Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- From: Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:00:32 GMT
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:34:26 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <7vldt3p9dkr2qgt027bgnpsrv0retqpi54@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:59:04 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <2008031107205716807-completelyinvalid@boguscom>,
michelle ronn <completelyinvalid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-03-10 10:22:59 -0700, Steve Hix
<sehix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
In article <2008030920061275249-completelyinvalid@boguscom>,
michelle ronn <completelyinvalid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It requires
fiber optic technology and is supposed to have a burst speed of
4.8 GBps. If this happens it will provide a burst speed up to 6x
faster than Firewire 800. Will this become the new standard for
fast data transfer requirements? We shall see. If so, all I can
say is: To the innovator go the spoils.
It's still burst technology, so it will never be suitable for, for
example, HD Cameras.
Just like it doesn't work for hard drives today. I don't buy it.
"Isochronous". Look it up.
FireWire has it, USB does not.
It makes a difference.
Um, go check that USB 2 spec again while you are at it. Isochronous
support is in there.
It's in the spec, but I don't know of many devices that have implemented
it. If your cheap USB card doesn't support it, then it won't happen.
Besides, Firewire already has it, and my video camera has a Firewire
interface. So why should I use the USB interface when the Firewire
interface works better?
You could end up like me. The Firewire port in my video camera just
quit working. If I didn't have USB capable of video transfer I'd have
a nice paperweight.
This seems to be a fairly common occurence.
That's not an argument for the superiority of USB. The same "logic"
could be applied the other way: if your camera's USB port were to die,
you'd be grateful that there was a Firewire port, without which the
camera would be a paperweight.
1) I'm not arguing that either is superior. Actually forMiniDV video
cameras its a wash. Since they transfer in real time and the data load
from that is well within the capabilities of both USB 2.0 and Firewire
there's no effective difference. If those newer cameras that record to
SD cards become popular it might become a different story.
2) Your reversal of the situation would be applicable if Firewire
ports and USB ports failed in cameras in equal numbers. However when I
was looking around trying to find a fix for the problem I found that
its fairly common for Firewire ports in video cameras to quit working,
Sony cameras seem to especially problematic in this regard. I found
little about USB ports in video cameras failing.
You could say this is because video transfer over USB is fairly new
and that might be the reason. Time will tell.
You do get several hits with the terms 'USB port fail video camera'
but reading the stories shows that they're mostly about the USB port
on the computer not working.
The lesson I'm taking away from this that from now on any video camera
I buy is going to have both Firewire and USB transfer capabilities or
use a medium I can transfer via other means than besides a cable
connected to the camera such as the aforementioned SD card using
cameras.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for president 2008.
.
- References:
- Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- From: michelle ronn
- Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- From: Steve Hix
- Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- From: michelle ronn
- Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- From: Mayor of R'lyeh
- Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: WTF is a "Super Delegate"
- Next by Date: Re: Why do 100% of all Mac users own a Windows PC?
- Previous by thread: Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- Next by thread: Re: Did Apple design Firewire?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
