For _that_ I just burn the iso/udf image out to a DVD+RW ;)
But then you have to re-rip it. Boooring. :-)
Do I NEED seven computers? Heck no. But, I still have them. :-)
Nor do I (well, a couple of 'em are PDP-11s so video encoding
is, uh, just slightly out of the question :)).
:-
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Matthew Caron wrote:
> there's other stuff that you might want to put on there just for
> safekeeping (such as the iso's of the DVD's you're burning). Backups are
> Alternatively a IEEE1394 disc that's only up a
For _that_ I just burn the iso/udf image out to
Ah, ok - I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure (it
doesn't make a lot of sense to do RAID-5 for video capture that
I can see ;)).
- speed (okay, simple striping can do that)
- space (ditto for simple striping)
- redundancy - Sure, you might not need it for video capture, but
there's
on the new system. So, I'm willing to adapt my thinking if it's
a waste of effort to do a RAID-0. Would a Raid-3, or Raid-1 setup
be beneficial?
Assuming real hardware control, a RAID-1 won't impose additional load,
but (aside from the improved performance of a higher quality caching
disk contr
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> > I think RAID is overkill for DV capture.
>
> So, it's worth remembering that the capture alone isn't *all* that gets
> done, and that you really start to add up those costs where you factor
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, William R Sherman wrote:
>
>> The primary intent was for a Raid-0 filesystem with higher throughput
[...]
> DV is ~3.5MB/s (and that includes the 48k PCM audio). End of
> discussion - it's not variable so it's easy to calculate
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, William R Sherman wrote:
> The primary intent was for a Raid-0 filesystem with higher throughput
Ah, ok - I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure (it
doesn't make a lot of sense to do RAID-5 for video capture that
I can see ;)).
> Now, (than
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:45:45PM -0700, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>
> Is this for protection against a drive failure?DV (or MJPEG)
> capture's data rate requirements are extremely modest (in the
> ~3.5MB/s range - even a notebook drive can sustain that without
> breathing hard).
The primary
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 10:05:35AM -0700, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Bernhard Praschinger wrote:
>
> > Audio: ( Samplerate * Channels * Bitsize ) / (8 * 1024)
> > Video: (width * height * framerate * quality ) / (200 * 1024)
> >
> > You have to add both values together. To
Hallo
> > Hints
> >
> > Audio: ( Samplerate * Channels * Bitsize ) / (8 * 1024)
> > Video: (width * height * framerate * quality ) / (200 * 1024)
> >
> > You have to add both values together. To get the datarate in kb/sec.
>
> The Video formula is not giving me answers that look right.
>
Hi -
> From: Bernhard Praschinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Audio: ( Samplerate * Channels * Bitsize ) / (8 * 1024)
> Video: (width * height * framerate * quality ) / (200 * 1024)
>
> You have to add both values together. To get the datarate in kb/sec.
Darn - I forgot that 'quality' is no
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Bernhard Praschinger wrote:
> That might be not really true. The datarate you have to expcet is
> described in exactly in the mjpeg howto section:Unsorted list of useful
It sure looks like the data rate for MJPEG is much higher than
DV (DV is fixed at ~25mega
Hallo
> > > results in a sustained average of 7.5MB/s of data being written
> > > to disk. I only see data rates in the sub 3.5MB/s range for
> > > 320x480 frames, with a driver quality factor of 50, which gives
> > > about 2.5MB/s.
> > >
> > Ah, that's what I was curious about - thanks for the i
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 09:36:55PM -0700, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>
> 640x480? Thought fullframe NTSC was 704x480 - or is the DC10 using
> square pixels instead of the Rec.601 10:11 pixels? DV's weird - it
> gets an extra 8 pixels on each side for 720x480.
The video digitizer chip that's used
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Richard Ellis wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:45:45PM -0700, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> >
> > Is this for protection against a drive failure?DV (or MJPEG)
> > capture's data rate requirements are extremely modest (in the
> > ~3.5MB/s range - even a notebook drive can
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:45:45PM -0700, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>
> Is this for protection against a drive failure?DV (or MJPEG)
> capture's data rate requirements are extremely modest (in the
> ~3.5MB/s range - even a notebook drive can sustain that without
> breathing hard).
It depends o
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, William R Sherman wrote:
> > Yes. AMD gives you more bang for your buck.
>
> Thanks. That's what I'd heard in the past (which is why my desktop
> system is a Dual 2000+ system, but I wasn't sure whether this was
> still considered to be true.
It's even more true to
Thanks. That's what I'd heard in the past (which is why my desktop
system is a Dual 2000+ system, but I wasn't sure whether this was
still considered to be true.
I'd say that it is still considered to be true.
Supports all current Athlon MP CPU's, and has a separate 64bit/66Mhz PCI
bus, which is
>3. Re: JVC switcher & Intel vs AMD (Matthew Caron)
>
> Yes. AMD gives you more bang for your buck.
Thanks. That's what I'd heard in the past (which is why my desktop
system is a Dual 2000+ system, but I wasn't sure whether this was
still considered to be true.
> Supports all current Athlon
19 matches
Mail list logo
