Jan Crittenden livingston
Forum Replies Created
-
Hi Paul,
Can’t say why you are having the problem, but here is what I would do. Find a friend that has a PC. Download the P2 drivers and P2 viewer onto his PC. Then have this footage on a drive that you can mount to the PC on say a USB pocket drive. If it is going to open, P2 viewer will open it.
Hope that helps,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
Hi,
Make your edit in 23.98, removing the pulldown. When the edit is finished, add a normal 2:3 pulldown and send it back to tape. It will be ready for broadcast.
Best,
jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
[N.Adam.Smith] ”
No I didn’t try it.. I’d heard in other posts that it does not work, and the Panasonic download site says “7.2.0 is not supported”” target=”_blank”>https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/sales_o/p2/cms/index.html”
If you want to see your images and do some metadata management it works just fine. The only place where it does not function well with 7.2 is if you were using it to directly import into FCP, without making Quicktimes. This is a temporary situation, I am sure. But for what you said you wanted to do, I think it will work. Hey if it doesn’t work, uninstall it and move on to P2 Log or Raylight.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
If you are just going to use it to view and spotcheck the footage, the P2CMS will be fine. But I am looking at the hesitation on the Raylight and I say, hey it is the bees knees. Not having to rewrap to quicktime files and keep your MXF files along with the MetaData, would be the most perfect alternative there is.
Think about it. If you shoot 1 TB of MXF, and you want to keep this cross platform master, then when you edit you will need another TB for the QuickTimes, and these will not have the MetaData in a position that you can see or search. Fast forward a couple of years and you are now looking at 300 TBs of stuff. Where is that clip? Only the DataBase wrapped around your MetaData will know. This of course means nothing if the footage you shoot today will not be used again.
I have see how the Raylight works and it is very slick and very fast. Much faster to bring the footage in and start editing.
Anyhow the P2CMS will let you quickly review, just don’t use it to drag and drop the footage into FCP.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
I don’t think this is wide-spread or there would be thousands of posts as there are tens of thousands of HVX200s. If you are having this problem, as Noah suggested, you should get it fixed. It is not normal and both slots should operate the same way.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
Don’t know who you talked to at Panasonic, but you need to load the new drivers for the MAC as well. That should resolve your entire problem.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
[Nigel Cooper] “Jan, have you ever filmed and complete a production of any kind with ANY camera, or do you spend your life reading tec specs?.”
As a matter of fact I ahave been the producer on a number of projects, and I have worked with a number of filmmakers over the years. I have been in this business for well over 35 years. I am not dissing you. I am only challenging what you put out there as fact, and there are issues with what you are putting out there.
[Nigel Cooper] “Fact is, MPEG Long GoP has one uncompressed frame to relate to, DVCPROHD compresses EVERY frame in a similar way to how JPEG works with photos. Swings and roundabouts.”
That one frame takes about 1/3 of the bit budget, leaving the other 14 frames to divide up the remainder. It is the other 14 frames that are dependent on the previous frame that is the problem. That is the difference in Long GOP Mpeg and DVCPRO HD. Only the changes are recorded from frame to frame in MPEG. If there are more changes that what the algorithm can muster, it falls down. This means that the bit budget cannot handle all of the changes. When working with an I-frame codec,this is not an issue.
[Nigel Cooper] “I’m not going to be drawn into a stupid technical argument with you, I’m sure you have every Panny white paper committed to memory and can quote me all sorts of technical crap that just doesn’t concern me in the least. .”
Oh, please. I only pointed out the silliness of your claim that Panasonic didn’t do MPEG because we couldn’t do it as well as Sony, That was the dumb technical argument.
[Nigel Cooper] “EVERY I-Frame is compressed. Both Intraframe, Interframe and Long GoP are all compressed, they just do it differently; personally I don’t care about the scientifics unless I can see it in the picture and with pixel-shifting I can most definitely see it on a HD monitor; soft, soft, soft. .”
Frankly I could show you how the Long GOP can affect your picture, we did that demo at NAB this past year. Your perception of the HPX500 can be influenced by a number of things. It can depend on the glass being used and the monitor in question. But I did not say that the HPX500 had the same resolution as the 1/2″ Sony. I think I was pretty careful in saying just the opposite. My point was that resolution specs do not tell the entire story.
[Nigel Cooper] “AVC-Intra can’t hold up to being compressed/de-compressed 3 times in post. I know people who have done it and it can’t handle being shredded like XDCAM’s MPEG can. .”
Really, and how would that be true when the AVC-Intra card has not even been released? Perhaps you are thinking of AVCHD? Different algorithm.
[Jan Crittenden Livingston] “”you will have to work a lot harder with the lighting kit to make it happen on the 1/2″ over the 2/3″.”
[Nigel Cooper] “So the above quote would mean a HVX200 is pretty much useless for independent low budget filmmakers then? .”
No, it actually means the same thing, the folks that work with any of the 1/3″ cameras, not just the HVX, do have to work at getting more light in front of the camera. This is a known scenario.
[Nigel Cooper] “Hmmm, nice and technical again. Doesn’t mean jack to me Jan, I’m concerned with what the picture ‘Looks’ like on a HD monitor and don’t really go by manufactures inaccurate quotes and technical babble; not even Sony’s. .”
Well if you are interested in how it looks then you should look at it, because from what you are saying, it seems to me that you really have not looked at it.
[Nigel Cooper] “Just goes to prove that you have never completed a production. This is rubbish, the Fujinon XS17x5.5BRM is virtually indistinguishable against Canon half-inchers costing twice the price. I’ve compared all Canon and all Fujinon half-inchers for XDCAM HD. .”
This does not prove anything of the sort, it does say something about where you are coming from however. If you think that the cheap $5000 lens looks as good as the $20,000 lens, well there you go. I happen not to agree. I can see a difference in the $5000 lens versus the $10,000. In fact I can see the difference between the $8000 Fujinon 2/3″ vs the $10,000 Canon 2/3″.
[Nigel Cooper] “I owned the cheap HVX200 consumer camera for just 1 month before ditching it for reasons of image quality and expensive and destructive P2 workflow. .”
Perhaps you had destructive workflow issues because you were unfamiliar with working the workflow. But I can assure you that with a project as big as the Iditarod, with over 140 hours of P2 workflow capture and editing, we didn’t lose a clip or a card. And that is only the very tippy-top of the iceberg of work that has been done on P2 and it is indeed a very reliable workflow.
[Nigel Cooper] “I looked long and hard at Panny tape-based cameras before going for XDCAM HD. PDW-F350 suits most of my personal needs at this moment in time. This camera covers a wide spectrum from corporate, informercials, weddings, TV work and much more. And it is relatively cheap too with a workflow that, just works perfectly. .”
Actually in reality the XDCAM HD workflow on a minute to minute basis is more expensive than tape. I am not saying it doesn’t work for you, I am just saying that in comparison to a tape workflow, it is very similar and it costs more than tape.
[Nigel Cooper] “The bane of Panny products is still the dated, obsolete and expensive P2 workflow that simply won’t be around come 2009. Even Panasonic Japan know darn well that they will be announcing the replacement for P2 at NAB 2009. .”
Here you have the right to your opinion, but the reality that it is not true. I was in product discussions yesterday with Panasonic Japan where indeed we were planning P2 cameras and products that would deliver in 2009.
[Nigel Cooper] “Old serial/slow/unreliable P2 technology simply can’t survive in today’s world. How Panasonic call it the ‘IT’ workflow is a joke and ironic considering the IT industry has left PC-Card technology behind and moved onto the faster, more reliable, cheaper, more future proof ExpressCard technology. .”
This is hilarious. The PCMCIA slot is still on the PC laptops and the brand new computer 2 weeks ago still has a PCMCIA slot. But the argument here is moot. Show me the PC that has the XDCAM Disk built in? You point to the Express card camera, which basically reinforces what we have said all along, solid state is the way to go, no moving parts. And in fact we are not the only ones that call it an IT workflow, even Microsoft in their NAB presentation 2 years ago called it an IT workflow. It is IT because it is a file based system that can be managed just like Microsoft word documents and that can happen the minute that I have the card read by the computer. It can edit directly off of the card, and the files can be managed by meta-data, yes; it is indeed an IT workflow.
[Nigel Cooper] “Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Panasonic the only company on the planet that use PC-Card technology now? .”
Not really. The Duel-Systems adapter brings the PCMCIA card slot technology to those computers that no longer have a PCMCIA slot. And you can order certain computer with it. There is no need for further development whichis what the PCMCIA commeittee stated. It is not a dead technology, it is totally viable. I have a number of PCMCIA slot devices that rely on it, including my Flash card reader.
[Nigel Cooper] “And I see the CinePorter got canned due to lack of interest. Personally I think it is because they know they would probably only sell a few hundred. .”
While I would leave it to the Spec-Comm folks to say why they abandoned the project, my gut level says that that with the 16GB and the 32GB card being delivered this year and the 64GB card next year, your assessment might be right. Why rely on spinning disk technology when solid state is so much more of a sure thing?
[Nigel Cooper] “And aren’t Panasonic the only company on the planet making P2 cards? . “
And isn’t Sony the only company making XDCAM HD disks? This is a silly argument. Right now I know that there are two other companies that are trying to make them, but it isn’t all that easy, it is more than flash memory.
[Nigel Cooper] “There is a good reason Kodak, Lexar, Sandis, Fuji etc etc won’t EVER make P2 cards. Because they won’t sell many, just one to each end user. They won’t spend millions of dollars setting up production lines just to sell a few hundred thousand dollars worth of P2 cards. If P2 cards stick around that long anyway. .”
Well unlike the Disk technologies or even tape, you don’t need thousands of cards, each camera only needs a handful, so there really wouldn’t need to be a lot of manufacturers making cards.
[Nigel Cooper] “Panasonic committed to P2 for just 6 years, 4 of them are up, just 2 to go. Bye Bye P2, you’re days are numbered and anyone who thinks otherwise, well check back in 2009 and I’ll accept your apologies. .”
This is silly. You act as though you have some special secret knowledge and there is no truth to what you say. You too can offer your apology in a couple of years because what you will see is that the P2 will continue to grow in size and there will be more cameras and devices that will capitalize on it.
Best regards,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
[Nigel Cooper] “Why oh why do people insist that the DVCPRO100 codec is better than the MPEG2 codec; this is total rubish. For your information John, DVCPRO100 DOES NOT record at 100Mbps, it is closer to 48Mbps, read up and learn. Besides, XDCAM HDs35Mbps is more like 100Mbps due to the fact that the MPEG codec is sooooooooo much more efficient.”
I believe you have the numbers wrong here Nigel, but that aside, the reason that many feel the DVCPRO HD codec is better is bacause the frames are recorded independently and thus are not dependent on the next frame. For real information, instead of hearsay leading to what the real data rates are, you should read up on it at SMPTE, it is under SMPTE 314. Efficiency is not always the best thing unless you are in the delivery mode, efficiency can indeed bring about aberrations or shall we say artifacts that are not very desirable when you have a lot of detail and a lot of motion.
[Nigel Cooper] “I think Sony know exactly what they are doing with codecs. The only reason Panny aren’t using MPEG is because they can’t get it to work as well as Sony can so they are sticking with their tried-and-tested method. But believe me, it is NOT better and anyone who says it is, is seriously miss-informed.”
Nigel, frankly you need to go back and test this one again. And the reason Panaosnic is not in the MPEG domain in the production end is because we fell it is better placed in distribution. We do not feel the place for compromise in in the production end of things, which is why we have always tried to deliver an I-frame codec to the production industry. This is what DVCPRO HD is, DVCPRO50 and the new AVC-Intra. The fact that you put out there and say it as if it has rational weight behind it that we can’t get it to work as well as Sony, is ridiculous. We probably have shipped more DVDs and Blu-ray than most other manufacturers out there. We happen to believe long GOP MPEG has its place.
[Nigel Cooper] “As for the ‘distinction in imager size which advantages the Panasonic’ absolute rubbish. The resolution is what you need to be looking at, Sony’s 1440×1080 vs Panasonic’s 960×540 (basically standard def chips with pixel-shift in 3 directions to force a fake HD image).”
Frankly you need another lesson here. You didn’t seem to understand what that reference page was saying. And the CCD count on the HPX is not 520,00 as your numbers would indicate, but rather a 620,000 count. Resolution is not everything if it causes the algorithm to reflect blockies when there is a lot of motion and a lot of detail, like what we were showin at NAB, a small babbling brook scene. The imager size on the 500 does offer a dynamic range that is much nicer and the low light is also better. Does the 350 have more resolution, sure, but it records to long GOP. Being 1/2″ causes certain compromises in the dynamic range and the the lowlight sensitivit, so if you are shooting that scene with that 1/2″ imager and it happens to be one of those real edgy scenes with dramatic lighting you will have to work a lot harder with the lighting kit to make it happen on the 1/2″ over the 2/3″.
And what would be that 3rd direction? It is a spatial offset that gains resolution by picking up the areas that are between the pixels of the green CCD in the Horizontal and Vertical Domains. This added resolution is combined with that green channel for the addition of lumininace resolution. CCDs ar analog devices, the image that comes off of them is an analog signal. That is then captured by the camera at a 1080 X1920P image capture, it is handled this way throught the camera processing and then put out to the DVCPROHD algorithm. Am I saying that you get the same as the 1440X1080 Sony, no, but I am saying that it does make for a very pleasing picture and numbers do not tell the entire story. And it can indeed be very competitive.
[Nigel Cooper] “2/3rd lenses won’t cost you any more really, Canon just brought out a new range that are only a tiny fraction more than half inch so no argument there either.”
Frankly the last I looked, unless you are really looking at the bargain basement lenses that no one should be using, the 1/2 vs 23 lenses are virtually the same price. The difference here is that there is compensation characteristics in the Panasonic camera that will work to resolve the Chroma Aberrations that are apparent in the less expensive lenses.
>How is a 2/3rd lens better than a 1/2″ lens exactly Pete? a 2/3rd lens on a half inch camera will be worse in quality than a 1/2″ lens on a half inch camera. It is possible that a
-
[jiri vrozina] “Last time i looked at f330 it had about 1,500 000 pixels.My understanding is:HPX500 is using an old SDX900 block which consists of about 600,000 pixels. ??”
Actually the old SDX block was 525,000 pixels and the best it could do was 30 frames per second. This is a new vision. It is ab;es to samp;le at 60 frames per second, something that the SDX could not do.
[jiri vrozina] “And cameras with LESS pixels need LESS light.So where is this extra Panasonic resolution coming from??”
More pixels, 625,000 vs 525,000.
[jiri vrozina] “Why do you think all serious camera produces are now making 1920×1080 chips? With new HD formats(jpeg2000,sony xdcam hd50,panasonic Intra) you need good resolution.
Why do you think Sony(and others) are using 1920 x 1080 sensors in their 1500 series studio cameras and HDCAMs??”Oh please, we are talking about a $14,000 camera, that is the HPX500. Do you really expect it to have 1.1 million pixels? The trade off is that it is a 2/3″ Imager. It really is about whether you have the budget. If you can do the 1.1, then the HPX2000 would fit in against the F350 price. But I find it odd that Pete can find the F350 at the HPX500 price. I wonder why?
Anyhow I hoe this helps,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
[Nate Weaver] ” Resolution is about the same as the HVX as well,”
Hi Nate, this is not a correct assumption. There is more resolution on the HPX500. There are an additional 100,000 pixels on a 2/3″ CCD. And you are right about the better lowlight performance.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems