Whoa...cool!
I was playing around with the FX1 tonight, and set-up the iLINK interface into my big PC. Not knowing what to expect as it really isn't all that well explained in the manual, I just tried to capture some video onto an empty hard drive. SLICK! Very cool. So then I reconfigured the camera into my Vista laptop and recorded some footage right into a desktop folder--again, worked great. In case someone is wondering, you don't even have to have a tape in the camera to do this, although I would--simply to eliminate the little flashing icon on the LCD screen. But as soon as you capture the device, you can see a live picture although it's slightly delayed of course. And to record it, you simply hit the record button in the vidcap. You do not have to use the record button on the camera.
So this brings up two questions for folks that might have done this before:
1) Being as how the iLINK interface on my FX1 is an S400 with a maximum baud rate of 400Mbps, I reason that I should be able to capture video with very little lag, because the USB 2.0 external drive data rate is 480Mbps. Not that it really matters much I suppose, because I am just going to let the footage pour onto the hard drive, and then process it later. But there shouldn't be a great to have Vegas buffering the video stream, the way I figure it.
2) Regarding recording with vs. without tape: The way I see it, I should be able to actually record onto tape concurrently with the vidcap stream...right? So in essence, I can capture a stream of an entire volleyball game and record all or none of the event onto miniDV tape. I am not sure if this would be important for a volleyball game, but I can see how it might come in handy for, say, recording a wedding or something, where you wanted a backup media source. Say maybe you might want to vidcap an entire 90-minute wedding, but only record 60 minutes of it onto a miniDV tape. You get my point...
But this vidcap utility is very cool. I can't see any real reason that an older laptop running XP wouldn't work just fine. It's got 1.25GB RAM, but for only capturing video, I can't see that it matters much.
Anybody else tried this at all?
TB
I was playing around with the FX1 tonight, and set-up the iLINK interface into my big PC. Not knowing what to expect as it really isn't all that well explained in the manual, I just tried to capture some video onto an empty hard drive. SLICK! Very cool. So then I reconfigured the camera into my Vista laptop and recorded some footage right into a desktop folder--again, worked great. In case someone is wondering, you don't even have to have a tape in the camera to do this, although I would--simply to eliminate the little flashing icon on the LCD screen. But as soon as you capture the device, you can see a live picture although it's slightly delayed of course. And to record it, you simply hit the record button in the vidcap. You do not have to use the record button on the camera.
So this brings up two questions for folks that might have done this before:
1) Being as how the iLINK interface on my FX1 is an S400 with a maximum baud rate of 400Mbps, I reason that I should be able to capture video with very little lag, because the USB 2.0 external drive data rate is 480Mbps. Not that it really matters much I suppose, because I am just going to let the footage pour onto the hard drive, and then process it later. But there shouldn't be a great to have Vegas buffering the video stream, the way I figure it.
2) Regarding recording with vs. without tape: The way I see it, I should be able to actually record onto tape concurrently with the vidcap stream...right? So in essence, I can capture a stream of an entire volleyball game and record all or none of the event onto miniDV tape. I am not sure if this would be important for a volleyball game, but I can see how it might come in handy for, say, recording a wedding or something, where you wanted a backup media source. Say maybe you might want to vidcap an entire 90-minute wedding, but only record 60 minutes of it onto a miniDV tape. You get my point...
But this vidcap utility is very cool. I can't see any real reason that an older laptop running XP wouldn't work just fine. It's got 1.25GB RAM, but for only capturing video, I can't see that it matters much.
Anybody else tried this at all?
TB