AIW9800 Vs.Pinnacle DVD500 Analog Capture

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

Hi,

Is analog footage captured by an AIW9800 in the same format as analog
footage captured by a Pinnacle DVD500?

In other words, I have both units, I want to eliminate the breakout box of
the DVD500 and use the AIW 9800's breakout box.

Is the quality of the analog footage the same as the DVD500 analog capture?,
is the file extention the same? and can I edit the AIW9800 archived analog
footage in premiere along with digital video taken with a DV camcorder?


Tia,

Jeff
17 answers Last reply
More about aiw9800 pinnacle dvd500 analog capture
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:56:46 -0500, "Jeff" <jeff@aol.com> wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >Is analog footage captured by an AIW9800 in the same format as analog
    >footage captured by a Pinnacle DVD500?
    >
    >In other words, I have both units, I want to eliminate the breakout box of
    >the DVD500 and use the AIW 9800's breakout box.
    >
    >Is the quality of the analog footage the same as the DVD500 analog capture?,
    >is the file extention the same? and can I edit the AIW9800 archived analog
    >footage in premiere along with digital video taken with a DV camcorder?

    Probably not: the DV500 uses a chip to encode in DV, if the AIW9800
    does encode by hardware it is probably mpeg or mjpeg, check a sample
    with a program called: GSpot.

    Quality is probably not the same, this would only be true if both used
    the same chip for encoding: check if the AIW9800 has the same DV chip.
    The extension of a resulting file can be the same, but .avi and .avi
    can be encoded differently (think of DivX vs XviD). As the footage
    from the capturing by AIW9800 probably isn't DV, Premiere could have a
    problem with it.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:40:07 +0100, Funprice
    <jhbusscherNOSPAMWHATSOEVER@freemail.nl> wrote:

    >the DV500 uses a chip to encode in DV, if the AIW9800
    >does encode by hardware it is probably mpeg or mjpeg

    It encodes by software, either mpeg or Avi. If you capture in Huffyuv,
    you get better quality than DV, if you capture in mpeg-1, -2 or -4,
    you get lower quality. It all depends on the way you capture. The AIW
    is more versatile.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    The DV500 will be excellent for captures of native DV footage. When
    converting the analog signal through the break-out box of the DV500 using
    the RCA inputs the signal is mixed and there is some loss, using the S-Video
    offers less loss but the signal is still being compressed 5:1 resulting in a
    just under 4MB/sec data rate video file. That's a pretty low data rate but
    is just right for DV because it passes one-to-one over the 1394 device. Good
    analog signal happens at around 7MB/sec. The very best analog is
    uncompressed where each frame is worth about 1MB yielding about 28MB/sec
    with one minute of video being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.6GB.
    Uncompressed is the closest you will get to lossless analog video.

    Even capturing in MPEG-2 gives better results from an analog signal if the
    user captures over S-Video rather than composite. On top of that the very
    best MPEG-2 captures done on S-Video are MPEG-2 I-Frame, not VBR or CBR with
    chosen bitrate entries. MPEG-2 I-Frame is very similar to frame-based AVI or
    MOV editing where the full frame information is present. VBR and CBR depend
    on an arrangement of a GOP (Group of Pictures) using an IBBP frame
    structure - each frame in the sequence holds information that supports a
    subsequent frame or a frame that came before it and the I-frames hold full
    picture information. MPEG-2 I-Frame captures have higher data rates and the
    files sizes are larger than analog to DV captures while the picture is much
    better.

    If the AIW card offers a data rate slider, or choice of data rate for
    capture using analog inputs is the higher the setting the better the
    picture - whether you use the Huffy codec or not. A higher data rate offers
    more picture information. The better the beginning picture the better the
    end result. For each capture made with the AIW analog settings the file will
    have to be re-encoded before you can use it with the DV500 and the picture
    will suffer some loss, but given the better-in better-out scenerio it will
    probably look very good compared to analog to DV converted on the fly by the
    DV500 card.
    --
    Larry Johnson
    Digital Video Solutions
    webmaster@digitalvideosolutions.com
    http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
    877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Assistance
    386-672-1941 customer Service
    386-672-1907 Technical Support
    386-676-1515 Fax

    "Jeff" <jeff@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:mvCdnahNINcyTjvcRVn-3w@fcc.net...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Is analog footage captured by an AIW9800 in the same format as analog
    > footage captured by a Pinnacle DVD500?
    >
    > In other words, I have both units, I want to eliminate the breakout box of
    > the DVD500 and use the AIW 9800's breakout box.
    >
    > Is the quality of the analog footage the same as the DVD500 analog
    capture?,
    > is the file extention the same? and can I edit the AIW9800 archived
    analog
    > footage in premiere along with digital video taken with a DV camcorder?
    >
    >
    > Tia,
    >
    > Jeff
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:48:49 GMT, "Digital Video Solutions"
    <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:

    >The DV500 will be excellent for captures of native DV footage. When
    >converting the analog signal through the break-out box of the DV500 using
    >the RCA inputs the signal is mixed and there is some loss, using the S-Video
    >offers less loss but the signal is still being compressed 5:1 resulting in a
    >just under 4MB/sec data rate video file. That's a pretty low data rate but
    >is just right for DV because it passes one-to-one over the 1394 device. Good
    >analog signal happens at around 7MB/sec. The very best analog is
    >uncompressed where each frame is worth about 1MB yielding about 28MB/sec
    >with one minute of video being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.6GB.
    >Uncompressed is the closest you will get to lossless analog video.
    >
    >Even capturing in MPEG-2 gives better results from an analog signal if the
    >user captures over S-Video rather than composite. On top of that the very
    >best MPEG-2 captures done on S-Video are MPEG-2 I-Frame, not VBR or CBR with
    >chosen bitrate entries. MPEG-2 I-Frame is very similar to frame-based AVI or
    >MOV editing where the full frame information is present. VBR and CBR depend
    >on an arrangement of a GOP (Group of Pictures) using an IBBP frame
    >structure - each frame in the sequence holds information that supports a
    >subsequent frame or a frame that came before it and the I-frames hold full
    >picture information. MPEG-2 I-Frame captures have higher data rates and the
    >files sizes are larger than analog to DV captures while the picture is much
    >better.
    >
    >If the AIW card offers a data rate slider, or choice of data rate for
    >capture using analog inputs is the higher the setting the better the
    >picture - whether you use the Huffy codec or not. A higher data rate offers
    >more picture information. The better the beginning picture the better the
    >end result. For each capture made with the AIW analog settings the file will
    >have to be re-encoded before you can use it with the DV500 and the picture
    >will suffer some loss, but given the better-in better-out scenerio it will
    >probably look very good compared to analog to DV converted on the fly by the
    >DV500 card.

    Okay, but how far do we have to pull this: DV often is considered to
    be of better quality than for example dvd with which the most of us
    are completely satisfied. So using the DV500 must give a reasonable
    quite good result, in realtime, capturing to DV which is good editable
    and a good basis for dvd. Okay use the AIW for more flexibility, but
    is is worth the extra complexity of using a software codec with a less
    standard file format than dv-avi.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    What one person is satisfied with another person may find flaws in. When
    speaking of DVD video there are a lot of factors that come into play
    depending on the content of the video itself. The more action, lighting
    changes, or overall color changes in scenes can affect what you see. A
    friend of mine did some 16:9 footage in DV which he encoded to DVD for a
    company in Belize. They in turn took the DVD to a trade show where the video
    was put in loop playback on a 50 inch plasma screen. They were completely
    happy with it and could not see the flaws at all. I on the other hand took a
    look at it and could automatically see that it was blurry in spots, had
    artifacting and was just a simple 720x480 frame with 16:9 pixel ration blown
    up to the 1280x768 plasma display size. Probably not something you will deal
    with but still points out the fact that each of us may have differing views
    of what is acceptable.

    DVD video can look fine depending on the amount of motion/action,etc. as I
    said before. Certainly a video of the family picnic will look good at a
    bitrate of 4mb/ps where a chase scene from Gone in 60 Seconds would suffer
    greatly. One person cannot tell you what is going to look best according to
    numbers alone, and especially over a newsgroup where even the slightest
    failure to detail the process will yield the wrong message. DVD video's you
    buy in stores are for the most part encoded using very sophisticated
    hardware and software components. On top of that the original picture is
    derived from frame resolutions of 4096x3072 and 2048x1536 where the frame is
    cropped to the letterbox size to begin with. That image is then scaled down
    to the 720x480 signal you see on your television where flaws you may get at
    home have been carefully avoided by the sophisticated hardware/software
    encoding process. The closest you will ever come is a mere multi-pass
    software solution.

    Your picture is the same resolution as the end result where native flaws can
    be magnified by the process of further compression to DVD structures whether
    it is VBR or CBR, so having the absolute best quality original is paramount
    to the cause. But, don't go overboard because there are so many techniques
    and factors to consider. First consider what action is withing the overall
    content of the video in question and then make your decisions of capture
    process based on that. You will have to learn by experience and
    experimentation what is best for the outcome of the video you have and not
    acccording to what someone on a newsgroup tells you is the best method to
    use.

    Using a CBR with a high bitrate will be complete waste of disc space
    overhead if it is video of someone at a podium speaking for 2 hours, Using a
    CBR with a too low bitrate will waste the fine picture quality of an intense
    chase scene through the streets of New York City. Multi-pass VBR with a high
    end threshold of 8 and a low of 4 could work best in the action movie
    scenerio, where a multi-pass VBR of a high of 4 and a low of 0.83 could be
    the best for the guy at the podium - he may smile or wave his hand sometime
    in the sequence. But in either case the better the original video for input
    the better the video for output. The question is, "what are you personally
    satisfied with?". Do captures and make comparisons. Be your own judge. I may
    not agree with you in conversation or theory but may agree completely when
    seeing the actual physical original. A newsgroup opinion can only give you a
    direction to go in, but not the directions to follow in many cases.

    --
    Larry Johnson
    Digital Video Solutions
    webmaster@digitalvideosolutions.com
    http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
    877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Assistance
    386-672-1941 customer Service
    386-672-1907 Technical Support
    386-676-1515 Fax


    "Funprice" <jhbusscherNOSPAMWHATSOEVER@freemail.nl> wrote in message
    news:e4nhq0t3tchb2if126ulathfd3ock6puu4@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:48:49 GMT, "Digital Video Solutions"
    > <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:
    >
    > >The DV500 will be excellent for captures of native DV footage. When
    > >converting the analog signal through the break-out box of the DV500 using
    > >the RCA inputs the signal is mixed and there is some loss, using the
    S-Video
    > >offers less loss but the signal is still being compressed 5:1 resulting
    in a
    > >just under 4MB/sec data rate video file. That's a pretty low data rate
    but
    > >is just right for DV because it passes one-to-one over the 1394 device.
    Good
    > >analog signal happens at around 7MB/sec. The very best analog is
    > >uncompressed where each frame is worth about 1MB yielding about 28MB/sec
    > >with one minute of video being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.6GB.
    > >Uncompressed is the closest you will get to lossless analog video.
    > >
    > >Even capturing in MPEG-2 gives better results from an analog signal if
    the
    > >user captures over S-Video rather than composite. On top of that the very
    > >best MPEG-2 captures done on S-Video are MPEG-2 I-Frame, not VBR or CBR
    with
    > >chosen bitrate entries. MPEG-2 I-Frame is very similar to frame-based AVI
    or
    > >MOV editing where the full frame information is present. VBR and CBR
    depend
    > >on an arrangement of a GOP (Group of Pictures) using an IBBP frame
    > >structure - each frame in the sequence holds information that supports a
    > >subsequent frame or a frame that came before it and the I-frames hold
    full
    > >picture information. MPEG-2 I-Frame captures have higher data rates and
    the
    > >files sizes are larger than analog to DV captures while the picture is
    much
    > >better.
    > >
    > >If the AIW card offers a data rate slider, or choice of data rate for
    > >capture using analog inputs is the higher the setting the better the
    > >picture - whether you use the Huffy codec or not. A higher data rate
    offers
    > >more picture information. The better the beginning picture the better the
    > >end result. For each capture made with the AIW analog settings the file
    will
    > >have to be re-encoded before you can use it with the DV500 and the
    picture
    > >will suffer some loss, but given the better-in better-out scenerio it
    will
    > >probably look very good compared to analog to DV converted on the fly by
    the
    > >DV500 card.
    >
    > Okay, but how far do we have to pull this: DV often is considered to
    > be of better quality than for example dvd with which the most of us
    > are completely satisfied. So using the DV500 must give a reasonable
    > quite good result, in realtime, capturing to DV which is good editable
    > and a good basis for dvd. Okay use the AIW for more flexibility, but
    > is is worth the extra complexity of using a software codec with a less
    > standard file format than dv-avi.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Digital Video Solutions <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:
    : If the AIW card offers a data rate slider, or choice of data rate for
    : capture using analog inputs is the higher the setting the better the
    : picture - whether you use the Huffy codec or not. A higher data rate offers
    : more picture information. The better the beginning picture the better the
    : end result. For each capture made with the AIW analog settings the file will
    : have to be re-encoded before you can use it with the DV500 and the picture
    : will suffer some loss, but given the better-in better-out scenerio it will
    : probably look very good compared to analog to DV converted on the fly by the
    : DV500 card.

    It also depends on ADC used in AIW compared to DV500. If ADC in AIW is worse
    than that in DV500, then even if you capture uncompressed in AIW, the image
    quality will be worse than that in DV500.

    DV500 uses Philips ADC.

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

    Digital Video Solutions <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:
    : satisfied with?". Do captures and make comparisons. Be your own judge. I may

    I've already mentioned this on this newsgroup many many times, but never
    hurts to mention again. I too was shopping for a capture card 2 years ago
    and didn't know what to chose. I was trying anything from Matrox RT2500 to
    a simple TV Tuner card Hauppauge WinTV. I first ended up buying Hauppauge
    WinTV. But then I borrowed Pinnacle DV500. I did do several test comparisons
    and found out that Pinnacle DV500 does a better job in DV-AVI than Hauppauge
    WinTV in Huffyuv 2.1 due to Brooktree ADC limitation that is used on Hauppauge
    boards. I also found out that using Huffyuv compression gives a bit better
    quality at the end than using DV compression if the ADC is the same.
    These are all the snapshots that I keep just for references. All the captures
    were then encoded with TMPGenc and the snapshots were taken from MPEG-2 DVD
    format.

    Original Huffyuv capture with Hauppauge WinTV:
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTV_Composite.jpg
    Original DV-AVI capture with DV500:
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Pinnacle_Composite.jpg
    Original Huffyuv capture with FlyVideo 3000FM (same ADC as Pinnacle DV500)
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Fly2000.jpg

    Hope that might help a bit. Find out what AIW uses for ADC.

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

    Actually I don't take stock in most of the less expensive capture cards by
    Hauppauge or ATI. And I am sure the AIW is not capable of uncompressed
    captures of 28MB/sec.

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:coarqr$ouu$1@news3.bu.edu...
    > Digital Video Solutions <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:
    > : If the AIW card offers a data rate slider, or choice of data rate for
    > : capture using analog inputs is the higher the setting the better the
    > : picture - whether you use the Huffy codec or not. A higher data rate
    offers
    > : more picture information. The better the beginning picture the better
    the
    > : end result. For each capture made with the AIW analog settings the file
    will
    > : have to be re-encoded before you can use it with the DV500 and the
    picture
    > : will suffer some loss, but given the better-in better-out scenerio it
    will
    > : probably look very good compared to analog to DV converted on the fly by
    the
    > : DV500 card.
    >
    > It also depends on ADC used in AIW compared to DV500. If ADC in AIW is
    worse
    > than that in DV500, then even if you capture uncompressed in AIW, the
    image
    > quality will be worse than that in DV500.
    >
    > DV500 uses Philips ADC.
    >
    > --Leonid
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:48:43 GMT, "Digital Video Solutions"
    <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:

    >What one person is satisfied with another person may find flaws in. When
    >speaking of DVD video there are a lot of factors that come into play
    >depending on the content of the video itself. The more action, lighting
    >changes, or overall color changes in scenes can affect what you see. A
    >friend of mine did some 16:9 footage in DV which he encoded to DVD for a
    >company in Belize. They in turn took the DVD to a trade show where the video
    >was put in loop playback on a 50 inch plasma screen. They were completely
    >happy with it and could not see the flaws at all. I on the other hand took a
    >look at it and could automatically see that it was blurry in spots, had
    >artifacting and was just a simple 720x480 frame with 16:9 pixel ration blown
    >up to the 1280x768 plasma display size. Probably not something you will deal
    >with but still points out the fact that each of us may have differing views
    >of what is acceptable.
    >
    >DVD video can look fine depending on the amount of motion/action,etc. as I
    >said before. Certainly a video of the family picnic will look good at a
    >bitrate of 4mb/ps where a chase scene from Gone in 60 Seconds would suffer
    >greatly. One person cannot tell you what is going to look best according to
    >numbers alone, and especially over a newsgroup where even the slightest
    >failure to detail the process will yield the wrong message. DVD video's you
    >buy in stores are for the most part encoded using very sophisticated
    >hardware and software components. On top of that the original picture is
    >derived from frame resolutions of 4096x3072 and 2048x1536 where the frame is
    >cropped to the letterbox size to begin with. That image is then scaled down
    >to the 720x480 signal you see on your television where flaws you may get at
    >home have been carefully avoided by the sophisticated hardware/software
    >encoding process. The closest you will ever come is a mere multi-pass
    >software solution.
    >
    >Your picture is the same resolution as the end result where native flaws can
    >be magnified by the process of further compression to DVD structures whether
    > it is VBR or CBR, so having the absolute best quality original is paramount
    >to the cause. But, don't go overboard because there are so many techniques
    >and factors to consider. First consider what action is withing the overall
    >content of the video in question and then make your decisions of capture
    >process based on that. You will have to learn by experience and
    >experimentation what is best for the outcome of the video you have and not
    >acccording to what someone on a newsgroup tells you is the best method to
    >use.
    >
    >Using a CBR with a high bitrate will be complete waste of disc space
    >overhead if it is video of someone at a podium speaking for 2 hours, Using a
    >CBR with a too low bitrate will waste the fine picture quality of an intense
    >chase scene through the streets of New York City. Multi-pass VBR with a high
    >end threshold of 8 and a low of 4 could work best in the action movie
    >scenerio, where a multi-pass VBR of a high of 4 and a low of 0.83 could be
    >the best for the guy at the podium - he may smile or wave his hand sometime
    >in the sequence. But in either case the better the original video for input
    >the better the video for output. The question is, "what are you personally
    >satisfied with?". Do captures and make comparisons. Be your own judge. I may
    >not agree with you in conversation or theory but may agree completely when
    >seeing the actual physical original. A newsgroup opinion can only give you a
    >direction to go in, but not the directions to follow in many cases.

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

    Digital Video Solutions <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:
    : Actually I don't take stock in most of the less expensive capture cards by
    : Hauppauge or ATI. And I am sure the AIW is not capable of uncompressed
    : captures of 28MB/sec.

    I capture with FlyVideo 3000FM (cheapo card).
    I do it in YUY2 colorspace in Huffyuv compression.

    And the panel shows:
    Uncompress flow about 19mbs
    Compress flow about 5mbs.

    If I do it in YUY2 uncompressed, then the compress and uncompress flow both are
    19mbs.

    Doing it in RGB24 uncompressed gives me about 28 mbs both uncompress and
    compress flow, but frames drop like crazy.

    I'm sure AIW is capable of uncompressed captures as long as your hard drives are
    fast.

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

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:08:20 GMT, "Digital Video Solutions"
    <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:

    >I am sure the AIW is not capable of uncompressed
    >captures of 28MB/sec.

    I cannot speak for the AIW 9800, but my card, a Sapphire Radeon 9000
    AIW, does indeed capture uncompressed D1.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In the realm of AIW cards uncompressed means to not further compress beyond
    the highest possible data rate of the onboard chips. A cheapo card like the
    AIW cannot and will not produce video which is equal to that of network
    broadcast. A card capable of uncompressed costs a minimum of serveral
    thousand dollars. Next your going to try to convince me that HDV and HD are
    one and the same.

    "Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
    news:fc3iq0lrs8qk8cveqdh553qlhlu2jkp5b9@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:08:20 GMT, "Digital Video Solutions"
    > <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I am sure the AIW is not capable of uncompressed
    > >captures of 28MB/sec.
    >
    > I cannot speak for the AIW 9800, but my card, a Sapphire Radeon 9000
    > AIW, does indeed capture uncompressed D1.
    >
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I was actually going to by that new HDV 3 chipperthat Sony just came out
    with.

    Curious, could I view it's content via firewire to my 65 inch HDTV, to bad
    it doesn't have compent outputs as does the JVC 1 chip camera.

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

    Yes you can view on your HDTV if the 1394 port is new enough (1394 800) to
    support the transfer rate but would not have anything to edit the footage
    with. Cineform is supposed to release a plug-in for Premiere Pro to use HDV,
    but it will be very limited as they really don't want so much competition
    with their own software based editor. Again your computer will need the
    newer 1394 interface. In order to edit the footage without the system
    bogging down you would most likely need to upgrade to a dual-Xeon system
    either 533MHz FSB or better yet the 800MHz FSB. Plus you would need a
    minimum of 1GB Registered ECC RAM. Tyan, SuperMicro, and Asus have some
    models out at this point in time.

    Canopus has the new EdiusSP for HDV at $3999.99 and the unit is running
    comfortably on two dual-processor Xeon mainboards - one a 533MHz FSB which
    does not give full operation of the card, and one 800MHz FSB dual mainboard
    giving all the overhead the card needs. In addition to needing a better
    system to edit HDV either hardware or software based is fast hard drives.
    Serial ATA drives are managing with few hang-ups and using at least Ultra160
    SCSI runs without any hang-ups. In either case I would suggest the hardware
    based 800MHz system with a minimum of 1GB Registered ECC RAM PC3200
    DDR2/400.

    So you see having an HDV camcorder with your system will not provide you
    with an editing solution, unless you choose to use the camera in DV mode all
    the time.

    --
    Larry Johnson
    Digital Video Solutions
    webmaster@digitalvideosolutions.com
    http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
    877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Assistance
    386-672-1941 customer Service
    386-672-1907 Technical Support
    386-676-1515 Fax


    "Jeff" <jeff@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:F4qdnZJ5N6Sr7zTcRVn-vg@fcc.net...
    > I was actually going to by that new HDV 3 chipperthat Sony just came out
    > with.
    >
    > Curious, could I view it's content via firewire to my 65 inch HDTV, to bad
    > it doesn't have compent outputs as does the JVC 1 chip camera.
    >
    > jeff
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Larry,

    I know that my 65 Inch HIDEF with firewire is 1394a Not sure though if it's
    s200 or s800, defintrely not s800, so that negates that theory..right?

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

    Oh, I forgot a link to the Canopus EdiusSP for HDV board...nice!!!
    http://www.canopus.us/US/products/EDIUS_HDV_SP/pm_EDIUS_HDV_SP.asp

    "Jeff" <jeff@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:F4qdnZJ5N6Sr7zTcRVn-vg@fcc.net...
    > I was actually going to by that new HDV 3 chipperthat Sony just came out
    > with.
    >
    > Curious, could I view it's content via firewire to my 65 inch HDTV, to bad
    > it doesn't have compent outputs as does the JVC 1 chip camera.
    >
    > jeff
    >
    >
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:17:49 GMT, "Digital Video Solutions"
    <video@digitalvideosolutions.com> wrote:

    >Next your going to try to convince me that HDV and HD are
    >one and the same.

    Not really.
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Pinnacle Graphics