Scott Hannahs wrote: > Compression/Compression/Compression! MPEG-4 can maybe give you a > factor of 24 if you turn the key frame rate way down. Lossy > compression is acceptable since the alternative is Analog tape that
> One of the kickers is "professional quality". That may be at least > 32 bit data and 2 Mpixel pictures instead of the 24 bit/ 0.3 Mpixel > calculation Hamid did. That will overrun any of the savings > discussed above. Maybe they should consider "Tape Recorders!". > > This project needs som serious reality check! I have heard digital camcorders described as professional quality, despite compression and low res. Why would you need 2 MPixel recording when the signal source is probably only of the order 640x480 tops? My digital camcorder does 10 gig per hour. So 160 gig per hour and 4Tb/day. You can probably get something from Hauppage that does similar- IMAQ and NI frame grabbers don't seem the right solution for this, any more than anyone would write tools for stereo audio generation and mono capture using three analogues of a 6036. I would picture a rack of single channel digital recorders rather than a single box to do all. This way each unit is 'only' dealing with 240 gigs per day. Then I would look into how people like CERN are dealing with data archival. -- Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
