Computer Learning Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Computer Learning

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: SI Ron (Crazy Music Man) who wrote (82469)	7/9/2013 9:56:23 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) of 110626

See below advice I found: In 1995, when DV camcorders first hit the market, firewire ports ran at 400 Mb/s. USB 1.0 entered the market in 1996 at 1.5 Mb/s. In 1998 USB 1.1 was introduced at 12 Mb/s. DV transfer requires about 29 Mb/s. So USB 1.0 and 1.1 were too slow for DV transfer. Camcorders that offered USB ports used them for still images or highly compressed and downscaled (typically ~352x240 MJPEG) video, not for full DV (720x480) video. In the year 2000 USB 2.0 was introduced at 480 Mb/s. That was fast enough for DV transfer but few camcorders were ever manufactured that could take advantage of it. Capturing via firewire (really just a digital data transfer) will give you an exact copy of what's on the DV tape. Using an analog capture device will give lower quality because the digital data on the tape is converted to analog (quality loss), sent over an s-video or composite cable (quality loss), digitized again (quality loss), and probably compressed again using a lossy codec (quality loss). forum.videohelp.com I guess I now need to buy a PCMCIA fireware card with a TI chipset. - JEff

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next