That should really be disallowed. Whoever's in charge should say, "Either put a second port on it or we won't accept it under the spec and you'll be taken to task for misuse of our technology."
Even worse, Buffalo's marketing copy mentions that Thunderbolt can be chained to six devices. However, only in the fine print do they mention that you can't chain off Buffalo's device for the lack of the second port!
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.
[...] Most audio pros I know prefer Firewire (and are waiting for TB to mature).
That's MOSTLY because USB can only support a few channels of I/O, leaving only Firewire or PCI for multi-channel work (like surround).
Surprisingly I've actually had fewer headaches with USB audio interfaces than I have with Firewire. Digidesign in particular has the most unbelievably annoying Firewire hardware connection I have encountered anywhere ever.
Also annoying is audio hardware manufacturers using Firewire 400 interfaces, thus cutting in half the speed of any Firewire 800 devices in the chain, but that's a side issue.
TB audio interfaces would be nice, but my money is on there being very, very, very few offerings. Vanishingly few.
Also annoying is audio hardware manufacturers using Firewire 400 interfaces, thus cutting in half the speed of any Firewire 800 devices in the chain, but that's a side issue.
Wouldn't that not happen if you put the slower devices at the end of the chain? FW800 is largely (but not exactly) dual channel FW400. As long as you don't put FW400 bottleneck *in between* two FW800 devices, I'd think you're good.
Wouldn't that not happen if you put the slower devices at the end of the chain? FW800 is largely (but not exactly) dual channel FW400. As long as you don't put FW400 bottleneck *in between* two FW800 devices, I'd think you're good.
[Updated] It doesn't seem to work the way you describe in my circumstances. I just did a simple file transfer test and it took longer with the 400 device attached than it did with it disconnected, even with the 400 device at the end of the chain.
[Updated] It doesn't seem to work the way you describe in my circumstances. I just did a simple file transfer test and it took longer with the 400 device attached than it did with it disconnected, even with the 400 device at the end of the chain.
Comments
Even worse, Buffalo's marketing copy mentions that Thunderbolt can be chained to six devices. However, only in the fine print do they mention that you can't chain off Buffalo's device for the lack of the second port!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
[...] Most audio pros I know prefer Firewire (and are waiting for TB to mature).
That's MOSTLY because USB can only support a few channels of I/O, leaving only Firewire or PCI for multi-channel work (like surround).
Surprisingly I've actually had fewer headaches with USB audio interfaces than I have with Firewire. Digidesign in particular has the most unbelievably annoying Firewire hardware connection I have encountered anywhere ever.
Also annoying is audio hardware manufacturers using Firewire 400 interfaces, thus cutting in half the speed of any Firewire 800 devices in the chain, but that's a side issue.
TB audio interfaces would be nice, but my money is on there being very, very, very few offerings. Vanishingly few.
Wouldn't that not happen if you put the slower devices at the end of the chain? FW800 is largely (but not exactly) dual channel FW400. As long as you don't put FW400 bottleneck *in between* two FW800 devices, I'd think you're good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Wouldn't that not happen if you put the slower devices at the end of the chain? FW800 is largely (but not exactly) dual channel FW400. As long as you don't put FW400 bottleneck *in between* two FW800 devices, I'd think you're good.
[Updated] It doesn't seem to work the way you describe in my circumstances. I just did a simple file transfer test and it took longer with the 400 device attached than it did with it disconnected, even with the 400 device at the end of the chain.
Huh, I didn't know that.