OT: CinePorter 100GB P2 for HVX200

Coursedesign wrote on 1/19/2006, 9:46 AM
For the price of an 8GB card, you can now get 100GB from a 3rd party mfr. Of course it is harddrive-based (like a FireStore), but it could be an attractive alternative for HVX200 hopefuls (this camera means nothing to me until other people have paid their blood money to verify if this camera is the HD DVX100 they've been waiting for, or <something else>.

CinePorter says this is a "complimentary option for P2 users", so they should be giving them out for free.

Wonder if the FTC would help enforce that? :O)

Comments

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/19/2006, 2:06 PM
Link doesn't work
Coursedesign wrote on 1/19/2006, 2:32 PM
Fixed now, apologies.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/19/2006, 2:47 PM
Whoa - $2199 - that's too steep for my blood :(

But if it works - it's a good solution. IMO

Dave
Coursedesign wrote on 1/19/2006, 3:38 PM
It's not expensive at all if you can just get it and the base camera for $6K, instead of spending several thousands of dollars on P2 cards and "decks" for them so you can format them inbetween replacements in the camera.

Without something to record on, the HVX200 is just a door stop.
apsolonproductions wrote on 2/16/2006, 2:54 PM
You may want to check out the CitiDISK for HVX200 recording. The B+H photo price is currently

$999 for 90 minutes of DVCpro100 (HD) recording

$1099 for 115 minutes

$1199 for 135 minutes

Its lower than the price of firestorm F100. Whenever thats suppost to come out I have not idea but the retail price states its well over a thousand dollars. The citiDisk looks like a more practical recording option for the HVX200 until P2 cards increase in size and reduce in price.


Mark
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/16/2006, 3:51 PM
Part 1: What is the future for HDCAM & DVCPRO-HD? by Tore Nordahl

Link for Part One

HDV camcorders vs. Panasonic's HVX200, also by Tore Nordahl

Link for Part Two

It ain't quite what people think. Nordahl is pretty unbiased. I've got my own findings with the cam, but not *quite* ready to publish. Very nice camera, but it isn't what I had expected it to be based on what respectable people had hyped it to be. Which is why I'm trying to decide whether I just got caught up in the hype, or whether the cam truly is what I'm seeing it to be.

Either way, read what Nordahl has to say, I think you'll find it very informative.
apsolonproductions wrote on 2/16/2006, 7:04 PM
Very interesting article. Tore Nordahl must think that the pixel size is lower than 1080 horz. Thanks for the info

Mark
Coursedesign wrote on 2/16/2006, 10:00 PM
Spot,

Thanks for the Nordahl article, now there's a thorough guy who doesn't appear to have any Kool-Aid stains on his teeth!
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/16/2006, 10:57 PM
He doesn't (have Koolaid stains). Nor does he have a brown nose. He's got a great report that is a "purchase" report, I think he did it as a larger magazine article. Anyway, I've purchased it, and expect to have it tomorrow. Obviously, I can't share it, but will be using it as a template for my own tests over the weekend and coming week for my own article due.
pretty surprising how the HDV cams hold up against all the hyped HVX tho. Not saying anything against the HVX, just that it was hyped as the second coming of cameras, and it's turning out to be not. One thing I've noticed, unless I've got something set wrong, is this cam is noisy. Very noisy. Still digging tho, so that's just my first personal impression.
farss wrote on 2/16/2006, 11:34 PM
Take away the negative vibes caused by the rebound from the hype and this camera could fill a usefull niche. Being able to record to a format that has no spinning parts would make it ideal for use in high G applications although we regularly had a PC100 running in a fighter plane at over 4G without problems.

But the noise is a worry, the DVCProHD codec will cope better than HDV however it's hard to avoid the problems of noise and interframe compression, be it for DVD delivery or broadcast.

Bob.
farss wrote on 2/25/2006, 2:38 PM
If anyone interested Panasonic have fessed up and released the CCD specs, 960 x 540 with '3D' pixel shifting.

Bob.
apit34356 wrote on 2/25/2006, 2:56 PM
Bob, I was waiting for someone to publish the bad news.
farss wrote on 2/25/2006, 3:27 PM
It does explain one thing, why the video noise on the HVX 200 looks 'different'. Assuming that chroma noise is coming from the CCDs then the noise pixels are going to look BIG, particularly on the big screen. I'm guessing it'd also make noise reduction in post more difficult.
It also kind of calls into question the advantages of sampling the image at 4:2:2, realisticaly it's 4:2:0 sampled into 4:2:2. Well actually even that's not true given how DVCProHD applies spatial compression.
Bob.
apit34356 wrote on 2/25/2006, 5:38 PM
Bob, the sampling is the real beast of the problem. using "3d" to generate pixel data is going to create all sort of errors in the signal data. A minor manufacturing pixel error becomes a major problem in imaging using 3d generation. Now, will Pan really claim 1440x1080 output for the 4:2:2 format? Someone should do the math, this is really sad that Pan would jerk the procomsumers around like this.
farss wrote on 2/25/2006, 6:06 PM
Well yes, that's probably why Panny are so slow delivering the camera, it's probably a manufacturing and QA nightmare. Reading through all that Panny have to say about how the camera works and the engineering reasoning that went on kind of vindicates what I'd said some time ago. You simply cannot get a 1440x1080 CCD to scan progressively in 1/3" and give a decent image.
Everyone was saying bad Sony, they will not give it to us because they don't want to hurt their high end camera sales. A much simpler and more plausible explaination was they looked at it. saw the engineering problems and did something else, same with Canon. And even then with interlaced scanning it's a pretty tall order. I suspect the XL h1 is about as good as it can get witha 1/3" block.