Capture Digital8 via USB or s-video?

[tre3]

Digital8 transfer....

Would you recommend capturing via the USB or S-Video? Cheers

This question was asked in a private message. Rather than hide our tech advice in private conversations, Site Staff will often answer PMs (from any site) here in the digitalFAQ.com forum, so that others may read and benefit from our expertise. Please continue the conversation here. Either login or join as a Free Member, and we can continue troubleshooting your video, photo or web related issue. Thanks for understanding our tech Q&A policies.

[lordsmurf]

There is no USB. At most, Firewire > USB, then USB.

It depends on how close recording were to cuts. Digital transfer loses up to 2-3 seconds of footage per cut. If you had lead time, no issue. But if you hit record right when grandma was singing Happy Birthday, then part of the song will be missing. Seconds can matter.

You could also do it both ways, compare and salvage as needed.

[latreche34]

I have never had that problem except if we are talking about the beginning of the tape even then the software captures from the very first frame, I've experimented with this using Sclive. It may have something to do with the way the camcorder shot the tape, I don't know.

Some camcorders offered USB port for capturing DV, but be careful you are at the limits of what USB can handle so data drop is expected, I would avoid USB for DV at all costs unless it is the only way.

[dpalomaki]

I'm not sure of the full contest of this thread.

Quote:

Digital transfer loses up to 2-3 seconds of footage per cut.

This is a potential if doing linear editing from tape, especially if crash editing; e.g., using the record pause button. Linear editing systems used "pre-roll" settings to compensate for the time it takes to start the tapes. Of course for this to work one has to start the original recording well before the action of interest, and most systems could not effectively use anything recorded within 30 seconds or so of the start of the tape, or following gaps (blank tape segments) in recording. With the right gear that used time code near frame accurate editing was possible and it could be essentially lossless if going from digital to digital without decoding/encoding for transitions and effects.

Subject to tape read errors, firewire (IEEE1394) transfer gives lossless capture of what is recorded on the tape. I've not encountered any DV or D8 systems that could transfer video via USB. Capturing via s-video presumes the decoder in the playback unit and encoder in the capture card unit is better than software decoding/transcoding to an editing format in the PC. (However, it can be faster.)

[RobustReviews]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpalomaki

I'm not sure of the full contest of this thread.



This is a potential if doing linear editing from tape, especially if crash editing; e.g., using the record pause button. Linear editing systems used "pre-roll" settings to compensate for the time it takes to start the tapes. Of course for this to work one has to start the original recording well before the action of interest, and most systems could not effectively use anything recorded within 30 seconds or so of the start of the tape, or following gaps (blank tape segments) in recording. With the right gear that used time code near frame accurate editing was possible and it could be essentially lossless if going from digital to digital without decoding/encoding for transitions and effects.

Subject to tape read errors, firewire (IEEE1394) transfer gives lossless capture of what is recorded on the tape. I've not encountered any DV or D8 systems that could transfer video via USB. Capturing via s-video presumes the decoder in the playback unit and encoder in the capture card unit is better than software decoding/transcoding to an editing format in the PC. (However, it can be faster.)

I don't speak with authority, but I can't make USB 2.0 (and definitely not 1.0) work in terms of transmission with DV video in real time.

It's not just bandwidth, but fundamentally USB and Firewire are crucially different in how they work, in the times of these formats being current - I can't imagine manipulation of the USB is in any way plausible in real-time when capturing, Firewire makes total sense, the packet structure of USB I've hypothesised would create a massive hurdle.

At the time we (as an audio production business) could not USB in any practical application for real-time audio capture, heaven knows how it would have worked with video streams. IEEE1394 remained alive and well with some legacy mixers for around a decade after it seemingly died everywhere else.

This also leads to the problems of interoperability between IEEE1394 and USB - whilst it's not a perfect analogy, it's not entirely unlike trying to playback a Betamax tape on a VHS, they're just so fundamentally different at their core in terms of signal organisation and transmission.

I know some fabled hardware existed (did Haupagge make a magic box - that's a hazy memory?! EDIT: no, it was Pinanale ) but how actually useful they were I couldn't comment. Whether that was a direct 1:1 in both directions in real-time or a hacky method, again, I'll defer to greater knowledge.

I might be talking 'cap', but that's my understanding?

[latreche34]

I've used the Pinnacle 500-USB firewire to USB emulator and it worked fine, I was even able to control the camcorder's buttons form the Sclive app on Win10 machine, Few drop outs happened every now and then but I was too lazy to go back and check if they are tape related or USB port related. Would I recommend USB for DV streaming? No, But if that's all what is available I would say go for it, still better than the analog route.

[dpalomaki]

Quote:

I know some fabled hardware existed ... EDIT: no, it was Pinanale )

In the early 2000s Pinnacle marketed a NLE product "Liquid Edition Pro" that included a USB 2.0 breakout box (BOB) . The BOB provided component, composite, s-video, IEEE1394 (firewire) and SPDIF I/O. The product was originally developed by FAST to compete with Avid Media Composer at around 1/3 the price point and learning curve. It was very capable, so AVID bought it and then killed the product, offering owners a bargain priced to convert to AVID Media Composer. The system worked but one had to take care to have a sufficiently robust PC, fast (for the day) storage, and properly configure it.

I believe Pinnacle offered other IEEE1394-capable USB 2.0 devices in their Studio MovieBox line as well but I have no details on them.

[RobustReviews]

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

I've used the Pinnacle 500-USB firewire to USB emulator and it worked fine, I was even able to control the camcorder's buttons form the Sclive app on Win10 machine, Few drop outs happened every now and then but I was too lazy to go back and check if they are tape related or USB port related. Would I recommend USB for DV streaming? No, But if that's all what is available I would say go for it, still better than the analog route.

I agree.

As you say, the cause of the dropouts is indeterminate without experimentation so it's not possible to 'blame' the Pinnacle for those.

I never used one of those devices, that is why I raised it.

[RobustReviews]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpalomaki

In the early 2000s Pinnacle marketed a NLE product "Liquid Edition Pro" that included a USB 2.0 breakout box (BOB) . The BOB provided component, composite, s-video, IEEE1394 (firewire) and SPDIF I/O. The product was originally developed by FAST to compete with Avid Media Composer at around 1/3 the price point and learning curve. It was very capable, so AVID bought it and then killed the product, offering owners a bargain priced to convert to AVID Media Composer. The system worked but one had to take care to have a sufficiently robust PC, fast (for the day) storage, and properly configure it.

I believe Pinnacle offered other IEEE1394-capable USB 2.0 devices in their Studio MovieBox line as well but I have no details on them.

Thanks for adding this, I'll look that 'un up.

Like you say, it would have added more in terms of processing, no issue if you had a fairly good machine at the time but I can see it dissolving into a mess on a modest machine at the time that would have handled IEEE1394 ingest.

There's precious little I can find about the cooking versions, except odd comments from 'use with caution' to 'useless' to 'flawless'.

There must have been a lot of buffering, which is really not an issue, but I can't imagine the hardware required to do USB 2.0 DV transfer would have been practicable (at an acceptable price) on an early 2000s camcorder? Who knows?!

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

then the software captures from the very first frame,
It may have something to do with the way the camcorder shot the tape, I don't know.

Nope, it can miss. DV transfer auto detects the video on the tape, because it tries to avoid snow (blank tape). There is a delay in the detection, hence missing seconds of footage.

Quote:

I would avoid USB for DV at all costs unless it is the only way.

This actually works quite well. The catch is to use a new computer with a USB3 port on the motherboard. Not USB2, not an expansion port or hub, not an ancient system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpalomaki

one has to start the original recording well before the action of interest

That's it. If you started recording early, you're fine. If you started recording right when the action did, you'll miss it on a digital transfer. Analog transfer will be needed for it, as analog doesn't try to hide snow/blank.

Quote:

or following gaps (blank tape segments) in recording.

Yep.

Quote:

This also leads to the problems of interoperability between IEEE1394 and USB - whilst it's not a perfect analogy, it's not entirely unlike trying to playback a Betamax tape on a VHS, they're just so fundamentally different

Nah, not really. Both are simply comm methods. Data may be structured differently on transmission, but it's not an impossible hurdle. Just one seen as pointless and "expensive", so never really done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

I've used the Pinnacle 500-USB firewire to USB emulator and it worked fine, I was even able to control the camcorder's buttons form the Sclive app on Win10 machine, Few drop outs happened every now and then but I was too lazy to go back and check if they are tape related or USB port related. Would I recommend USB for DV streaming? No, But if that's all what is available I would say go for it, still better than the analog route.

This.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobustReviews

There must have been a lot of buffering, which is really not an issue, but I can't imagine the hardware required to do USB 2.0 DV transfer would have been practicable (at an acceptable price) on an early 2000s camcorder? Who knows?!

Correct, buffering, not "acceptable" (to the cheapskate masses) in price (or quality) in the 2000s. Messy. But now, USB3 ports, fast system? Fine.

[RobustReviews]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Correct, buffering, not "acceptable" (to the cheapskate masses) in price (or quality) in the 2000s. Messy. But now, USB3 ports, fast system? Fine.

I think we're talking cross-purposes.

I must say though, some of your opinions ("cheapskate masses") do really make you come across as quite an unpleasant individual in that regard.

Probably selfish, but having been homeless in the past, and having lost everything, without retelling the whole tale I really find remarks like that quite repulsive as a character trait. People have different means and different ways of spending their money, what might have been seen as a cheapskate purchase to you might be the best somebody is trying to make of what they have.

No doubt when I had to go to 'Poundland' for a sandwich for the daily meal or when I started getting back to my feed had to buy some very modest things you would have called me a 'cheapskate'.

Fast Forward a good long while, and life is great. I live comfortably now, but I do try and maintain a consideration that because an individual doesn't have a stack of expendable income trying to do the best they can, it doesn't make them 'a cheapskate'.

I had a relatively modest upbringing, I just think of you sneering at my parents as a 'cheapskate' as they had modest video equipment. I do not find that a positive character trait.

I think sometimes you have spent so long in this community that you forget that sometimes individuals are trying to do the best they can with what they have. Because individuals don't spend their money to your standards, it doesn't make them 'cheap'.

I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination, but bloody hell, your continual remarks about people being 'cheap', 'mean' are starting to make me think that they might have a point!

I can imagine I'm about to be yeeted, I make no further argument.

[traal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Nope, it can miss. DV transfer auto detects the video on the tape, because it tries to avoid snow (blank tape). There is a delay in the detection, hence missing seconds of footage.

My Sony DV camcorder was able to seek to the end of the tape where it could start recording again, so for me there never was any blank tape between shots. Maybe earlier DV camcorders didn't have this ability, or people didn't always use it.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by traal

My Sony DV camcorder was able to seek to the end of the tape where it could start recording again, so for me there never was any blank tape between shots. Maybe earlier DV camcorders didn't have this ability, or people didn't always use it.

Probably the latter, if/when available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobustReviews

I must say though, some of your opinions ("cheapskate masses") do really make you come across as quite an unpleasant individual in that regard.

Not at all. It's a situation of people not willing to buy tools for tasks, yet splurge on crap without any problem. It's why you get generic advice like "cut back on $5 coffee" (or $10 packs of smokes) to save up for __. I actually hate the coffee analogy, it's overused.

Quote:

Probably selfish, but having been homeless in the past,

It's not a comparable. Being cheap isn't the same as being forced to do without.

Remember, we're talking video conversion here. This isn't an essential activity like eating, rent, utilities, etc. It's a luxury, and a low-cost luxury relatively speaking. I actually have a hard time finding a cheaper hobby, aside from collecting strong, maybe used stamps. Seriously. Name a hobby, and odds are it costs more.

Quote:

Fast Forward a good long while, and life is great.

Quote:

I think sometimes you have spent so long in this community that you forget that sometimes individuals are trying to do the best they can with what they have.

No.

But more importantly, lots of people don't know what they don't know. A common trend is not knowing what gear costs, what it does, what quality looks like. There is sometimes a hurdle to make a person understand that $100 is not enough. Sometimes $1000 is not enough. It fully depends on factors.

I'm not starting at the lowest common denominator for advice. If a person has to cut into budget, then I'll do my best to help them. But I'll also let them know what they're losing, what issues they'll now face with cheaper gear. Or in some cases, budget is not workable, gear is crap, etc. I'm not compromising myself because a person wants to spend $5 on video, and the rest of his life savings on hookers and blow. Priorities. If video is such a low priority that you're making garbage, using garbage, then perhaps this isn't even something you should be doing. Save some bucks, come back later, do it right. And that conversation comes along as well, at times.

FYI, I've met stubborn people, who ramrodded their video through garbage gear. Many come back, sometimes sheepishly, because they didn't believe me. Now they do, having seen the horrors for themselves. And then we can have a much better discussion, free of stubborn, free of cheap.

You must understand most people are receptive to knowledge. Most of the world doesn't shun "book learnin" and science. Most are even grateful.

Quote:

to your standards

It's not "my" standards, but a baseline standard of quality. You're confusing high-end with simply having quality. That's a mistake a lot of newbies make.

For example, TBCs are not "professional" gear, but simply a tool for this task. There are quasi sorta-kinda (may or may not work) devices like ES10/15, then weak TBCs, then cheap crappy TBCs (rackmounts, flawed chipset units), and then finally decent gear (ranging from good to best ever made).

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

This actually works quite well. The catch is to use a new computer with a USB3 port on the motherboard. Not USB2, not an expansion port or hub, not an ancient system.

The problem is legacy devices like the 500-USB I have are not compatible with USB3, Not sure if the driver itself or the hardware, I will test again if I get time since Win 10 has gone through several updates but I'm not holding my breath. Also now that we have a new computer in the house I will try that as well in the hopes that newer USB3 versions may have solved some of the previous versions' bugs.

[BW37]

@RR - There were at least 3 DV camcorders (NTSC anyway) that Canon sold that did full DV file transmission over USB2. See here

Not all that useful today (XP only), but a little piece of history anyway.