Direct to Disk Quality at DVinfo.net

Simon Duncan · January 19th, 2007, 10:26 AM

Simple question!

Outside the practical side of recording Direct to Disk are you actually recording a better quailty picture compared to recording to tape.

The scenario is I am thinking of purchasing the new JVC HD200 along with a DTD recorder eg Firestore or the JVC equivalent. But what I want to know is outside better workflow am I able to record a better quailty picture to the DTD compared with going straight to tape.

Apologies if this has been asked before but I did do a search and didn't really find a direct answer to this question.

Thanks

Bill Ravens · January 19th, 2007, 10:31 AM

exactly the same as tape. no difference

Simon Duncan · January 19th, 2007, 10:39 AM

Thanks Bill,

Outside the workflow what is it like with maintaining Time Code since currently I have a Canon XL1 and stopping and starting the camera constantly reverts the Time Code back to 00:00:00 which is a bloody pain.

Bill Ravens · January 19th, 2007, 10:46 AM

it's a little tricky. the FS-4 only does freerun timecode, which is what you're talking about, I beleive. If you want more Timecode options, buy the FS4 Pro for a little more money. It gives you some regen, freerun, and sync timecode options. I'm using the FS4, non pro. TC really isn't an issue. The FS4 autonames the files with a naming system related to the TC, so, it's never an issue for me to align all the sequences on a timeline. BTW, dunno if you're aware of it or not...DTE recorders all use FAT32 for drive formatting. FAT32 has a 2Gb file size limitation, so whether you start and stop or not, it will break up your files into <2Gb chunks. Since it records to a buffer, there's no issue with discontinuities between chunks when you reassemble them on the timeline.

John Miller · January 19th, 2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Duncan

I have a Canon XL1 and stopping and starting the camera constantly reverts the Time Code back to 00:00:00 which is a bloody pain.

That's weird. Are you leaving gaps between the previously recorded material and the new?

On a related note, I stumbled across something unexpected regarding timecode and tape vs. D2D.

When I record to tape on my PDX-10 and capture to disk at the same time, the timecode written to tape is different than that sent via the Firewire - typically about 3 frames ahead.

Simon Duncan · January 19th, 2007, 10:50 AM

Is the JVC DR-HD100 offering any more advantages since I am looking at the JVC HD 200 Camera?

Simon Duncan · January 19th, 2007, 10:54 AM

John,

My timecode problem with the Canon XL1 comes when I actually power down between shots. If I select standby mode on the camera then timecode maintains its sequence. My timecode problems seem to only happen when I actually turn the camera off and then restart. This happens a fair bit since I am always conscious of actually running out of power when on location. I only have 2 batteries - 1 x 1 hour and 1 x 3 hour battery.

Bill Ravens · January 19th, 2007, 11:16 AM

Check the owner's manual for your XL1. I know the XL2 has an option to select what kind of TC you want, regen or sync.

The JVC HD100 version of the FS4HD is the same. The JVC version talks to the JVC viewfinder and takes on/off commands from the camera....only diff. Dunno what NLE you're editting on, but there are some dropped frame problems a lot of people are having with captures from the FS4/HD100 DTE's when using FCP.

Danny Fye · January 22nd, 2007, 12:10 PM

[QUOTE=Bill Ravens]BTW, dunno if you're aware of it or not...DTE recorders all use FAT32 for drive formatting. FAT32 has a 2Gb file size limitation, so whether you start and stop or not, it will break up your files into <2Gb chunks. QUOTE]

FAT32 is not 2GB. It is 4GB.

The reason 2GB was chosen was originally there was an issue of using more than 2GB with Adobe Premiere. This is what Focus Enhancements told me.

Also the reason they originally chose FAT was so there would be compatibility with the Mac.

Now that Adobe Premiere can use the large files and because the Mac can now read NTFS, there is no longer any valid reason for either the crippled version of FAT32, as in 2GB instead of 4GB and there is no longer any reason to have FAT32 at all.

The question now is, will Focus Enhancements make the needed changes or will they continue as is.

At least for me I found a 'work-around' for the non-seamless video problems I was having with Vegas 7. My work-around may even help others with their issues.

One way or another, I won't hold my breath waiting for Focus Enhancements to start providing solutions to the numerous problems that have been reported.

I am finding it very difficult to believe that they are really sincere about solving the issues that have been reported in this and other forums.

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com
www.vidmus.com/scolvs

Doug Tessler · January 22nd, 2007, 07:36 PM

FS-C and FAT 32
The FAT32 file system limits file size to a maximum of 2GB or
approximately, 9 minutes of recording time.

Thats directly from Focus Enhancements site . This is the only thing I don't like about it ! I get alot of clips when I record 1 hour of footage , but the good thing is they all link together fine in my editing system.

Peace Good shooting

Doug T
espn, abc

John Miller · January 22nd, 2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Tessler

FS-C and FAT 32
The FAT32 file system limits file size to a maximum of 2GB or
approximately, 9 minutes of recording time.

Thats directly from Focus Enhancements site

THAT IS WRONG!!!!

Focus Enhancements should be shot for stating such. They are also incorrect when they say the largest FAT32 volume is 32GB - not true - it's 1TB.

The FAT32 file system can address up to 4GB.

The 2GB limit is a legacy AVI 1.0 issue and comes about because when Microsoft released the first Video For Windows API files, they inadvertently used a signed 32-bit number for the length of the file, thereby halving the maximum file size. Once released, there's nothing they could do but wait for a new AVI specification. This affected not only Premiere (as is the common misconception) but ANY Video For Windows-based applications.

Danny Fye · January 22nd, 2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Tessler

FS-C and FAT 32
The FAT32 file system limits file size to a maximum of 2GB or
approximately, 9 minutes of recording time.

Thats directly from Focus Enhancements site . This is the only thing I don't like about it ! I get alot of clips when I record 1 hour of footage , but the good thing is they all link together fine in my editing system.

Peace Good shooting

Doug T
espn, abc

The information on their site is errant so please don't go by what they say.

What troubles me is that their site also doesn't say that the HDV files are not seamless in Vegas 7 even though they have been informed that this is so. Also there is an audio drop-out at the end of each clip. The video part is seamless in Vegas 6 but there is also the audio drop-out at the end of each clip. Because of the work-around that is necessary to do, the FS-4 HD is not DTE when it comes to Vegas and HDV.

You can combine those little clips and create one large video file instead. This helps in editing so that if you need to drag the edge of video to fill in a gap you won't get a bad surprise when you run out of a split clip.

I am simply renaming the files so as to simplify typing when making the copies and using DOS to do a copy /b file1+file2+file3 final_file.

The files can be file1.avi, etc or file1.m2t, etc. The /b makes it binary. Anyway, all it is doing is adding the files together and copying them into one large and final file.

Focus Enhancements really needs to update their site with correct information.

In spite of all this, I really do love not having to mess with tape and spend hours waiting for the video to load into my computer. With the multi-cam shoots that I do, that is a lot more wait than I can stand.

Peace and happy shooting to you to.

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com
www.vidmus.com/scolvs

Danny Fye · January 22nd, 2007, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John F Miller

THAT IS WRONG!!!!

Focus Enhancements should be shot for stating such. They are also incorrect when they say the largest FAT32 volume is 32GB - not true - it's 1TB.

The FAT32 file system can address up to 4GB.

The 2GB limit is a legacy AVI 1.0 issue and comes about because when Microsoft released the first Video For Windows API files, they inadvertently used a signed 32-bit number for the length of the file, thereby halving the maximum file size. Once released, there's nothing they could do but wait for a new AVI specification. This affected not only Premiere (as is the common misconception) but ANY Video For Windows-based applications.

Thanks much for the information about FAT32. I knew some of it but not all of it.

One thing for sure, there is no longer any valid reason for Focus Enhancements to continue to use the crippled version of FAT32 or FAT32 at all.

Considering how money oriented they are, I think they are more concerned about how much it would cost them to make the needed changes to go to NTFS than the issues it would solve.

Afterall, they charge an unreal amount for one to go from a 40 to a 100 gig hard drive.

Sooner or later the competition will make Focus Enhancements get their act together. Hopefully sooner.

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com
www.vidmus.com/scolvs

David Suthers · January 23rd, 2007, 06:46 AM

One huge issue that has been overlooked in this discussion is licensing. The real reason nobody is using NTFS is because Microsoft won't let them. Apple/Linux/Unix can READ NTFS partitions, but can only write to them by going through a network share.

I'm sure that Focus Enhancements is as sick of the FAT32 limitations as everyone else, but what else can they do? I can think of 3 possible solutions, but none are anywhere close to perfect.

1. Internally on the Firestore use an open source filesystem that supports large files, and include a SMB server (Windows Networking). Add gigabit networking on the board and then you are back to DTE but lose the convenience of USB & Firewire play-and-play. This solution also makes the very large assumption that the Firestore runs an embedded Unix (I have no idea if they do this or not).

2. Again, use an open source filesystem that supports large files, but this time write interface code to make the partition appear like an NTFS partition to the desktop PC. This is no small feat as you would have to take NTFS formatted requests for data and translate them to the corresponding requests in the new filesystem. Again this assumes that the Firestore uses an some embedding Unix operating system.

3. License NTFS from Microsoft. This would probably mean the Firestore would have to run an embedded version of Windows. Meaning a complete rewrite of the firmware inside the unit, and may require more processing power than the unit currently uses. If the Firestore uses a custom ASIC design instead of the familiar processor/bios/embedded OS method then it would mean re-engineering the whole thing from scratch.

Danny Fye · January 23rd, 2007, 09:09 AM

David Suthers said, "I'm sure that Focus Enhancements is as sick of the FAT32 limitations as everyone else, but what else can they do? I can think of 3 possible solutions, but none are anywhere close to perfect."

---------------------------------------------------

How about a number 4. Thinking about my procedure in merging all of the files into one, Focus Enhancements could create a software utility that would automate the merging of the files as they are being copied from the FS-4 HD to the computer. It would need to be a free utility and be able to determine if the files are continuous or should be separate because the user stopped the recording and started again later on.

It would still not be DTE but I really don't care because I don't want to add the extra wear and tear on the FS-4 HD by using it to edit anyway. And since I do multi-cams with 2 FS-4 HD's it would seem that DTE wouldn't work well anyway.

I did think about the licensing issue of NTFS but I didn't didn't say anything about it because I didn't have any information to support it. Even so, when asked, Matt could have been honest with us and if licensing is the reason why Focus Enhancements doesn't use NTFS then he could have just simply said so instead of either providing BS answers in this forum or none at all in another forum. Also Focus Enhancements could have provided honest reasons and information about FAT32 instead of the BS on their site.

What made me upset the most is the fact that they weren't straight and honest with us.

Issues are not solved by BS and dishonest information!

Anyway, with the ability to merge the clips into one I can now and finally use the HDV with Vegas 7, and it works perfectly even with multi-cams.

I just wish there was a simpler way of doing it. I have created a DOS batch file that takes care of the copying part and I found a free utility that helps with the renaming part but it still isn't quite up to par when it comes to the automation I really want.

Even so, now that I can finally use HDV with Vegas 7 I am pretty much a happy camper...

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com
www.vidmus.com/scolvs

January 19th, 2007, 10:26 AM	#1
Simon Duncan Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Angers, France Posts: 181	Direct to Disk Quality Simple question! Outside the practical side of recording Direct to Disk are you actually recording a better quailty picture compared to recording to tape. The scenario is I am thinking of purchasing the new JVC HD200 along with a DTD recorder eg Firestore or the JVC equivalent. But what I want to know is outside better workflow am I able to record a better quailty picture to the DTD compared with going straight to tape. Apologies if this has been asked before but I did do a search and didn't really find a direct answer to this question. Thanks

January 22nd, 2007, 07:36 PM	#10
Doug Tessler Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: BOCa raton fl Posts: 342	wrong ! FS-C and FAT 32 The FAT32 file system limits file size to a maximum of 2GB or approximately, 9 minutes of recording time. Thats directly from Focus Enhancements site . This is the only thing I don't like about it ! I get alot of clips when I record 1 hour of footage , but the good thing is they all link together fine in my editing system. Peace Good shooting Doug T espn, abc

January 19th, 2007, 10:31 AM	#2
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	exactly the same as tape. no difference

January 19th, 2007, 10:39 AM	#3
Simon Duncan Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Angers, France Posts: 181	Thanks Bill, Outside the workflow what is it like with maintaining Time Code since currently I have a Canon XL1 and stopping and starting the camera constantly reverts the Time Code back to 00:00:00 which is a bloody pain.

January 19th, 2007, 10:46 AM	#4
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	it's a little tricky. the FS-4 only does freerun timecode, which is what you're talking about, I beleive. If you want more Timecode options, buy the FS4 Pro for a little more money. It gives you some regen, freerun, and sync timecode options. I'm using the FS4, non pro. TC really isn't an issue. The FS4 autonames the files with a naming system related to the TC, so, it's never an issue for me to align all the sequences on a timeline. BTW, dunno if you're aware of it or not...DTE recorders all use FAT32 for drive formatting. FAT32 has a 2Gb file size limitation, so whether you start and stop or not, it will break up your files into <2Gb chunks. Since it records to a buffer, there's no issue with discontinuities between chunks when you reassemble them on the timeline.

January 19th, 2007, 10:50 AM	#6
Simon Duncan Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Angers, France Posts: 181	Is the JVC DR-HD100 offering any more advantages since I am looking at the JVC HD 200 Camera?

January 19th, 2007, 10:54 AM	#7
Simon Duncan Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Angers, France Posts: 181	John, My timecode problem with the Canon XL1 comes when I actually power down between shots. If I select standby mode on the camera then timecode maintains its sequence. My timecode problems seem to only happen when I actually turn the camera off and then restart. This happens a fair bit since I am always conscious of actually running out of power when on location. I only have 2 batteries - 1 x 1 hour and 1 x 3 hour battery.

January 19th, 2007, 11:16 AM	#8
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Check the owner's manual for your XL1. I know the XL2 has an option to select what kind of TC you want, regen or sync. The JVC HD100 version of the FS4HD is the same. The JVC version talks to the JVC viewfinder and takes on/off commands from the camera....only diff. Dunno what NLE you're editting on, but there are some dropped frame problems a lot of people are having with captures from the FS4/HD100 DTE's when using FCP.

January 22nd, 2007, 12:10 PM	#9
Danny Fye Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Independence MO. Posts: 318	[QUOTE=Bill Ravens]BTW, dunno if you're aware of it or not...DTE recorders all use FAT32 for drive formatting. FAT32 has a 2Gb file size limitation, so whether you start and stop or not, it will break up your files into <2Gb chunks. QUOTE] FAT32 is not 2GB. It is 4GB. The reason 2GB was chosen was originally there was an issue of using more than 2GB with Adobe Premiere. This is what Focus Enhancements told me. Also the reason they originally chose FAT was so there would be compatibility with the Mac. Now that Adobe Premiere can use the large files and because the Mac can now read NTFS, there is no longer any valid reason for either the crippled version of FAT32, as in 2GB instead of 4GB and there is no longer any reason to have FAT32 at all. The question now is, will Focus Enhancements make the needed changes or will they continue as is. At least for me I found a 'work-around' for the non-seamless video problems I was having with Vegas 7. My work-around may even help others with their issues. One way or another, I won't hold my breath waiting for Focus Enhancements to start providing solutions to the numerous problems that have been reported. I am finding it very difficult to believe that they are really sincere about solving the issues that have been reported in this and other forums. Danny Fye www.dannyfye.com www.vidmus.com/scolvs

January 23rd, 2007, 06:46 AM	#14
David Suthers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wytheville, VA USA Posts: 64	One huge issue that has been overlooked in this discussion is licensing. The real reason nobody is using NTFS is because Microsoft won't let them. Apple/Linux/Unix can READ NTFS partitions, but can only write to them by going through a network share. I'm sure that Focus Enhancements is as sick of the FAT32 limitations as everyone else, but what else can they do? I can think of 3 possible solutions, but none are anywhere close to perfect. 1. Internally on the Firestore use an open source filesystem that supports large files, and include a SMB server (Windows Networking). Add gigabit networking on the board and then you are back to DTE but lose the convenience of USB & Firewire play-and-play. This solution also makes the very large assumption that the Firestore runs an embedded Unix (I have no idea if they do this or not). 2. Again, use an open source filesystem that supports large files, but this time write interface code to make the partition appear like an NTFS partition to the desktop PC. This is no small feat as you would have to take NTFS formatted requests for data and translate them to the corresponding requests in the new filesystem. Again this assumes that the Firestore uses an some embedding Unix operating system. 3. License NTFS from Microsoft. This would probably mean the Firestore would have to run an embedded version of Windows. Meaning a complete rewrite of the firmware inside the unit, and may require more processing power than the unit currently uses. If the Firestore uses a custom ASIC design instead of the familiar processor/bios/embedded OS method then it would mean re-engineering the whole thing from scratch.

January 23rd, 2007, 09:09 AM	#15
Danny Fye Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Independence MO. Posts: 318	David Suthers said, "I'm sure that Focus Enhancements is as sick of the FAT32 limitations as everyone else, but what else can they do? I can think of 3 possible solutions, but none are anywhere close to perfect." --------------------------------------------------- How about a number 4. Thinking about my procedure in merging all of the files into one, Focus Enhancements could create a software utility that would automate the merging of the files as they are being copied from the FS-4 HD to the computer. It would need to be a free utility and be able to determine if the files are continuous or should be separate because the user stopped the recording and started again later on. It would still not be DTE but I really don't care because I don't want to add the extra wear and tear on the FS-4 HD by using it to edit anyway. And since I do multi-cams with 2 FS-4 HD's it would seem that DTE wouldn't work well anyway. I did think about the licensing issue of NTFS but I didn't didn't say anything about it because I didn't have any information to support it. Even so, when asked, Matt could have been honest with us and if licensing is the reason why Focus Enhancements doesn't use NTFS then he could have just simply said so instead of either providing BS answers in this forum or none at all in another forum. Also Focus Enhancements could have provided honest reasons and information about FAT32 instead of the BS on their site. What made me upset the most is the fact that they weren't straight and honest with us. Issues are not solved by BS and dishonest information! Anyway, with the ability to merge the clips into one I can now and finally use the HDV with Vegas 7, and it works perfectly even with multi-cams. I just wish there was a simpler way of doing it. I have created a DOS batch file that takes care of the copying part and I found a free utility that helps with the renaming part but it still isn't quite up to par when it comes to the automation I really want. Even so, now that I can finally use HDV with Vegas 7 I am pretty much a happy camper... Danny Fye www.dannyfye.com www.vidmus.com/scolvs