I am going to need to buy a new digital video camcorder. With the advent of
USB 3.0 on the horizon, does anyone have a time frame for when this
interface will be in usage on camcorders? I don't want to invest in a 1080p
camcorder with a firewire interface only to have it obsolete in 1-2 ye
The first USB3 products are expected in Q4 2009 or 2010. It's hard to
say when the first camcorder USB3 interfaces may appear, but if I had
to guess I'd say NAB April 2010 for early prototypes, another year for
shipping models.
But you're behind the curve already. Camcorders use memory cards, and
USB 2 is actually behind firewire.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Tony B wrote:
> The first USB3 products are expected in Q4 2009 or 2010. It's hard to
> say when the first camcorder USB3 interfaces may appear, but if I had
> to guess I'd say NAB April 2010 for early prototypes, another year f
You can get 32gig sdhc cards I believe.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall <
popoz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Small end do cards. Most of the better ones have Harddrives and capacities
> of 30 GB.
>
> A Card tops out at 4-8 GB not good enough for more than an hour or two.
>
>
Small end do cards. Most of the better ones have Harddrives and
capacities of 30 GB.
A Card tops out at 4-8 GB not good enough for more than an hour or two.
HD HQ digital Video takes lots of capacity that outstrips cards fast.
Stewart
At 12:19 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
The first USB3 produ
You are incorrect. See http://tinyurl.com/4nms5n . And high end pro
camcorders are also doing away with tape; Panasonic has no tape models
at all this year. You're right that some tapeless systems use hard
drives or disks, but solid state memory is cheap these days so that's
the direction everyone'
>I'm telling you now, if you're looking for a new camcorder, do NOT get
>one with a tape drive in it, unless they offer you a _really_ good
>deal.
You definitely do not want tape. It won't be long before you find it hard
to buy tape. That will make you camera very obsolete.
>USB 2 is actually behind firewire.
The raw data rate for USB is higher than FW, but as is often the case,
things are not what they first appear to be. USB is processor bound, FW
is not, so effective data rates are higher with FW.
I would not be so sure that FW is obsolete. Video folks need spe
Then they have really maxed out those cards.
I was not aware that they were putting them out. They are expensive
though (I looked 60-160 per card)
The ones with the Harddrive option are not bad.
I would not advocate getting one with tape today as SS memory is the
best option (Quicker and cl
Is the new USB spec the same as the old spec in this regard? With the raw
speed increase in USB with this new type, it must be quite an overhall.
Mike
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
> >USB 2 is actually behind firewire.
>
> The raw data rate for USB is higher than FW, but
> However notice 1.5 hours on 8 GB card. Video takes a lot of room, and if
> you are doing a lot of recording have lots of cards available.
What some shooters do is offload during the day. Most any laptop will
hold hundreds of hours of video footage, so you can keep shooting all
day long with 1 o
>Is the new USB spec the same as the old spec in this regard? With the raw
>speed increase in USB with this new type, it must be quite an overhall.
If the transfer rate is processor bound I don't think upping the raw
transfer rate means much. The slowest part of the system is going to
determine
I understand that, but occasionally I do video taping for conferences
with a variety of presenters. I would need a variety of cards to
make sure I am always ready to tape when needed.
Also I always buy a Camera with an Audio/Mike in port so I can
directly hook into the sounds system.
I coul
>Please please. This thread is clearly labeled USB3. That's THREE. A
>version of firewire that even comes close to it in speed will likely
>never see the light of day. Not the first time a lesser tech has won
>out in the end. But the fact is, the multicore CPUs we have these days
>have so much unus
I read a bit about camcorders for a couple years until I was sure people
were pretty happy with the AVCHD format that the hard drive camcorders
use. I finally got one in January.
One thing I think Consumer Reports is good for is checking out the
reliability of brands. When I was deciding to buy
Small end do cards. Most of the better ones have Harddrives and capacities of
30 GB.
A Card tops out at 4-8 GB not good enough for more than an hour or two.
HD HQ digital Video takes lots of capacity that outstrips cards fast.
I have a Canon Elura that's about 3 years old. It uses mini DV ta
> You are incorrect. See http://tinyurl.com/4nms5n . And high end pro
> camcorders are also doing away with tape; Panasonic has no tape models
> at all this year. You're right that some tapeless systems use hard
> drives or disks, but solid state memory is cheap these days so that's
> the directio
>I'm telling you now, if you're looking for a new camcorder, do NOT get
>one with a tape drive in it, unless they offer you a _really_ good
>deal.
You definitely do not want tape. It won't be long before you find it hard
to buy tape. That will make you camera very obsolete.
Unless you use a p
>USB3 claims to be 10X faster than USB2. In real world applications, that
>makes it about as fast as FW800. But is it as reliable as FW for video?
>I doubt it. What if the USB3 device isn't the only one on the bus? How
>does it compare the the new FW project?
Based on personal experience, I avo
This is not normal. You have a problem somewhere - one of the
interfaces, or maybe bad cables.
Note that USB3 is FULL duplex. Yes, it operates in BOTH directions.
At 5gbps (theoretical maximum), USB3 is 6X faster than firewire800.
The next firewire in the works, firewire3200, is still slower than
>This is not normal. You have a problem somewhere - one of the
>interfaces, or maybe bad cables.
You forget that I am out in the field all the time. I'm not describing
one computer. I'm describing 100s.
>Note that USB3 is FULL duplex. Yes, it operates in BOTH directions.
USB3 isn't anything. US
>At 5gbps (theoretical maximum), USB3 is 6X faster than firewire800.
>The next firewire in the works, firewire3200, is still slower than
>USB3.
You are acting just like "G."
*
** List info, subscription management, list rul
I wasn't forgetting your vast experience. I'm just telling you that
USB does not have this problem normally. Clearly there's something
wrong somewhere. If you're being paid to fix it, I hope you've come up
with a better solution than to install 1394 in all those machines.
Actually, I see my own ch
>What I have to conclude from this is that some implementations of the
>USB standard are faulty and do not work the way they are supposed to.
Your evidence does not necessitate that conclusion. You did not have an
example of successfully copying multiple GBs successfully and all the
failures yo
Part of it is USB and part of it is equipment.
I have four different thumb drives.
2-1 GB
1-4 GB
1-16 GB
I move stuff back and forth all the time.
I have tried to sue the 16GB drive to move large files (video etc.)
from computers but have given up. It will not take sustained writing
of larg
I have tried to sue the 16GB drive to move large files (video etc.)
from computers but have given up. It will not take sustained writing
of large files. It is a Kingston (normally a reliable brand) and it
just cannot do it.
Technically, the FAT32 format of the drive can't handle files larger
>Technically, the FAT32 format of the drive can't handle files larger
>than 4GB. Are the videos, etc., larger than that? To use larger files
>you need NTFS. Can you reformat that drive? If/when you do, can you
>transfer the videos?
Yes, I had some external drives that were FAT that I neglected
>Technically, the FAT32 format of the drive can't handle files larger
>than 4GB. Are the videos, etc., larger than that? To use larger files
>you need NTFS. Can you reformat that drive? If/when you do, can you
>transfer the videos?
Yes, I had some external drives that were FAT that I neglected
>It was NTFS when I got it. Tried FAT32 to use with peecees. Now it's
>HFS+. Maybe it's the drive and not the case?
Hard to say. You could try the drives in another case or directly
connected. Some years ago I returned a bunch of external drives and was
having a generally bad time. Then I figur
I bought two ESATA 300 HD's recently..very nice for backing up. Nary a
problem..in the past backing up to USB drives, I'd parse it out in small
amounts, never dumping hundreds of gigs because it did seem it would error
out at times. With the ESATA drives I'll drop 500 gigs on the thing and it
jus
>I bought two ESATA 300 HD's recently..very nice for backing up. Nary a
>problem..in the past backing up to USB drives, I'd parse it out in small
>amounts, never dumping hundreds of gigs because it did seem it would error
>out at times. With the ESATA drives I'll drop 500 gigs on the thing and it
Yes, but oddly, my own experience with eSata, and one other editor
here, is that it's flaky. i.e., the drive will suddenly slow to PIO
speeds. This isn't always apparent. I had to install a disk speed
tester to verify when this was happening. A warm reboot would bring
the drive back up to speed.
W
>Let's hope USB3 is stable, because I can easily see it replacing SATA
>internally if it is.
I hold little hope for USB3. The engineers working on it do not appear to
be the brightest bulbs.
*
** List info, subscription ma
33 matches
Mail list logo
