Firewire 2... here?

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,502
1,785
James provided this tidbit:

http://standards.ieee.org/board/rev/302recomm.html which seems to indicate approval for the new 1394b standard... posted March 20th 2002.

Interestingly enough, James also points us to this release which discusses the 'b' version:

He cited the arrival of the new ‘b’ version of the standard, which provides a minimum of 800 Megabit/second bandwidth and extended connectivity for FireWire and i.LINK products.

... but the interesting part is that Apple's iPod is listed among the 1394/Firewire-2 devices - which could be read as "1394 as well as Firewire-2" devices... except there is a 1394/Firewire/iLink list immediately above it.
 

menoinjun

macrumors 6502a
Jul 7, 2001
567
0
Wouldn't that be great...An announcement at MWNY that firewire 2 is out and shipping, and that iPod owners dont have to upgrade...it's ALREADY built in to the new shipping iPods.

That would make a pretty cool "Oh, and one more thing..."

-Pete
 

me hate windows

macrumors 6502
Jan 18, 2002
420
0
woweeee. 800mbits minimum and 3.4gbps max. that will kick USB 2.0's arse right out the door. Poor Intel, I am so sad for their crummy technology................. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D hahahahahahahahaha
I hope my old 5 gig iPod has firewire 2 and not just the new 10 gig one.:confused:
anyway, I think that that is really cool.
Finally those stupid USB 2.0 lovers can't brag about the 80mbits advantage. I have a USB 2.0 card and a Lacie U&I (Firewire, USB 2.0), but firewire is zillions times faster even though they both are supposed to write at 24X speeds, when you are using it with USB, it seems like it is writing at 10X speeds.
Firewire ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:p
 

DNA

macrumors newbie
Jan 22, 2002
19
0
Actually...

...the current version of Firewire seems to be significantly faster than USB2.0, at least for external hard drives that sport the new Oxford 911 chip (or whatever they call it). Go to www.barefeats.com and see for yourself! Cheers!
 

tortus

macrumors member
Jan 29, 2002
73
0
Los Angeles
Oxford 911

Yup! The Oxford 911 is essential for external firewire devices. Prior to its release, one could not capture video to an external firewire drive (unless it was using RAID with good software.) I remember attempting to capture data to drives and having dropped frames left and right. Firewire 2 will be a good bonus to the upcoming systems. Maybe we will start seeing some 10,000/15,000 RPM hard drives that can really utilize the 1394b interface. Goodbye SCSI...hello firewire 2. Until Serial ATA gets adopted.
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
49
Alexandria, VA
Originally posted by ptrauber
Wouldn't that be great...An announcement at MWNY that firewire 2 is out and shipping, and that iPod owners dont have to upgrade...it's ALREADY built in to the new shipping iPods.
Tired of the lengthy waits while your iPod slowly lumbers through file transfers???


blakespot
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,561
0
VA
It'll be nice for the iPod, but I'm more excited about the video. With that data rate, Apples DV quality will greatly increase. I would imagine Apple would want to get it integrated as soon as possible.
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
firewire does sound pretty sweet. now i'm looking for a new MWNY Powermac. can firewire 2 be read by the same pin connection as firewire 2 or am i going to have to buy a PCI card to house the new transfer system. I mean firewirre 2 is going to be great but what about my current firewrire products, i want to be able to read everything from the same system, firewire, firewire 2, usb and usb 2. Go Mac!!!!!!!!!!
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,772
11
Illinois
With the speed of Firewire 2 and the small size of the drives in the iPod, is there any reason there can't be a really good digital video camera with no digital video tape? I mean, couldn't you have hours of video stored on a little hard-drive and then transfer the entire contents of that HD to the computer?

I'm not trying to start a rumor about Apple and some new digital device, but why couldnt' you have an ipod drive inside a DV camera instead of standard media?
 

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,502
1,785
firewire2 connector

After I posted this item yesterday... I thought I remembered that the Firewire 2 connector was actually physically different from the Firewire.

Anyone know?

arn
 

eyelikeart

Moderator emeritus
Jan 2, 2001
11,897
0
Metairie, LA
Re: firewire2 connector

Originally posted by arn
After I posted this item yesterday... I thought I remembered that the Firewire 2 connector was actually physically different from the Firewire.

Anyone know?

arn
so what is this going to mean for us with "FireWire 1?" will the two be compatible? sorry for my ignorance with this... :rolleyes:
 

nerveosu

macrumors member
Sep 17, 2001
85
0
maybe we are compatible

Someone mentioned that the ipods may already have firewire 2 built into them. (the ones they have been selling for a while) ... so maybe the recent iMacs and G4s already have firewire 2 built into them too.

Wouldn't that be cool if you only had to download a firmware update to activate the firewire 2 enhancements.

long shot.

bill.
 

cornelius

macrumors regular
Jan 9, 2002
105
0
I Hope

Cuz i got my new iMac yesterday, and it is awesome. speed,looks,functionality. is the perfect computer out there.
 

joed

macrumors regular
Feb 15, 2002
145
0
Budapest, Hungary
After my initial post, I would like to clarify (as per my understanding).

Firewire 2 has yet to be implemented by Apple - maybe later this year.

Firewire 2 uses different connectors but is backwards compatible with Firewire 1.

FW2 to FW1 will only get 400mpb transfer.
FW2 to FW2 will get 800mbp tranfer,
With optic cables this can increase to 3.2gbps tranfer and increase length to 100m.


If people are interested in looking at the 1394b draft (ie draft 1.33 that was recommended for approval on the 20th March) please go to:

http://www.zayante.com/p1394b/drafts/p1394b1-33.pdf


James.
 

me hate windows

macrumors 6502
Jan 18, 2002
420
0
Re: firewire2 connector

Originally posted by arn
After I posted this item yesterday... I thought I remembered that the Firewire 2 connector was actually physically different from the Firewire.

Anyone know?

arn
In a July(August? I don't know for sure) Macworld there was a little tidbit on firewire 2. The connectors are different, but the same type pretty much. The new ones are square instead of the roundy thing on top. It has the same number of pins. You can buy a little teeny adapter the size of the Firewire port(not one of those huge things) to use Firewire 1 stuff. It didn't mention too much about using firewire 1 with firewire 2 devices, but it said that it probably WOULD NOT be. If you did, you could still have Firewire 2 be 800mbits/sec, but no faster for some chip thing
 

joed

macrumors regular
Feb 15, 2002
145
0
Budapest, Hungary
Re: Re: firewire2 connector

Originally posted by me hate windows


In a July(August? I don't know for sure) Macworld there was a little tidbit on firewire 2. The connectors are different, but the same type pretty much. The new ones are square instead of the roundy thing on top. It has the same number of pins. You can buy a little teeny adapter the size of the Firewire port(not one of those huge things) to use Firewire 1 stuff. It didn't mention too much about using firewire 1 with firewire 2 devices, but it said that it probably WOULD NOT be. If you did, you could still have Firewire 2 be 800mbits/sec, but no faster for some chip thing
I remember reading that article. Very interesting!

That's really why I tried to find out more about the standard.

Firewire 2 uses the Beta and Bilingual connectors. And I think bilingual could talk to Firewire 1, if I remember correctly. It was all a matter of if it fits, it will work!

James.
 

me hate windows

macrumors 6502
Jan 18, 2002
420
0
Re: Re: Re: firewire2 connector

Originally posted by joed


I remember reading that article. Very interesting!

That's really why I tried to find out more about the standard.

Firewire 2 uses the Beta and Bilingual connectors. And I think bilingual could talk to Firewire 1, if I remember correctly. It was all a matter of if it fits, it will work!

James.
I just pulled my Macworlds out trying to find it. It indeed says that firewire will work with firewire 2 devices, but it will only be at 400mbits/second.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,368
119
Los Angeles
Originally posted by dukestreet
It'll be nice for the iPod, but I'm more excited about the video. With that data rate, Apples DV quality will greatly increase. I would imagine Apple would want to get it integrated as soon as possible.
Maybe I'm just reading you wrong, but faster Firewire will not increase DV quality. DV is a video recording standard and the limiting factor is on how well the camera inputs the data (quality of lens, CCD quality and number, etc.) not on how it outputs the data. Where Firewire 2 might come in handy (and this is just an unresearched guess) is maybe it will be fast enough use as HDDs with uncompressed analog video and/or DigiBeta cameras/decks. But right now what is limiting Firewire HDDS (at least in terms of DV edting) isn't the Firewire interface or the IDE HDD it's the bridge used that determines if the HDD will be viable for editing or not.

Also, as someone else mentioned, people might start looking at how to replace video tape (one camera uses proprietary DVDs). But the biggest thing 'bout tape is it's cheap. I mean, 4 minutes of miniDV footage takes up around a gig of space. So a 10gig HDD would last for 'bout 40minutes. But I can buy a good 60min miniDV tape for 'round $10.

well, that's my midnight rant...

Lethal
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,772
11
Illinois
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I mean, 4 minutes of miniDV footage takes up around a gig of space. So a 10gig HDD would last for 'bout 40minutes. But I can buy a good 60min miniDV tape for 'round $10.

Lethal
But, a camera with a small 20 gig drive would hold 80 minutes of video with no need for a tape. Hmmm...

The more I think about it, the main advantage of tape is that you can record, remove the tape, and stick it on a shelf instead of having to take up drive space.

The only advantage to hard drive use instead of tape is possibly allowing for a smaller camera and/or removal of some moving parts. At least, that's the only possible advantage I can think of.

Maybe the use of a HD with a tape could allow for much faster image transfers to a computer, but I'm not sure. I just don't have enough experience with that sort of thing.
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,561
0
VA
Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Maybe I'm just reading you wrong, but faster Firewire will not increase DV quality. DV is a video recording standard and the limiting factor is on how well the camera inputs the data (quality of lens, CCD quality and number, etc.) not on how it outputs the data.
Not so. DV on the Mac, and in iMovie of FCP (I use FCP) is a compression format like Sorensen, mpeg-4, etc. By increasing the bandwidth of the Firewire Apple can then adjust their DV codec to take advantage of this. I've rendered animations, put them in FCP, then output them back onto tapes. They don't look the same as the original render, not even close.

Apple even adds an option, or used to, for their large desktop machines, where you can buy a 3rd party video card to output compressionless video - aka - Broadcast quality. Firewire2 will blur even further the difference between DV and Broadcast.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,368
119
Los Angeles
Originally posted by dukestreet


Not so. DV on the Mac, and in iMovie of FCP (I use FCP) is a compression format like Sorensen, mpeg-4, etc. By increasing the bandwidth of the Firewire Apple can then adjust their DV codec to take advantage of this. I've rendered animations, put them in FCP, then output them back onto tapes. They don't look the same as the original render, not even close.

Apple even adds an option, or used to, for their large desktop machines, where you can buy a 3rd party video card to output compressionless video - aka - Broadcast quality. Firewire2 will blur even further the difference between DV and Broadcast.
DV itself is a compression standard that has a data rate of 3.6 MBytes/sec. Quality of the video will depend on equipment used, so "great" DV and "crap" DV still flow at the same 3.6MBytes/sec. So no matter how "big" Firewire gets DV will still be 3.6MBytes/sec. If you want to increase the transfer rate of DV you'll have to bring out a whole new generation of equipment (cameras, tapes, and decks) that supports the new standard. And I don't think that is gonna happen anytime soom. DV is a consumer format, and I don't see companies dumping cash to make DV better for "pros." They want to push their high end/HD stuff for pro use. But, IMO, DV is a killer "consumer" format. :D

And the uncompressed video cards, like the Aurora Igniter, have analog and digital (Serial Digital Interface, not DV) i/o's.

But, if by "DV" you meant uncompressed digital video, and/or DigiBeta (not just standard DV) then yes, Firewire 2 might open up some doors. But I don't know enough 'bout uncompressed equipment to really say much about it.


But, a camera with a small 20 gig drive would hold 80 minutes of video with no need for a tape. Hmmm...

The more I think about it, the main advantage of tape is that you can record, remove the tape, and stick it on a shelf instead of having to take up drive space.
Exactly. The thing w/tape is it's dirt cheap compared to HDDs and you can easily carry hours and hours of it with you. If the HDD on yer camera gets full in the middle of little Bobbies game, what are you gonna do? Bust out yer laptop and off-load the video at 1x speed? ;) Of course they could make removable HDDS... but would you rather spend a few hundred dollars on a 20gig HDD for 80min of video, or $20 on a tape for 90min of video? And assuming all things being equal, and both camera's are miniDV, the video quality will be exactly the same on HDD as compared to on tape.

Hmmm...sorry I hijacked this thread :eek:


Lethal
EDIT: fixed "quote"