USB/Firewre or Alternatives...

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"James Niblock" <niblock@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36b14b23.0410120308.7490ee5e@posting.google.com...
> I have a project that requires me to capture a 5/6 minute video and
> store it on an external hard drive. This video will then be broken
> down into frames and analysed. In the long run needs to be done in
> 'real-time'..
>
> What is the best transfer mechanism to get the video from the camera
> to the hard drive/computer?
>
> I know Firewire and USB2 are both options but I have also been looking
> at CameraLink - are there any other options? Is there any time
> delays/lags associated with USB2/firewire that might cause problems
> later on down the road, when I try and interpret the information
> real-time?
>
> What do you think is the best technology to proceed with?
>
> Cheers for any help you can give.

Your use of the word "realtime" is scary. Taken very literally, it can't be
done.
A commercial computer running Windows cannot, on a guaranteed basis, make a
frame available instantaneously after capture, because Windows does not
guarantee realtime performance.

Many people succesfully capture from a Firewire connecte camera to a USB
connected hard drive. This is most likely to work when the USB and Firewire
ports are on different motherboard busses. Some very simple machines, such
as Centrino laptops, have this feature, while many desktop machines do not.

Interpretation of an image implies heavy CPU loading, and possible disk
access. Operators of desktop video systems assume that concurrent processing
is to be avoided during the capture process, because dropped frames can
result.

It sounds like you want realtime OS performance, and intend to make demands
that will require considerable work, and possibly obscure knowledge of
Windows OS internals to accomplish. Your project may more successfully
proceed if Linux is used instead, because there are many freelancers with
extensive knowledge of the kernel.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Firewire is really your only option for DV video.
"James Niblock" <niblock@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36b14b23.0410120308.7490ee5e@posting.google.com...
>I have a project that requires me to capture a 5/6 minute video and
> store it on an external hard drive. This video will then be broken
> down into frames and analysed. In the long run needs to be done in
> 'real-time'..
>
> What is the best transfer mechanism to get the video from the camera
> to the hard drive/computer?
>
> I know Firewire and USB2 are both options but I have also been looking
> at CameraLink - are there any other options? Is there any time
> delays/lags associated with USB2/firewire that might cause problems
> later on down the road, when I try and interpret the information
> real-time?
>
> What do you think is the best technology to proceed with?
>
> Cheers for any help you can give.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

That is right.
Roman
P.S. Robert, you are right, too. It really depends on the interpretation
of the expression "realtime".

a-e-i-o-u- wrote:
> Firewire is really your only option for DV video.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<3P6dnTa4yOqFEPHcRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
> "James Niblock" <niblock@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:36b14b23.0410120308.7490ee5e@posting.google.com...
> > I have a project that requires me to capture a 5/6 minute video and
> > store it on an external hard drive. This video will then be broken
> > down into frames and analysed. In the long run needs to be done in
> > 'real-time'..
> >
> > What is the best transfer mechanism to get the video from the camera
> > to the hard drive/computer?
> >
> > I know Firewire and USB2 are both options but I have also been looking
> > at CameraLink - are there any other options? Is there any time
> > delays/lags associated with USB2/firewire that might cause problems
> > later on down the road, when I try and interpret the information
> > real-time?
> >
> > What do you think is the best technology to proceed with?
> >
> > Cheers for any help you can give.
>
> Your use of the word "realtime" is scary. Taken very literally, it can't be
> done.
> A commercial computer running Windows cannot, on a guaranteed basis, make a
> frame available instantaneously after capture, because Windows does not
> guarantee realtime performance.
>
> Many people succesfully capture from a Firewire connecte camera to a USB
> connected hard drive. This is most likely to work when the USB and Firewire
> ports are on different motherboard busses. Some very simple machines, such
> as Centrino laptops, have this feature, while many desktop machines do not.
>
> Interpretation of an image implies heavy CPU loading, and possible disk
> access. Operators of desktop video systems assume that concurrent processing
> is to be avoided during the capture process, because dropped frames can
> result.
>
> It sounds like you want realtime OS performance, and intend to make demands
> that will require considerable work, and possibly obscure knowledge of
> Windows OS internals to accomplish. Your project may more successfully
> proceed if Linux is used instead, because there are many freelancers with
> extensive knowledge of the kernel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly I must thank you all for your f/b.

The word real-time is misleading and is why I put it in inverted
commas. My application is an unusual one that has very little to
negilible light (i.e. it is mostly used at night time)..

What I need to be able to do is record the data and send it to an
external hard drive. Slight time delays are not a problem. From that
data (now on hard drive or laptop memory) I want to be able to start
interpreting the images straight away. Time lags etc of a few minutes
are not an issue.

What I am more worried about is robustness of the system and keeping
it as reliable as possible; because there could be alot of vibration
etc inforced on the equipment used, therefore the technology and
transfer medium has to be quite robust and reliable..

I know Firewire is the more established transfer mechanism for
images/video, however alot of the cameras I am looking at (industrial)
tend to support USB2. Should I cover my back and get a camera that
supports both?

Has anyone had problems any problems with USB2?

Cheers, James

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"a-e-i-o-u-" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:4IZad.29167$QJ3.3612
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> Firewire is really your only option for DV video.


I respectfully disagree. The USB2 spec is faster than firewire.

--
Tim.

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <Xns958A79855C63EvannamanNOSPAMswbell@151.164.30.48>,
tsvemail-usenet@yahoo.com says...
> Subject: Re: USB/Firewre or Alternatives...
> From: "Tim V." <tsvemail-usenet@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
>
> "a-e-i-o-u-" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:4IZad.29167$QJ3.3612
> @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > Firewire is really your only option for DV video.
>
>
> I respectfully disagree. The USB2 spec is faster than firewire.
>
> --
> Tim.
>

That doens't really make it any more of an option given there's little
hardware support for it.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Tim V." <tsvemail-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958A79855C63EvannamanNOSPAMswbell@151.164.30.48...
> "a-e-i-o-u-" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:4IZad.29167$QJ3.3612
> @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> Firewire is really your only option for DV video.
>
>
> I respectfully disagree. The USB2 spec is faster than firewire.

OK. Name ten camcorders that support DV transfer via USB2.
I'd even be impressed by five.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

James Niblock wrote:

> "Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<3P6dnTa4yOqFEPHcRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
>
>>"James Niblock" <niblock@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:36b14b23.0410120308.7490ee5e@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>I have a project that requires me to capture a 5/6 minute video and
>>>store it on an external hard drive. This video will then be broken
>>>down into frames and analysed. In the long run needs to be done in
>>>'real-time'..
>>>
>>>What is the best transfer mechanism to get the video from the camera
>>>to the hard drive/computer?
>>>
>>>I know Firewire and USB2 are both options but I have also been looking
>>>at CameraLink - are there any other options? Is there any time
>>>delays/lags associated with USB2/firewire that might cause problems
>>>later on down the road, when I try and interpret the information
>>>real-time?
>>>
>>>What do you think is the best technology to proceed with?
>>>
>>>Cheers for any help you can give.
>>
>>Your use of the word "realtime" is scary. Taken very literally, it can't be
>>done.
>>A commercial computer running Windows cannot, on a guaranteed basis, make a
>>frame available instantaneously after capture, because Windows does not
>>guarantee realtime performance.
>>
>>Many people succesfully capture from a Firewire connecte camera to a USB
>>connected hard drive. This is most likely to work when the USB and Firewire
>>ports are on different motherboard busses. Some very simple machines, such
>>as Centrino laptops, have this feature, while many desktop machines do not.
>>
>>Interpretation of an image implies heavy CPU loading, and possible disk
>>access. Operators of desktop video systems assume that concurrent processing
>>is to be avoided during the capture process, because dropped frames can
>>result.
>>
>>It sounds like you want realtime OS performance, and intend to make demands
>>that will require considerable work, and possibly obscure knowledge of
>>Windows OS internals to accomplish. Your project may more successfully
>>proceed if Linux is used instead, because there are many freelancers with
>>extensive knowledge of the kernel.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Firstly I must thank you all for your f/b.
>
> The word real-time is misleading and is why I put it in inverted
> commas. My application is an unusual one that has very little to
> negilible light (i.e. it is mostly used at night time)..
>
> What I need to be able to do is record the data and send it to an
> external hard drive. Slight time delays are not a problem. From that
> data (now on hard drive or laptop memory) I want to be able to start
> interpreting the images straight away. Time lags etc of a few minutes
> are not an issue.
>
> What I am more worried about is robustness of the system and keeping
> it as reliable as possible; because there could be alot of vibration
> etc inforced on the equipment used, therefore the technology and
> transfer medium has to be quite robust and reliable..
>
> I know Firewire is the more established transfer mechanism for
> images/video, however alot of the cameras I am looking at (industrial)
> tend to support USB2. Should I cover my back and get a camera that
> supports both?
>
> Has anyone had problems any problems with USB2?
>
> Cheers, James

A couple of questions come to mind here..

1) Why the resistance to Firewire? FW400 is the defacto standard for
how video transfers to your computer. It's supported by every single DV
camcorder on the market today, and you can go by FW cards at just about
every single computer store for about 30 bucks. With this in mind, why
are we wondering about USB, wondering if the camera hardware supports it
and taking the chance that it may.. or may not work?? Perhaps I'm
missing something here?

2) Is USB bi-directional?

-Richard

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" wrote ...

> 1) Why the resistance to Firewire? FW400 is the defacto standard for how
> video transfers to your computer. It's supported by every single DV
> camcorder on the market today, and you can go by FW cards at just about
> every single computer store for about 30 bucks. With this in mind, why
> are we wondering about USB, wondering if the camera hardware supports it
> and taking the chance that it may.. or may not work?? Perhaps I'm missing
> something here?

There seems to be widespread confusion, especially after the
release of USB2 about USB vs. 1394 (Firewire) for transfer
of DV. Just because USB2 is *theoretically* faster than 1394
doesn't mean that automatically all hardware and sofware
will suddenly switch to USB2.

I have yet to see definitive evidence that *amy* DV camcorders
or VCRs use USB2. Any examples out there?

> 2) Is USB bi-directional?

Certainly. USB is used for printers, mice, keyboards, etc.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04@hananho.com> wrote in message
news:1Dded.9022$6q2.2532@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> James Niblock wrote:
>
>> "Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3P6dnTa4yOqFEPHcRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
>>
>>>"James Niblock" <niblock@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:36b14b23.0410120308.7490ee5e@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>>I have a project that requires me to capture a 5/6 minute video and
>>>>store it on an external hard drive. This video will then be broken
>>>>down into frames and analysed. In the long run needs to be done in
>>>>'real-time'..
>>>>
>>>>What is the best transfer mechanism to get the video from the camera
>>>>to the hard drive/computer?
>>>>
>>>>I know Firewire and USB2 are both options but I have also been looking
>>>>at CameraLink - are there any other options? Is there any time
>>>>delays/lags associated with USB2/firewire that might cause problems
>>>>later on down the road, when I try and interpret the information
>>>>real-time?
>>>>
>>>>What do you think is the best technology to proceed with?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers for any help you can give.
>>>
>>>Your use of the word "realtime" is scary. Taken very literally, it can't
>>>be
>>>done.
>>>A commercial computer running Windows cannot, on a guaranteed basis, make
>>>a
>>>frame available instantaneously after capture, because Windows does not
>>>guarantee realtime performance.
>>>
>>>Many people succesfully capture from a Firewire connecte camera to a USB
>>>connected hard drive. This is most likely to work when the USB and
>>>Firewire
>>>ports are on different motherboard busses. Some very simple machines,
>>>such
>>>as Centrino laptops, have this feature, while many desktop machines do
>>>not.
>>>
>>>Interpretation of an image implies heavy CPU loading, and possible disk
>>>access. Operators of desktop video systems assume that concurrent
>>>processing
>>>is to be avoided during the capture process, because dropped frames can
>>>result.
>>>
>>>It sounds like you want realtime OS performance, and intend to make
>>>demands
>>>that will require considerable work, and possibly obscure knowledge of
>>>Windows OS internals to accomplish. Your project may more successfully
>>>proceed if Linux is used instead, because there are many freelancers with
>>>extensive knowledge of the kernel.
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Firstly I must thank you all for your f/b.
>>
>> The word real-time is misleading and is why I put it in inverted
>> commas. My application is an unusual one that has very little to
>> negilible light (i.e. it is mostly used at night time)..
>>
>> What I need to be able to do is record the data and send it to an
>> external hard drive. Slight time delays are not a problem. From that
>> data (now on hard drive or laptop memory) I want to be able to start
>> interpreting the images straight away. Time lags etc of a few minutes
>> are not an issue.
>>
>> What I am more worried about is robustness of the system and keeping
>> it as reliable as possible; because there could be alot of vibration
>> etc inforced on the equipment used, therefore the technology and
>> transfer medium has to be quite robust and reliable..
>>
>> I know Firewire is the more established transfer mechanism for
>> images/video, however alot of the cameras I am looking at (industrial)
>> tend to support USB2. Should I cover my back and get a camera that
>> supports both?
>>
>> Has anyone had problems any problems with USB2?
>>
>> Cheers, James
>
> A couple of questions come to mind here..
>
> 1) Why the resistance to Firewire? FW400 is the defacto standard for how
> video transfers to your computer. It's supported by every single DV
> camcorder on the market today, and you can go by FW cards at just about
> every single computer store for about 30 bucks. With this in mind, why
> are we wondering about USB, wondering if the camera hardware supports it
> and taking the chance that it may.. or may not work?? Perhaps I'm missing
> something here?
>
> 2) Is USB bi-directional?
>
> -Richard

Richard, Both USB2 and FireWire can handle video, they have similar transfer
rates.
You are correct however that all DV cameras chose IEEE1394 as the transfer
option, the ones that do offer
USB connectivity usually only offer it for the still image transfers and
also have firewire outputs for video.
That might change, sure, but for now DV Link, is required for camera to PC
transfers.
Now, on the other hand, there a re a bunch of products all out that do
analog capture and AD/DV conversation that chose USB2 as the transfer
protocol to the PC, so this is confusing people!!
They hear USB2 video transfer and DV Link transfer and don't understand why
there can't just be one way!
People tend to like simple one way solutions, so that's in my opinion why
all the searching for cameras that also use USB2 to transfer.
AnthonyR.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Not if your capture device does not have USB 2.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:59:02 GMT, "Tim V." <tsvemail-usenet@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"a-e-i-o-u-" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:4IZad.29167$QJ3.3612
>@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> Firewire is really your only option for DV video.
>
>
>I respectfully disagree. The USB2 spec is faster than firewire.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:59:02 GMT, "Tim V." <tsvemail-usenet@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> Firewire is really your only option for DV video.
>
>
>I respectfully disagree. The USB2 spec is faster than firewire.

And your list of DV cameras which support video transfer over USB2
is.....?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

AnthonyR wrote:

> Richard, Both USB2 and FireWire can handle video, they have similar
transfer
> rates.

I know this.

> You are correct however that all DV cameras chose IEEE1394 as the transfer
> option, the ones that do offer
> USB connectivity usually only offer it for the still image transfers and
> also have firewire outputs for video.

Understood. My Sony does this.

> That might change, sure, but for now DV Link, is required for camera to PC
> transfers.

Yep.

> Now, on the other hand, there a re a bunch of products all out that do
> analog capture and AD/DV conversation that chose USB2 as the transfer
> protocol to the PC, so this is confusing people!!
> They hear USB2 video transfer and DV Link transfer and don't understand why
> there can't just be one way!

There is.. it's called FireWire. And it's bin used for many years now,
and works perfect with DV.

> People tend to like simple one way solutions, so that's in my opinion why
> all the searching for cameras that also use USB2 to transfer.
> AnthonyR.

This is starting to sound like a mis information campaign now. Remember
when DVD-R was it.. and then suddenly the DVD+R format appeared, and
then all of a sudden there were people saying and spreading lies, and
then the web sites starting popping up spreading a campaign from
misinformation to flat out lies..

I'm not stating that the USB camp is lying or anything but this is NOT
rocket science or anything.. FireWire has been the standard for many
many years now, and there's nothing wrong with it.

-Richard

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Richard Ragon" wrote ...
>
>
>>1) Why the resistance to Firewire? FW400 is the defacto standard for how
>>video transfers to your computer. It's supported by every single DV
>>camcorder on the market today, and you can go by FW cards at just about
>>every single computer store for about 30 bucks. With this in mind, why
>>are we wondering about USB, wondering if the camera hardware supports it
>>and taking the chance that it may.. or may not work?? Perhaps I'm missing
>>something here?
>
>
> There seems to be widespread confusion, especially after the
> release of USB2 about USB vs. 1394 (Firewire) for transfer
> of DV. Just because USB2 is *theoretically* faster than 1394
> doesn't mean that automatically all hardware and sofware
> will suddenly switch to USB2.
>
> I have yet to see definitive evidence that *amy* DV camcorders
> or VCRs use USB2. Any examples out there?

I'd like to see this too.

>>2) Is USB bi-directional?
>
>
> Certainly. USB is used for printers, mice, keyboards, etc.

Perhaps I should restate the question.

Lets say a USB DV deck is available on the market. Can your computer
'control' your deck or camcorder the way that Firewire controls a deck
or VTP/VTC for doing batch capture work?

One of FireWires greatest assets is it's ability to take control of your
tape player and automatically capture in and out points in your decks
time code. Thus you have the ability to capture off-line video and come
back later and batch capture the same clips at much higher resolutions.

Without this ability USB2 would serve no benefit what-so-ever other than
just a plug between your source and your target.

Thanks everyone,
-Richard

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" wrote ...
> Lets say a USB DV deck is available on the market. Can your computer
> 'control' your deck or camcorder the way that Firewire controls a deck or
> VTP/VTC for doing batch capture work?

Yes, there is no theoretical reason why the full functionality
that we now use via 1394/iLink/Firewire can't be done via
USB2. The major barrier to this today seems to be the inertia
and installed base of hareware and software that supports
DV transfer via 1394.

Note that there are some who argue that while the burst
speed of USB2 is actually higher than 1394, there may be
issues with how USB2 is designed that may pose problems
with sustained high-rate transfer. Of course, this is not a
problem with the current camcorders that use USB2 because
they seem to all be transfering MPEG which is much more
compressed than DV and easier to transfer.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Tim V. wrote:

> "a-e-i-o-u-" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:4IZad.29167$QJ3.3612
> @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>>Firewire is really your only option for DV video.
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree. The USB2 spec is faster than firewire.

If all you need is 300/Mbps for video +/-, then what does it matter if
you have a 400/Mbps or a 420/Mbps plug?

-Richard

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

>
>"Tim V." <tsvemail-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns958A79855C63EvannamanNOSPAMswbell@151.164.30.48...
>> "a-e-i-o-u-" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:4IZad.29167$QJ3.3612
>> @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>> Firewire is really your only option for DV video.
>>
>>
>> I respectfully disagree. The USB2 spec is faster than firewire.
>
>OK. Name ten camcorders that support DV transfer via USB2.
>I'd even be impressed by five.
>
Also USB is allot more CPU intensive that Firewire and Firewire 2 when
and if it makes it into DV camcorders is twice fast as USB2..

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04@hananho.com> wrote in message
news:cCCed.9331$6q2.1419@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> AnthonyR wrote:
>
>
> I'm not stating that the USB camp is lying or anything but this is NOT
> rocket science or anything.. FireWire has been the standard for many many
> years now, and there's nothing wrong with it.
>
> -Richard

I agree with this.
Plus most new computers have both connections already.

AnthonyR

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04@hananho.com> wrote in message
news:9OCed.9336$6q2.7639@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Tim V. wrote:
>
>> "a-e-i-o-u-" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:4IZad.29167$QJ3.3612
>> @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>
>>>Firewire is really your only option for DV video.
>>
>>
>>
>> I respectfully disagree. The USB2 spec is faster than firewire.
>
> If all you need is 300/Mbps for video +/-, then what does it matter if you
> have a 400/Mbps or a 420/Mbps plug?
>
> -Richard

Very true!!
More wouldn't help at all.

AnthonyR.