capturing - does it have to be done in real time?

[waylman]

I am working on my first homemade video and when I did the capture it took 45 minutes. There was only 45 minutes of footage though...Am I doing this correctly or is there a faster way?

PS. I used DVD Workshop 2 to capture

[canadateck]

dont think there is anything else other then "real time".

[lordsmurf]

Use a capture software.

[waylman]

Use a capture software.

so how long should 45 minutes of footage take to capture?

[jimmalenko]

Use a capture software.

so how long should 45 minutes of footage take to capture?

45 minutes.

You can only capture in real time, no faster.

[waylman]

Use a capture software.

so how long should 45 minutes of footage take to capture?

45 minutes.

You can only capture in real time, no faster.

thanks...i figured this was the case but it's so slllllowwwwwwww

[jimmalenko]

Use a capture software.

so how long should 45 minutes of footage take to capture?

45 minutes.

You can only capture in real time, no faster.

thanks...i figured this was the case but it's so slllllowwwwwwww

Compared to the time it takes to encode (depending on the machine you've got), it's actually quite quick IMO.

[waylman]

true, encoding is a bitch also! I've got a fairly fast machine and it took a little over an hour to encode a 30 minute movie.......painful

[jimmalenko]

true, encoding is a bitch also! I've got a fairly fast machine and it took a little over an hour to encode a 30 minute movie.......painful

2 x runtime is not too bad. Wait til you start using filters

[lordsmurf]

I misunderstood your first question. You ask the impossible. Just learn to deal with it. If it takes up too much PC time, buy another computer for video only.

[pbanders]

At least with DV, why does it have to be "impossible"? You're essentially copying a digital file from tape to disk. Couldn't you read the tape faster than 1X if you had a dedicated non-camera based reader?

[lordsmurf]

No. The datarate is controlled for stability. Maybe in the future, it COULD be possible. But not now.

[edDV]

Broadcast level camcoders and editing decks can transfer faster than 1x. I expect that capability to start showing up in consumer camcorders before long as Firewire 800 is adopted. The transports must be able run faster to make this work and that adds cost.

Keep in mind that these broadcast decks currently cost $5K to 40K.

Its actually much more to do with hardware cost than Firewire 400 vs. 800.

[pbanders]

http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20041210/dvexpo-04.html

Looks like someone is listening, at least for higher price range DV cameras.

[canadateck]

That Looks very promising, I would like to see more reviews before jumping in..

[pbanders]

Now that I look at it some more, it's nothing more than a 1.8" drive with a battery and FW port. The price point seems awfully high for such a device.

What's really needed is for Canon and other mini-DV camera makers is to replace the DV tape mechanism with a 1.8" drive of 60 to 80 GB capacity. You'd get vastly increased recording time, and super-easy NLE access by connecting to the PC and having the drive mapped. Transfer to the PC's HD would be as fast as FW could support.

[Capmaster]

At least with DV, why does it have to be "impossible"? You're essentially copying a digital file from tape to disk. Couldn't you read the tape faster than 1X if you had a dedicated non-camera based reader?

That's not "capturing". That's file copying

The camcorder has already captured the video before you hook up any cables to start transferring.

[Karate Media]

As Ed said, the capability for faster than 1x transfer does exist and is in use, just not by consumer devices. I get frustrated when I see so many "it's impossible, it doesn't exist" posts (not just in this thread but in a couple others here at videohelp), because it does exist -- just not for the regular joe/joanne.

As for Direct-to-Disc capturing, a few manufacturers have these products for sale, such as the ADS Pyro DV Drive, and others. It's not so new (my preferred DV forum has had a dedicated section on it for about a year, for example), but the price has still not reached a consumer level.

As for a built-in hard drive, I'd never use one if it was available. Solid-state memory, perhaps, but a mechanical drive? Heck no, I wouldn't trust its ruggedness -- I'm not sending my camera in to get fixed every time the drive crashes. Imagine having to send your camera back for work every time you used a bad tape... I'd rather have an external HDD to capture to, with the option of simultaneous back-up to miniDV tape via the deck.

[lordsmurf]

Standard DV "us people" talk about ... not possible to date.

[pbanders]

At least with DV, why does it have to be "impossible"? You're essentially copying a digital file from tape to disk. Couldn't you read the tape faster than 1X if you had a dedicated non-camera based reader?

That's not "capturing". That's file copying

That must be why I used the word "copying". Thanks.

[edDV]

As Karate Media suggests, when it comes to video technique, the computer geeks are the last to get the word. Ikegami and Avid introduced a hard disk camcorder back in 1995.
http://www.tvcameramen.com/equipment/equipment15.htm

External disk recorders date back to approx 1985 (Abekas A62 8bit composite), and 1987 (Abekas A64 CCIR-601) .

Digital video is routinely sent >1x over sattelite and fiber links.

[Karate Media]

1995? ... 1985?! Whoa, I thought it was something more like 1998-99 before it was beyond prototype, with it nearing the consumer level only more recently -- that's a great link, thanks!

[edDV]

Karate Media, what is this "preferred DV forum" of which you speak?

[Capmaster]

At least with DV, why does it have to be "impossible"? You're essentially copying a digital file from tape to disk. Couldn't you read the tape faster than 1X if you had a dedicated non-camera based reader?

That's not "capturing". That's file copying

That must be why I used the word "copying". Thanks.

I was addressing the topic title and since nobody had pointed it out yet, I thought I would continue your thoughts and mention that. My comments were meant as an addition to your comments, not as disputing yours.

Sorry if quoting your post ruffled your feathers.

[edDV]

Good point, capture to DV format is done in the camcorder. The MiniDV tape transport is limited to 25Mb/s (1x) transfer over the IEEE-1394 which has a max rate of 400Mb/sec. If the file was recorded to a hard drive instead of tape, transfers on the order of 6x to 8x would be possible limited by the IEEE-1394 channel and PCI bus arbitration.

A note concerning P4 computers running XP. I can't get anywhere close to 400Mb/sec transfers on networked IEEE-1394 connections, so your mileage may vary.