|
|
Posted by Bob Ford on 05/22/07 21:11
On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:43:44 -0500, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
>"Bob Ford" <imagesinmotion@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:d7j453lblddfllhefhqi8aq0jc4avvbolb@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 20:36:51 -0500, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
>>
>>>"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0uednRtrNvboU8zbnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> David McCall wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Firewire (IEEE 1394) is much more robust. All of the DV cameras
>>>>> use IEEE 1394 for transfer to and from the computer. Most computers
>>>>> come with built-in IEEE 1394 ports these days.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, USB2 achieves higher actual throughput than Firewire
>>>> implementations.
>>>
>>>You mean the 480 versus 400 misunderstanding? It don't mean Jack. In
>>>actual,
>>>live, real, practical, normal tests, Firewire = no dropped frames unless
>>>caused by actual problems in the recording, and USB2 = dropped frames
>>>regardless. It has to do with _how_ they transfer data, not how fast they
>>>can transfer data in theory.
>>>HTH
>>>
>> Hey Peter, are you the same Peter D who frequents the rec.arts.dance
>> newsgroup?
>> Bob Ford
>> Images In Motion
>> www.imagesinmotion.com
>
>Hey, Bob. How's it going? :-)
Yep, I was guessing it was you.
Surprised to see you here on this group.
>
Bob Ford
Images In Motion
www.imagesinmotion.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|