Canon 1dx Mark II - Underwater Video

[kaihp]

I would only use an SSD as the 'working drive', and then have some spinning rust for bulk storage of the things you aren't working on. I use WDC Reds in my NAS. Today, I'd probably choose WDC Red Pros, as they are a bit faster (7200rpm vs 5700rpm) and not that much more expensive (+10% IIRC).

Oh yes there is cost to long term SSD storage. Requires fairly constant rewriting of the data to refresh th storage charge and ultimate failure of the memory location. SSDs are getting better though but i would never use them for long term storage. I use redundant USB drives for long term storage. USB has the best backwards compatibility support. My version 1 USB drive still works in a usb 3.0 port. Relying on things like SATA interfaces may go by the wayside with MFM, RLL, Scsi and soon to be IDE.

Whatever you use it will eventually be obsolete unless you refresh about every 10 years or so. Possibly less.

Cloud storage is an alternative but it just moves that refresh onto a 3rd party that you hope you can trust with your data.

Oh yes, long-term reliable storage is expensive. I keep advocating a combination of local ("onsite") and remote (cloud or just disks at a physically different place) as a good combination.

USB drives are a good choice. Like you say, the interface is pretty ubiquitous and has been around since 1996.
A good alternative is a NAS (Network Attached Storage) enclosure with disks inside, which connects via Ethernet. Ethernet has been around 'forever' (introduced in '80 and standardized in '83) and there are no signs of it going away either (we're at 1Gigabit/s for end-users and 100Gigabit/s is standardized).

 

[East Wind Photography]

I would only use an SSD as the 'working drive', and then have some spinning rust for bulk storage of the things you aren't working on. I use WDC Reds in my NAS. Today, I'd probably choose WDC Red Pros, as they are a bit faster (7200rpm vs 5700rpm) and not that much more expensive (+10% IIRC).

Oh yes there is cost to long term SSD storage. Requires fairly constant rewriting of the data to refresh th storage charge and ultimate failure of the memory location. SSDs are getting better though but i would never use them for long term storage. I use redundant USB drives for long term storage. USB has the best backwards compatibility support. My version 1 USB drive still works in a usb 3.0 port. Relying on things like SATA interfaces may go by the wayside with MFM, RLL, Scsi and soon to be IDE.

Whatever you use it will eventually be obsolete unless you refresh about every 10 years or so. Possibly less.

Cloud storage is an alternative but it just moves that refresh onto a 3rd party that you hope you can trust with your data.

Oh yes, long-term reliable storage is expensive. I keep advocating a combination of local ("onsite") and remote (cloud or just disks at a physically different place) as a good combination.

USB drives are a good choice. Like you say, the interface is pretty ubiquitous and has been around since 1996.
A good alternative is a NAS (Network Attached Storage) enclosure with disks inside, which connects via Ethernet. Ethernet has been around 'forever' (introduced in '80 and standardized in '83) and there are no signs of it going away either (we're at 1Gigabit/s for end-users and 100Gigabit/s is standardized).

The problem with NAS is you are locked into that unit. If the company goes out of business, or the disk buss changes, you are out of luck. NAS makes great near term storage but i still wouldnt trust it for long term storage (greater than 10 years). You might be able to extend that with ample spare parts...power supplies, disks, etc. but not sure its worth it. Im sure others will chime in with their opinions.

 

[kaihp]

Oh yes, long-term reliable storage is expensive. I keep advocating a combination of local ("onsite") and remote (cloud or just disks at a physically different place) as a good combination.

USB drives are a good choice. Like you say, the interface is pretty ubiquitous and has been around since 1996.
A good alternative is a NAS (Network Attached Storage) enclosure with disks inside, which connects via Ethernet. Ethernet has been around 'forever' (introduced in '80 and standardized in '83) and there are no signs of it going away either (we're at 1Gigabit/s for end-users and 100Gigabit/s is standardized).

The problem with NAS is you are locked into that unit. If the company goes out of business, or the disk buss changes, you are out of luck. NAS makes great near term storage but i still wouldnt trust it for long term storage (greater than 10 years). You might be able to extend that with ample spare parts...power supplies, disks, etc. but not sure its worth it. Im sure others will chime in with their opinions.

Well, I don't expect to have a single system run for 10+ years. I expect to do a rolling replacement.
My first NAS ran 24h for 7 years, and the reason I replaced it was that it was full (and a growing concern for loosing the disks). I'm quite convinced that that will happen with my current and future systems as well.

BTW, my NAS is really a PC with SATA disks in it. If I really wanted, I can maintain this system for as long as I can get PC-style motherboards.

The powered-off USB disks do have an advantage: less wear&tear on the actual disks. The initial access time is somewhat higher though

But we were supposed to talk about Mantadude' great underwater video here. I'll stop here.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Just came across a statement that the 1DX II 4K video is good but the HD is bad. Can anyone expand on this?

"Unfortunately, the HD mode of the Canon 1D X mark II is really disappointing. Aliasing is strong and the image is very soft. It can hardly be considered an HD image and is barely suitable for an old tube television. The Canon 1D C, on the other hand had a S35 crop mode that delivered a very nice HD image."

https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-1d-x-mark-ii-vs-canon-1d-c-which-one-shoots-better-video/

Jack

 

[East Wind Photography]

Interesting. I don't think anything canon does has anything to do with ML though. More likely it's because

1) they don't want the 1dx2 to take sales away from the cinema line
2) the bit rate is lower due to the higher sensor resolution..thus more artifacts.

If the issue is with digic6 (maybe an oversight) it could be fixed with a firmware update. Though I strongly think it's due to #1.

4k is slightly cropped as well. On the cinema line is 4k also cropped, on a smaller sensor, or full frame?

 

[East Wind Photography]

Actually on 2 I should have said the bit rate is lowered via compression..
More needed due to more pixels to process.