 records at maximum 35 mb/s, while the HVX is 100mb/s. Put it this way - I get 112min of footage on my 100gig firestore, whereas the PMW gets 100min on 32mb of memory cards.
That might not make a difference to you, but it does to industry professionals.
Poor, poor, misguided Colin. Bitrate has very little to do with "how good" a camera is. At the end of the day, all that matters is image quality, and the Sony beats the HVX in that department using a more efficient, higher-quality codec on the PMW-EX1.
So, FYI, you're flat out wrong, my friend. Do a little more research before making blanket statements like that, as they tend to make you look like an idiot! LOL!! OWNED!
Except that XDCAM (EX or HD), while certainly more efficient in bitrate than DVCPRO HD, is not necessarily the better codec. It's basically the pro version of HDV, so it's still a 4:2:0, long-GOP MPEG2 compression, compared to 4:2:2, Intraframe DVCPRO HD. On that PMW-EX1 you're talking up, the SP quality setting actually is just HDV video with uncompressed audio. HQ mode bumps up the bitrate by 10mbits, but you're still dealing with the same limitations.
Not saying DVCPRO HD is always better-- the lower disk space requirements of XDCAM definitely make it a more affordable option, and in terms of straight resolution, the EX1 will beat the HVX, but you're making a tradeoff in ease of chroma keying (reduced colorspace) and fast motion scenes (higher compression) that could easily be a dealbreaker for a lot of projects.
You are absolutely right that bitrate is irrelevant compared to image quality, but there's a lot more to image quality than just resolution, so to say that XDCAM is universally the higher-quality codec just isn't true. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and do a little more research before making blanket statements?
Perhaps you should take some of your advice! I didn't see any support for any of your blanket statements...
So how about this: achieving lower bit rate by using 4:2:0 long-GOP MPEG-2 isn't acceptable when shooting stuff like green screen for broadcasters. (http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14929&view=next&sid=).
Or here's what Berry Green has to say (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1048065):
***
Q:By and large no one complains about DVD quality, so here are we not looking at maintaining quality, whilst reducing bandwidth? Can it not also be said (with reference to DVDs) that it enabled far, far better than VHS quality at a sensible cost? So it WAS developed for quality?
A: Yes, but now you've stumbled exactly into the quagmire that is MPEG-2 interframe recording. MPEG-2 works quite well as a DELIVERY medium. MPEG-2 is not a synchronous codec with equivalent encode/decode times. DV and its variants are. It takes equal amount of time to encode as it does to decode. So realtime encoding at best quality is easily achievable.
But MPEG-2 is not that way. MPEG-2 was designed as a DELIVERY codec, not for acquisition! It can be very extensively processed, running multiple passes to optimize it to extraordinarily high quality within a given bitrate. But that means the encoding time might be 2x, or 10x, or 50x, or 100x as long as the decode time. Optimizing and improving and making the very most of the available bandwidth.
Can't happen in a camcorder. In a camcorder you're getting realtime encoding at nowhere near the efficiency of what's possible in a standalone encoding station. By very design you're getting the least-efficient MPEG encoding possible, being done not on a full program stream but on each individual group, and the differences from group to group can be extreme.
It's a great idea for delivery. But it's a lousy idea for source footage.
***
There's a reason that I can go down to my local Panavision and pick up a HVX, but I can't find a XDCAM anywhere. And to top it off, the 16gb SxS cards are expected to be around $900 - which is right in line with P2 cards.
So is it a terrible camera? Absolutely not. The PMW is a great addition to the marketplace. So check your fanboyism at the door and be excited that there are so many choices for HD Video- Each with it’s own pros and cons.
The P2 cards are joke. The price of the cards is a slap in the face. What does flash memory in other formats cost now?
When P2 was announced a few years ago, I knew then what's obvious now. Bait and switch. They're in the business of selling those cards. The delays on the 16gb were ridiculous. And now this thing comes out for a grand!?!
This is the thing. The quality of P2 and XDCam is substandard. Nobody shoots live sporting events, car commercials, etc. with some crappy handheld using a consumer-quality codec. The substandard quality is only good enough for news and reality shows. And those two sweatshop businesses actually benefit from the minute amount of time saved by going tapeless.
Point is, why P2 over XDcam? Yeah, the codec quality is slightly better. So what? They both suck if we're talking about the HVX. I know the DVCProHD can look rather good using a Varicam, since it's a real pro camera with real lenses. But who shoots with a Varicam AND requires a tapeless workflow? Nobody.
But let's pretend that you do need DVCProHD and you do need tapeless. Why not just get a Firestor box?
"Nobody shoots live sporting events, car commercials, etc. with some crappy handheld using a consumer-quality codec."
Actually that's the whole point of the HVX - it shoots full spec DVCproHD. Granted the lens/chipset isn't as good as a Varicam but it can be intercut. In fact a Ford commercial I worked on shot Varicam for the majority of the commercial, and used a HVX for all of the car mount stuff. Think of it as an Eyemo for HD.
Sean O:
Actually the HVX can produce really impressive results and the industry has taken quite nicely to it (Sony too, for Sony lovers, but the 4:2:2 colorspace is just better, imho). You are correct in saying that the limiting factor on these cameras lie in the glass, however, there are many vendors - (red rock micro, cinemek, etc.) that offer 35mm kits that allow you to use PL lenses of the Cooke/Arri variety, or at an even lower cost point, standard SLR lenses from the likes of Nikon and Canon. The picture quality is actually quite good, and there has been a well-documented push for commercial use with such rigs (including mtv). Check out sample footage from one such vendor:
http://www.redrockmicro.com/samples.html
I agree that a FireStore box may be a better dollar-for-dollar route vs P2, but prices will inevitably come down. Even with a $1500 firestor, $5000 panny hvx (which uses the same DVCPROHD codec as more $$$ rigs), $2500 for a 35mm conversion kit, and $1000 in some used Nikon or Canon primes, you're looking at a Varicam-like rig that still costs just under 10k. Plus it still has a tapeless workflow that won't require an expensive deck. Can't beat that, imho. (especially for indie producers)