logo Sign In

Would this help capturing?

Author
Time
I would use a firewire based solution if I were you.

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Author
Time
Probably wouldn't be a bad idea - however the X0 cap from the DE/Faces LD's from Laserman's broadcast-quality capture equipment probably does a much better job.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: skyman8081
I would use a firewire based solution if I were you.


Isn't USB 2.0 faster than firewire?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: ThatArtGuy

Isn't USB 2.0 faster than firewire?


USB 2.0 is technically rated at 480 Mbps, slightly faster than FireWire 400's (IEEE 1394a) 400 Mbps. But that's just on paper. In the real world, FireWire 400 transfer rates are still greater than USB 2.0. Google around and you may find some comparisons that can shed some light on why. It probably might have something to to with 1394's peer-to-peer protocol, as opposed to USB's computer-centric, master-slave protocol.

Also, USB 2.0 isn't nearly as well-supported by operating systems as FireWire.
Author
Time
Apollone is correct...

the peer to peer protocal has a lot less latency than usb 2.0's master-slave protocol.

but as far as compatibity its pretty much equal between the formats at this stage of the game.