Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AIW9800 Vs.Pinnacle DVD500 Analog Capture

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 26, 2004 4:56:46 AM

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
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 1:40:07 PM

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.
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 2:14:32 AM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 10:48:49 PM

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
>
>
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 12:08:18 AM

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.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 12:08:19 AM

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.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 12:33:16 AM

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
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 12:46:08 AM

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

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

--Leonid
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 1:08:20 AM

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
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 1:13:22 AM

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.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 1:18:10 AM

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
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 3:29:51 AM

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.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:17:49 AM

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.
>
November 28, 2004 9:17:50 AM

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
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:07:27 PM

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
>
>
November 28, 2004 9:07:28 PM

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
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:08:12 PM

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...

"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
>
>
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 11:24:33 PM

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.
!