USB....Why? and FC?

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by Soura2112, Jan 19, 2009.

  1. Soura2112 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    #1
    Well I understand companies saving money by taking out Firewire but this is getting crazy. Thankfully most of the cameras I want are still Firewire (trying to save for a pro camera), but I know a lot of people who want me to transfer videos for them and I have to go through the extra steps before I get to FC (while I kinda fear anything bad happening to my current camera). IMO, putting video onto a computer has become harder for the average person, not easier. I have been using FC for years and like many I had to find a new way transfer and get my imports to FC. Granted I have only done this a handful of times but creating new projects is not as simple, unless you started using FC this way or even Imovie. I can't say for Windows users because I rarley used Windows for Video and barely used AVID.

    When USB 3.0 comes out I hope Final Cut comes out with USB video import. I only say that due to the cameras not based on personal preference. Yeah I know things change and one must get used to change (just wish FC was ahead of the ball on this one) Has anyone heard about Final Cut and USB 3.0 in the future?


    I guess this is more of a rant then a question, but I hope Final Cut adopts USB 3.0. Don't get me wrong I love Final Cut and cameras have dropped in price, I just wish Firewire was available on more cameras.

    If anyone has any Info on FC and USB 3.0 I would love to hear whats going on. So far my searches have not come up with any news. :(

    Thanks.
     
  2. drichards macrumors 6502a

    drichards

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    #2
    My new Canon Vixia HF100 doesn't have firewire either. Boo. :(
     
  3. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    The problem really isn't how the video gets from the camera to the computer (FW, USB, whatever) the problem is the plethora of rapidly changing codecs and that tapeless camera systems allow camera makers to change codecs and specs quicker than a stripper sheds her clothes. For example, take drichards' Canon HF100. Even if it had FW you would still have to transcode the AVCHD files into AIC or ProRes. Codecs like AVCHD are so CPU intensive to playback that editing them would suck which is why they need to transcoded.


    Lethal
     
  4. bigbossbmb macrumors 68000

    bigbossbmb

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pasadena/Hollywood
    #4
    Plus it isn't a matter of FCP "adopting" USB... it's all up to the camera manufacturers. They decide what/how gets transferred from the camera.
     
  5. tcgjeukens macrumors regular

    tcgjeukens

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Location:
    IJsselstein, the Netherlands
    #5
    Lethal,

    From a technical and hardware point of view you are right: the problem is not the transfer from camera to computer.

    From a workflow point of view it does make a difference if the clips on the camera are stored as individual files with random access (on SDD and HDD) or if the files are stored as a sequential stream with start/stop markers.

    In the end you will want to Log all clips on your computer and to do so one would preferrably want to see all the material at least once. See it, give it a descriptive name, rate the audio and video quality, record if the clip is stationary, contains a pan or zoom etc.

    A feature I would really like on my next cemara: a possibility to record Logging comments whils shooting (or right thereafter). Comments that will be interpreted by the editing software.

    Regards,
    Coen
     
  6. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #6
    Aint that what a clapboard is for?

    I understand what your saying, but imagine having to type things while in the midst of a shoot, a scene, a shot...seems counterproductive.
     

Share This Page