Compact Flash vs 1.8" SATA flash

[explosive]

Qualitatively, which is superior -both taking affordability, reliability and speed into account?

Anybody in the know here on flash-issues?

[Jarred Land]

The Sata will beat in all but affordability.

but there is also convenience, which Compact Flash wins. You can easily find Compact Flash readers and Fast Cards at consumer retail.

It will take a huge push in demand from the consumer market to make the 1.8" come down in price to be on par. But it has the speed and the capacity advantage, at least right now.

[David Wyatt]

I thought Compact Flash was the worst value for money? The only fast enough Compact Flash card is the Sandisk Extreme IV which is about $160 for 8GB (roughly $20/GB). A 32GB SSD is about $500 (if you can source one!)which is roughly $15/GB. Personally I can't wait for this one to come out:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/30/pqi-debuts-256gb-2-5-inch-ssd-drive/

[Häakon]

But [SATA] has the speed and the capacity advantage, at least right now.
If the CF has the speed capability required to record 4K REDCODE RAW in the camera, the speed issue is in effect moot, is it not? There may be other bottlenecks in transferring the data off of the card/drive depending on the interface used, so that's a negligible difference too. In other words, does it matter if the SATA drive is technically faster if they both record the same data?

[Jarred Land]

You will find it hard to find a SATA SSD 32gb card that is fast enough for under $600. The 32gb SATA 1.8" drive we have found that is fast enough right now, cost us $3000.

There are a few cards out there now faster than the Extreme IV around the $100 mark. CF still wins. And will for some time. compact flash drops much quicker in price than the somewhat newer SSD's do.

[Jarred Land]

If the CF has the speed capability required to record 4K REDCODE RAW in the camera, the speed issue is in effect moot, is it not? There may be other bottlenecks in transferring the data off of the card/drive depending on the interface used, so that's a negligible difference too. In other words, does it matter if the SATA drive is technically faster if they both record the same data?

Absolutely 100% incorrect.

your not thinking about things like, say, faster frame rates.

[Häakon]

That's the response I was hoping to hear. :)

Oh, and you + are = you're! ;-) (sorry, it's my duty)

[Jarred Land]

lol.. it takes a "special" someone to correct grammar mistakes :)

love ya man.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

My plan is to get 3 RedDrives with the camera and then let the various solid state options improve over the next few months/years. If I have a shoot that absolutely has to have a shock resistant media option I'll just rent. My theory is that I'll be able to get a lot more for my money in the not too distant future and in the meantime I might be able to get a big chunk of my investment paid off before I spend even more money.

Just a thought, feel free to tell me I'm an idiot - my wife does it all the time :clown2:

[Alex Boothby]

Absolutely 100% incorrect.

your not thinking about things like, say, faster frame rates.

Say now - that's a juicy tidbit. :ohmy:

[Jaime Vallés]

Absolutely 100% incorrect.

your not thinking about things like, say, faster frame rates.
Oh, sh*t! Did you just type that for real?! :greedy:

If so, it's bye bye CF, hello 1.8" SATA for me. Even if it's only the 16GB capacity. Damn the convenience of CF cards, I'll gladly trade those in for a few more overcranking options in 4K!!!

[David Battistella]

I thought Compact Flash was the worst value for money?

I have to make the CF card vs film or other media argument here.

1.We know that by the time you actually have a RED in your hands the capacity of CF will be larger and the price will be cheaper.

2.The price might be 20$ a gig but it is reuseable, so it's hard to compare it that way. The price of all solid state media eventually becomes zero, (unless you actually keep the cards that you shoot on which could very well be a viable option and a huge, media storage, tapeless, blah, blah, blah problem solver).

3. 35mm film is a write once medium. (unless you are double exposing)

4. The price of 35mm film per transferred shot minute compared to the CF card might actually be cheaper. Considering you are capturing 4k you might want to compare this to the cost of 65mm film.

5. I can't believe we even think CF cards are expensive or we argue about one over the other in terms of cost. The only real argument is speed and performance and whether they will make pens with sharp enough tips to write the contents, shoot date and reel number on the label (which we will eventually print out of the metadata of the file anyway). :)

David

[Jarred Land]

Oh, sh*t! Did you just type that for real?! :greedy:

If so, it's bye bye CF, hello 1.8" SATA for me. Even if it's only the 16GB capacity. Damn the convenience of CF cards, I'll gladly trade those in for a few more overcranking options in 4K!!!

I woudnt be surprised if by the end of the year, CF was faster then SSD. Once CF moves to sata internals, look out.

[Jarred Land]

Great post David.

and your right... it costs cheaper to buy a 4 minute mag of CF as a 4 minute 400 foot roll of 35mm.

You could actually buy CF cards and use them as write once masters and leave them on the shelf for cheaper than it costs to buy 35, let alone shot it, process and scan it.

[Jaime Vallés]

I woudnt be surprised if by the end of the year, CF was faster then SSD. Once CF moves to sata internals, look out.
Dammit!!! You know, sometimes having this many options is too stressful! :clown2:

[Jarred Land]

Dammit!!! You know, sometimes having this many options is too stressful! :clown2:

tell me about it....

[David Battistella]

You could actually buy CF cards and use them as write once masters and leave them on the shelf for cheaper than it costs to buy 35, let alone shot it, process and scan it.

This is exactly what people need to get their head around. This type of "offloading thinking" has been ingrained because of the cost of P2 and the VERY necessary back-up solutions. The prohibitive cost of P2 has forced people into these elaborate schemes to be able to use that technology. The CF card is going to get people thinking in terms of tape or film and archiving in the moment will be less urgent.

I hope to see an integrated system where the recorded media from a CF can be transferred to a RED drive between takes or on breaks. The CF becomes the archive, the RED DRIVE the on set is the back up and then that RED DRIVE gets transfered as dailies at the end of the day. There's your three copies.

With the data rates as low as they are, the RAM options will be RED's Super speed (over 120fps)and the CF's will handle the lower off speed stuff (up to 120 FPS).

Just me dreaming out loud, but sort of knowing that is where we are going because every frontier gets stretched.

David

[JD Holloway]

Man,

All this talk about frame rates is chumming the water.
The future looks good. Freeze me in carbonite or soak me in alcohol.
(oh wait...done).
Wake me up when its here!

[Brook Willard]

tell me about it....

Yeah, you guys should just make it easy and go P2... ;) :)




Oh, god, no...

[Darwin]

What is the speed of SATA Flash drive? 45 megabytes per second for the CompactFlash cards at the top end.

[donatello b]

i'm hoping CF cards become the master ( like film neg) and we don't have to make copies on set ... hand CF cards to Producer and they have either editor or post house make the copies ( IE: just like turning film neg into lab) ...

[Poi Boy]

I think solid state over hard drive is a no brainer if you are on a commercial shoot and can't afford to re shoot. I would rather pay more for cards than have the cost of reshoot witch includes reputation.
Aloha
-A

[David Battistella]

i'm hoping CF cards become the master ( like film neg) and we don't have to make copies on set ... hand CF cards to Producer and they have either editor or post house make the copies ( IE: just like turning film neg into lab) ...

This is what you will probably see.


Let's not forget to consider that the CF card is eventually going to have to record the AUDIO information as well (which will take up bandwidth albeit not as much as 4K would) so the limits will be stretched there

But I hope there will be options. You could record 2K with 4 tracks of audio? or 4K and two tracks? or 4k at high speed with no audio?

Here is something I was thinking about. Film was initially supposed to be recorded and projected at 48fps, because the picture would have been sharper, with less flicker, etc. Obviously it was cost prohibitive BUT

Why not make this the standard in the RED revolution? Imagine how good it would all look? Film and playback at 48fps......maybe RED TWO with the RED CINE Projector...??


David

[Teague Kennedy]

This is what you will probably see.


Let's not forget to consider that the CF card is eventually going to have to record the AUDIO information as well (which will take up bandwidth albeit not as much as 4K would) so the limits will be stretched there

But I hope there will be options. You could record 2K with 4 tracks of audio? or 4K and two tracks? or 4k at high speed with no audio?

Here is something I was thinking about. Film was initially supposed to be recorded and projected at 48fps, because the picture would have been sharper, with less flicker, etc. Obviously it was cost prohibitive BUT

Why not make this the standard in the RED revolution? Imagine how good it would all look? Film and playback at 48fps......maybe RED TWO with the RED CINE Projector...??


David
Oh no, you're gonna cause a stir with that one. (anyway, as long as 24p is an option we're all good.)

[explosive]

This is what you will probably see.


Let's not forget to consider that the CF card is eventually going to have to record the AUDIO information as well (which will take up bandwidth albeit not as much as 4K would) so the limits will be stretched there

But I hope there will be options. You could record 2K with 4 tracks of audio? or 4K and two tracks? or 4k at high speed with no audio?

Here is something I was thinking about. Film was initially supposed to be recorded and projected at 48fps, because the picture would have been sharper, with less flicker, etc. Obviously it was cost prohibitive BUT

Why not make this the standard in the RED revolution? Imagine how good it would all look? Film and playback at 48fps......maybe RED TWO with the RED CINE Projector...??


David

Have you ever heard of the studies done at that frame rate?

People found it disconcerting... it was "too realistic". True story.

GOtta go, something shiny has just distracted me...

[David Battistella]

Have you ever heard of the studies done at that frame rate?

People found it disconcerting... it was "too realistic". True story.

GOtta go, something shiny has just distracted me...

I'd love to read those studies. But consider it now. That was tested at a time when people were not used to moving images. They did not have the "injest capaility" that we have now.

I think it would be cool to do that test again in a world where people have spend most of their lives watching motion pictures.

David

[Craig Schober]

I'd love to read those studies. But consider it now. That was tested at a time when people were not used to moving images. They did not have the "injest capaility" that we have now.

I think it would be cool to do that test again in a world where people have spend most of their lives watching motion pictures.

David

i don't think they were doing studies back when film was still young. they just ramped up camera/projector speed to 24fps (originally 18fps) because, at that point, people stopped seeing the annoying flicker. it was purely an economic choice.

although i agree it would be interesting to see if there's a difference between today's viewing generation and the previous generation's "ingest capability".

[JD Holloway]

Step right up!. Be the first on your block to make a 48 fps feature!

I feel it has some of the qualities of interlaced video.
60P would be sweet for sports though.

[Jarred Land]

audio takes up VERY little mb/s . Its not zero, but it is fractional compared to video.

[David Battistella]

audio takes up VERY little mb/s . Its not zero, but it is fractional compared to video.

This is good news. This has been a good thread. Sorry to mess it up with all the ethereal 48fps stuff.

Thanks,

David

[explosive]

The Sata will beat in all but affordability.

but there is also convenience, which Compact Flash wins. You can easily find Compact Flash readers and Fast Cards at consumer retail.

It will take a huge push in demand from the consumer market to make the 1.8" come down in price to be on par. But it has the speed and the capacity advantage, at least right now.

I just thought of this follow up Jarred - taking the above into account, so is this the reason why RED has decided to provide its own brand of CF, rather than its own brand of SATA 1.8" flash? Affordability and convenience?