|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 24th, 2005, 11:09 AM
|
#16 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: McLean, VA United States
Posts: 749
|
Perhaps but I think that's what he wants to do so it's his decision. Just trying to lay out an option for his consideration. And there may be other ways to do it.
|
|
|
|
August 24th, 2005, 12:36 PM
|
#17 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Yep -- differences of opinion is why they hold horseraces.
|
|
|
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 11:44 AM
|
#18 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: McLean, VA United States
Posts: 749
|
Some new data for this thread. There is an outfit in England called Avit Research (www.avitresearch.co.uk) which sells (£75) a cable that connects to the LANC port of a DV camera at one end and puts MIDI time code out the other (the MIDI connector is fat and obviously contains some active electronics). Thus any recording device which can resolve to MTC (or resolve to video and read MTC) should permit synchronous video and audio recordings tagged with identical time code (± latencies). This is conditioned, of course, on the camera placing LTC on the LANC port. Avit's website specifically mentions Sony and Canon but hints that there may be others.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
