It's been a short while since we've seen any on the P2 HD front but Panasonic is hoping to remove a few more hundies from those sold on the format by introducing a 32GB P2 card. The device labeled AJ-P2C032RG can be installed in sets of five into the AJ-HPX3000 and HPX2000 P2 HD camcorders for recording "up to 2.5 hours (over 3 hours in 24p) of footage in AVC-Intra 100 or DVCPRO HD and 5 hours (over 6.5 hours in 24p) in AVC-Intra 50 or DVCPRO 50." As you'd probably expect this sucka won't run you cheap as it's expected to bespeak a staggering $1,650 when it hits in November.[Via ]
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 be 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 have in mind $25,000 for a DVCPRO HD be)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.
A ingeminate from PCMCIA org:"Please note that the PC separate Standard is closed to further development and PCMCIA strongly encourages future product designs to change 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 alter 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.
object 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 displace plough space requirements of XDCAM definitely make it a more affordable option and in terms of straight resolution the EX1 ordain 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 visualise quality but there's a lot more to visualise 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 act 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. (=). Or here's what cull color has to say ():***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 be? 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/rewrite times. DV and its variants are. It takes equal amount of time to convert as it does to rewrite. 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 rewrite measure. 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 come 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 beat schedule 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 obtain footage.***There's a reason that I can go down to my local Panavision and choose 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 lie 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 communicate. The price of the cards is a strike in the face. What does flash memory in other formats be now?When P2 was announced a few years ago. I knew then what's obvious now. bemock and change by reversal. 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. inform is why P2 over XDcam? Yeah the codec quality is slightly exceed. So what? They both drink if we're talking about the HVX. I experience 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 belie that you do need DVCProHD and you do need tapeless. Why not just get a Firestor box?
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 move back and forth micro cinemek etc.) that offer 35mm kits that allow you to use PL lenses of the Cooke/Arri variety or at an even lower be 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 ordain inevitably come drink. 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.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/17/panasonic-offers-up-32gb-p2-memory-card/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
