Originally Posted by v5v
Preaching to the choir, brother! I know what you mean and agree. My comments are based on an assumption that USB3 can achieve about two-thirds of what the spec claims.
That's the thing with USB: it always feels like those scam marketing campaigns which advertise one thing, but list another in the fine print. Just list the real world speeds and limitations and let people make informed choices about what's right for them.
Really, it's a poorly designed bus with high amount of overhead and requires a complex controller to make it work. However, because it came standard on every computer motherboard, and was "good enough" for most consumer applications, it became ubiquitous. I wouldn't recommend it for pro environments though. Most audio pros I know prefer Firewire (and are waiting for TB to mature).
Oh. That sorta changes things, dunnit? I suppose then that for 4K workflows USB3 is probably not the preferred choice.
So far the only people I know that are working with 4K are those who are using it as an alternative to film, eg. features and TV series. Is there an expectation that this kind of resolution will find its way into consumer and broadcast applications? Not that it changes the point, which is valid and correct, I'm just curious.
NHK (Japan) has already been testing it for certain broadcasts for a while now. I believe some parts of the UK Summer Olympics were also broadcast in 4K. So yeah, I believe it will make it's way into broadcast in one form or another (i.e. not sure about the compression/format).
Not possible, but also not necessary. Once acquisition is complete the job of the camera is finished. The files need to move on to the computer anyway, so it's a non-issue. In what other application would you need super-high-bandwidth device-to-device transfers? Besides, we're not seeing that particular theoretical advantage of Thunderbolt being played out in the real world anyway so, at least so far, it's a moot point.
True, but you could use a dedicated video editing desk rather than introducing a computer into the chain (which is more prone to failure). Obviously the video needs to go to a storage medium of some sort, but having a removable storage medium on a portable camera introduces another point of failure (re: data loss due to shaking, dropping, weather, misplacing, etc). If you can go direct from the internal storage on the camera to the internal storage on the editing desk, that's a gain in prevention of possible data loss. Obviously one can do that with USB3 too, but with an optical TB connection, it'd be much faster to do so for large amounts of video (re: the false economy point).
Also, think about streaming direct from a camera to a dedicated broadcasting device (rather than having to go through a computer first) for live broadcasts. Optical TB would be able to do that with no compression and plenty of headroom to spare, plus allow for much longer cable lengths. There are plenty of cases where removing a computer from the chain would make things simpler and less error-prone.
Obviously the TB devices for all of these scenarios aren't there yet (at least, AFAIK), and I'm not even certain that TB itself is like Firewire in the sense that device manufacturers can get ahold of custom chips which can control the TB bus (re: controlling the bus in hardware vs in software drivers which require a full-fledged computer). With Intel behind it, it wouldn't surprise me if the complexity was the same as USB.
Edited by auxio - 11/7/12 at 8:01am