|
|
Posted by John Navas on 01/18/08 01:00
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:12:17 +1100, dj_nme <dj_nme@iinet.net.au> wrote
in <478feeeb$0$30853$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:bOQjj.55377$_m.8297@bignews4.bellsouth.net redflag
>> <christian@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The speed of that "motion" of bits taking place
>>>has an effect of their ultimate quality in the
>>>host device.
>>
>> Since the bits in a Firewire interface "move" at the same or faster rate
>> as in a USB interface, by your standard, a USB connection should be the
>> same or even slightly better than Firewire.
>
>That would be USB 2, which is marginally faster than FireWire.
>
>On a video camera, the USB port is usually used primarily for
>downloading still images (usually stored on an SD card) just like an
>ordinary stills camera, this doesn't have to worry about the portion of
>tape with the data passing by the read heads (be it magnetic for DV cams
>or optical for DVD cams) before transport protocol has had time to
>tranfer it to the camera.
>The problem is that most camcorders will only have a USB 1.1 (or USB 1,
>which is even slower) port, which is considerably slower than FireWire.
For Firewire versus USB Hi-Speed, see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#USB_compared_with_FireWire>
These and other differences reflect the differing design goals of the
two buses: USB was designed for simplicity and low cost, while
FireWire was designed for high performance, particularly in
time-sensitive applications such as audio and video. Although similar
in theoretical maximum transfer rate, in real-world use, especially
for high-bandwidth use such as external hard-drives, FireWire 400
generally has a significantly higher throughput than USB 2.0
Hi-Speed.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|