# Why is dual slot video recording so hard to come by?



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 14, 2020)

For how much people clamor over the need for dual slot photo recording on cameras, it's bewildering to me that people don't seem to make that much fuss about it when it comes to video. I just sold a Canon C100 that I loved for its ability to dual record, but overall it's just a little bit of an outdated camera from a usability and autofocus standpoint. I'm planning to change over to an external monitor/recorder to use more advanced stills cameras for video. I like the new Blackmagic ones that are about to come out, but the large 7" one, despite having two SD card slots and a USB C connector for external recording, seems to bizarrely have no ability to record two copies of video at once.

How do people deal with the uncertainty of not having a backup copy of their video when recording in a professional setting when there's no chance of doing a re-take?


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 14, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> How do people deal with the uncertainty of not having a backup copy of their video when recording in a professional setting when there's no chance of doing a re-take?


I use two video cameras for that purpose. Two camera setting is always more reliable than one camera with two slots.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 15, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> How do people deal with the uncertainty of not having a backup copy of their video when recording in a professional setting when there's no chance of doing a re-take?



My impression is:

1. Videographers fill up cards at a much higher rate, forcing them to empty the media by moving the data to a computer (say a NAS server) much earlier.

2. Videographers shoot the same scene from several angles, so a card failure is less of a problem.

3. IIRC, the media reported Hollywood studios used 5DmkIIs as throwaway cameras in one of the X-Men movies. The cameras were set to shoot the scene from certain angles, knowing full well an explosion would destroy them. They hoped they'll recover the footage from some of the cameras.


----------



## Dantana (Jan 23, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> For how much people clamor over the need for dual slot photo recording on cameras, it's bewildering to me that people don't seem to make that much fuss about it when it comes to video. I just sold a Canon C100 that I loved for its ability to dual record, but overall it's just a little bit of an outdated camera from a usability and autofocus standpoint. I'm planning to change over to an external monitor/recorder to use more advanced stills cameras for video. I like the new Blackmagic ones that are about to come out, but the large 7" one, despite having two SD card slots and a USB C connector for external recording, seems to bizarrely have no ability to record two copies of video at once.
> 
> How do people deal with the uncertainty of not having a backup copy of their video when recording in a professional setting when there's no chance of doing a re-take?


You have to remember that having a redundant backup of a motion picture is relatively new compared to the amount of time movies have been produced. Professional film cameras went from having non-reflex finders, to reflex finders, to video taps, all with no way to see the real footage until the next day (best case scenario).

I'm not saying that a backup isn't a great thing to have. It's just that films were made for a very long time before you could even check a take after the fact.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 23, 2020)

Dantana said:


> You have to remember that having a redundant backup of a motion picture is relatively new compared to the amount of time movies have been produced. Professional film cameras went from having non-reflex finders, to reflex finders, to video taps, all with no way to see the real footage until the next day (best case scenario).
> 
> I'm not saying that a backup isn't a great thing to have. It's just that films were made for a very long time before you could even check a take after the fact.


When I started in photography , I had to wait 3 weeks to see how the shot went. Mailing in Kodachrome from remote areas was not a fast process.


----------



## dcm (Jan 23, 2020)

Don Haines said:


> When I started in photography , I had to wait 3 weeks to see how the shot went. Mailing in Kodachrome from remote areas was not a fast process.



Overnight photofinishing (film developing and prints) at places like FotoMat was a huge leap in the 1960s. This helped bring photography to the masses with color print films. It accelerated with minilabs that provided one-hour photo finishing on site in the 1980s.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 23, 2020)

Dantana said:


> You have to remember that having a redundant backup of a motion picture is relatively new compared to the amount of time movies have been produced. Professional film cameras went from having non-reflex finders, to reflex finders, to video taps, all with no way to see the real footage until the next day (best case scenario).
> 
> I'm not saying that a backup isn't a great thing to have. It's just that films were made for a very long time before you could even check a take after the fact.


Right, but I would argue that, at least if you properly store and handle the film, it's much harder to spontaneously lose footage if you're shooting a movie to film. With digital recording, while it is rare, memory cards can sometimes just corrupt. And all of a sudden, for no reason, you've lost all of your footage. Again it's entirely possible to ruin film footage if you're not careful, but generally something recorded to film isn't just going to spontaneously ruin itself to the point you can't recover it the way a digital recording has the potential to.


----------



## Dantana (Jan 23, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Right, but I would argue that, at least if you properly store and handle the film, it's much harder to spontaneously lose footage if you're shooting a movie to film. With digital recording, while it is rare, memory cards can sometimes just corrupt. And all of a sudden, for no reason, you've lost all of your footage. Again it's entirely possible to ruin film footage if you're not careful, but generally something recorded to film isn't just going to spontaneously ruin itself to the point you can't recover it the way a digital recording has the potential to.


I’m not really talking about losing the film, though I know of that happening to a friend. I’m taking about spending an entire day on a set you won’t have access to again to find out later that the pressure plate wasn’t put back correctly after checking the gate between takes, or that the aperture was set incorrectly after opening up to focus, or that there was a boom in the edge of a shot that really was visible, or a myriad of other things that you would never know until you saw dailies the next day (if you were lucky). I know none of these things would have been solved by a backup. That’s not really my point. I’m not arguing against a redundant backup. I’m just saying that production has been going on for a very long time without It, so the pipeline isn’t dependent on it, for good or bad. Maybe it should be.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jan 23, 2020)

Dantana said:


> I’m not really talking about losing the film, though I know of that happening to a friend. I’m taking about spending an entire day on a set you won’t have access to again to find out later that the pressure plate wasn’t put back correctly after checking the gate between takes, or that the aperture was set incorrectly after opening up to focus, or that there was a boom in the edge of a shot that really was visible, or a myriad of other things that you would never know until you saw dailies the next day (if you were lucky). I know none of these things would have been solved by a backup. That’s not really my point. I’m not arguing against a redundant backup. I’m just saying that production has been going on for a very long time without It, so the pipeline isn’t dependent on it, for good or bad. Maybe it should be.


Well, ok. I'm not sure how exactly to respond to this. It sounds like you're talking about a lot of ways that a shot could be ruined that are independent of a digital memory corruption, but you also acknowledge that they're independent of this. So... Ok, I guess?

All I'm saying is that digital recording introduces a potential point of failure that could result in an _entire_ shot being _completely_ lost that the camera operator has essentially no control over and can happen completely at random. That's a new, unique thing that was never a possibility with film. The only equivalence I can think of would be if you just somehow got "bad" film that didn't actually record light. Was that even something that ever happened back then?


----------



## Dantana (Jan 23, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Well, ok. I'm not sure how exactly to respond to this. It sounds like you're talking about a lot of ways that a shot could be ruined that are independent of a digital memory corruption, but you also acknowledge that they're independent of this. So... Ok, I guess?
> 
> All I'm saying is that digital recording introduces a potential point of failure that could result in an _entire_ shot being _completely_ lost that the camera operator has essentially no control over and can happen completely at random. That's a new, unique thing that was never a possibility with film. The only equivalence I can think of would be if you just somehow got "bad" film that didn't actually record light. Was that even something that ever happened back then?


You could have had a batch of film that was bad, or not the emulsion that you thought because you bought short ends, or your magazine could have been handled improperly and exposed it...

All I was trying to say was that the idea of a backup, while super valid and cool, is not something that was part of production workflow for most of film history. Hopefully it will get integrated into workflow/hardware/etc.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Aug 31, 2020)

Canon never did video to dual card on their DSLR or mirrorless. I think it's to push you to the XC, XA, XF, Cxxx, etc series when you need that reliability.
Some Sony and Panasonic can do video to dual card. Strange Blackmagic also can't. Guess for the same reason Canon won't.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 31, 2020)

I think that pushing video to two cards is a technical / user issue. You would need two buffers and even then, it must be difficult if cards are writing at different speeds. Pro's are more likely to own identical cards and low level format them so they write at the same speeds. I would not want to deal with the issues in a consumer oriented camera.


----------



## Justking (Sep 3, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> For how much people clamor over the need for dual slot photo recording on cameras, it's bewildering to me that people don't seem to make that much fuss about it when it comes to video. I just sold a Canon C100 that I loved for its ability to dual record, but overall it's just a little bit of an outdated camera from a usability and autofocus standpoint. I'm planning to change over to an external monitor/recorder to use more advanced stills cameras for video. I like the new Blackmagic ones that are about to come out, but the large 7" one, despite having two SD card slots and a USB C connector for external recording, seems to bizarrely have no ability to record two copies of video at once.
> 
> How do people deal with the uncertainty of not having a backup copy of their video when recording in a professional setting when there's no chance of doing a re-take?


Also depends on how much you cares about your clients & business. One wedding card screw up could be the end. 700 images gone in you have a one card slot camera. In 2 card slots are available. Why not avoid that. Precious moments are important.


----------



## dba101 (Oct 17, 2020)

Multiple cards changed at non-critical intervals, and backed up to an iPad every chance I get.


----------

