Comments

Grazie wrote on 11/10/2003, 1:12 PM
Someone will do the math on this for you. You know, revolutions and streaming at the require stream rates? . . . C'mon boyz - don't let me down here . . you can hear the calculators tapping already, can't yer?

G
johnmeyer wrote on 11/10/2003, 1:16 PM
I don't know about calculations. However, I captured all the time to my old 4200 rpm laptop drive. Only a 700 MHz machine. Used a PCMCIA 1394 card. Never dropped a frame. That drive quit (computer came out of standby while in a briefcase and it overheated). I replaced with a newer, faster drive. Makes no difference on capturing, but programs definitely load faster.

Bottom line: For DV, you can get by with just about any modern IDE disk drive; for less compressed formats, you need much faster hard drives (even RAID, if you're doing uncompressed).
Grazie wrote on 11/10/2003, 1:29 PM
JM - I didn't know that . . . I'll put my abacus away then?

G
johnmeyer wrote on 11/10/2003, 1:32 PM
I'll put my abacus away then?

"abacus": Nasty oath directed at 1970's Sweedish rock band

Grazie wrote on 11/10/2003, 2:33 PM
Ha HA! - Speaking as A devout ABBA fan, no Cussing here . . .all that Glam Rock - ahhhhhh . . .. . I've gawn weak at the knees . .


G
Nat wrote on 11/10/2003, 7:03 PM
Thanks guys, will try capturing as soon as I get hold of a camera :)
24Peter wrote on 11/10/2003, 9:27 PM
I had a very similar laptop to John's and captured video all the time with no problem. Isn't the issue [for DV at least] more sustained data transfer rate than rotational speed? DV is 25mbs or about 3.6MBs. Pretty minimal for even slower hard drives. I might be wrong but hard drive speed was [is] more important for analog capture and (as was pointed out above) uncompressed video.
harryset wrote on 11/10/2003, 9:49 PM
With the low cost of 7200rpm drives, time spent taking video, time spent editing. . . why would you even consider the extra stress of doubting your capture?
Nat wrote on 11/10/2003, 10:47 PM
laptop drives are pretty expensive....