# No FireWire on New iPod!!!



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

My buddy just picked up a ViPod at the Apple Store in Philly and he said he plugged his FW Cable into it and got a message saying that FireWire was not supported!!
WHAT IS APPLE THINKING!!!!
I cannot believe this, I am in complete shock! I don't care how many iPods you sell to PC People, why drop the FW support, what next, USB2 iSight!!!!


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

To quote MacCentral.com

_Why did Apple dump FireWire on the iPod?

Apple sells iPods to Mac and Windows users alike, and Windows PCs often lack FireWire ports—but they always have USB ports. So iPods must support USB in order to be broadly compatible with PCs. Our guess is that Apple dropped FireWire in order to simplify the product, shrink some components, and reduce its costs. Don't expect it to come back._


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

This is old news. How many threads are on this subject?  The iPod nano fails to support FireWire as well.


----------



## macguy.nielsen (Sep 18, 2004)

In theory USB 2.0 is actually supposed to be 480 Mbps/second, while Firewire is 400 Mbps/second. So if this is actually true then USB 2.0 is better then using Firewire for the new iPod. It's all on how you look at it.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macguy.nielsen - Theoretically USB 2.0 is better, but only in theory. Using the CPU as your controller rather then the an actual hardware controller gives USB it's overhead that makes it slower then Firewire.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

macguy.nielsen said:


> In theory USB 2.0 is actually supposed to be 480 Mbps/second, while Firewire is 400 Mbps/second. So if this is actually true then USB 2.0 is better then using Firewire for the new iPod. It's all on how you look at it.


That's not the reason at all.

FireWire support takes up physical space in the iPod. No FireWire = Smaller iPods = Simpler Design = Lower Costs. Everybody wins!

Good job, Apple! I love my iPod nano. I don't care what port it plugs into.


----------



## macguy.nielsen (Sep 18, 2004)

Yup that is true. I don't know, if your complaining about an extra 5-10 minutes of upload/download time. I really would say suck it up. If you're in that big of hurry then you should try organizing your day a little better.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Chealion said:


> Using the CPU as your controller rather then the an actual hardware controller gives USB it's overhead that makes it slower then Firewire.


Makes it cheaper to produce and simpler to design, too.


----------



## ncoffey (Apr 6, 2005)

macguy.nielsen said:


> Yup that is true. I don't know, if your complaining about an extra 5-10 minutes of upload/download time. I really would say suck it up. If you're in that big of hurry then you should try organizing your day a little better.


The problem is for those who have firewire but don't have USB 2.0. That transforms a 10 minute sync into a 10 hour sync. (Thankfully, I'm not one of them)


----------



## macguy.nielsen (Sep 18, 2004)

ncoffey said:


> The problem is for those who have firewire but don't have USB 2.0. That transforms a 10 minute sync into a 10 hour sync. (Thankfully, I'm not one of them)


Even if you don't have USB 2.0, honestly whats 20 minutes? Society is all about "now, I want it done now!" Sit back, relax, grab a book read for a bit. Or maybe post up bitching posts about no firewire on new iPods on ehMac. Heh, flame away.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Remind me not to ever ask to cry on your shoulder, macguy. I might get an elbow instead.


----------



## macguy.nielsen (Sep 18, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Remind me not to ever ask to cry on your shoulder, macguy. I might get an elbow instead.


Heh, nah..you can cry on my shoulder.


----------



## draz (Jun 13, 2005)

While the two fo you go off to rub each others backs...it is the principle of the whole thing. First hell froze over and apple's will run off intels :-O Now no more firewire in the iPod. Steve is like sooo dead!! 

ha you have to admit that firewire has always been a mac trade mark. BASTARDS!!! What next a 2 button mouse.....


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

If you're in no rush to get a new Mac that has USB 2.0 as well as Firewire then you're certainly in no rush to get the latest and greatest iPod. I know a friend who still loves his 1G iPod.


----------



## macguy.nielsen (Sep 18, 2004)

draz said:


> What next a 2 button mouse.....


Either this was sarcastic or you've been living under a rock for a couple months. I like my rock, it keeps me warm in the winter months.


----------



## jonmon (Feb 15, 2002)

i would prefer to use a firewire port rather than a usb, just so that i can use other peripherals such as a multi card reader so that i don't need to buy a usb hub


----------



## macguy.nielsen (Sep 18, 2004)

jonmon said:


> i would prefer to use a firewire port rather than a usb, just so that i can use other peripherals such as a multi card reader so that i don't need to buy a usb hub


I would suggest you purchase this if you are worries about USB ports and Media Card Reader.

=> http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail~dpno~189256.asp <=


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Didn't we go down this same path when Apple introduced the iPhoto iPod? They made you pay EXTRA for the firewire cable? Basically you either paid extra for the cable or you used USB 2.0 capabilities at the time.

Why would this be such a huge shock to everyone?

Realistically, unless you're going to be uploading 30GB or 60GB at a time each time you connect your iPod Video to your Mac, you will not experience the minutes or hours like some of you put it, to upload music, photos, videos etc... The very first time will be the longest time for you, after that you won't even notice how long it takes.

Relax and enjoy the new iPod.


----------



## macguy.nielsen (Sep 18, 2004)

MacGYVER said:


> Didn't we go down this same path when Apple introduced the iPhoto iPod? They made you pay EXTRA for the firewire cable? Basically you either paid extra for the cable or you used USB 2.0 capabilities at the time.
> 
> Why would this be such a huge shock to everyone?
> 
> ...


*hugs MacGYVER*


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

draz said:


> While the two fo you go off to rub each others backs...it is the principle of the whole thing. First hell froze over and apple's will run off intels :-O Now no more firewire in the iPod. Steve is like sooo dead!!


Exactly! Do you not see what's going on here! He is merging us into a PC World and you all just sit back and take it! Apple used to be innovation (Remember FireWire, how great it was compared to USB and USB2, do you remember these keynbotes people!!!) now its just taking whats already out there to cater to the enemy. You guys can take and be happy all you want, but I wont be happy about it at all.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

i'm sorry, i just have to be a jerk and say. 


HAHAHAHAHA USB 2.0 will NEVER be as fast as it is supposed to be. that's like saying your cheap logitech computer speakers have 100 Watt output. 


hahaha....


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

MacDaddy said:


> Exactly! Do you not see what's going on here! He is merging us into a PC World and you all just sit back and take it! Apple used to be innovation (Remember FireWire, how great it was compared to USB and USB2, do you remember these keynbotes people!!!) now its just taking whats already out there to cater to the enemy. You guys can take and be happy all you want, but I wont be happy about it at all.


What's going on here is that you're two years too late with your complaint! Apple already left the Firewire era when they introduced the iPod photo version a couple of years ago.

Firewire 400 is dying slowly and is being replaced by either the SLOW MOVING adopting Firewire 800 which is not catching on at all, I mean Firewire 400 caught on quicker then 800 has over the last two years or USB 2.0.

The main reason why Apple has adopted USB 2.0 is cost and marketing issues.

Once again who is the biggest market that Apple sells their iPods to? Not the Mac market but the PC market. In the end, it works out to be both. The other main reason is a cost issue. Would it make sense for Apple to design, produce two separate iPods? One with USB 2.0 and one with Firewire 400? No, Apple would be losing money instead of making money if they went that route. From a design perspective, could Apple put the two technologies together and still make the iPod sleek, small and light? Probably not, and once again the cost issue rises to the table. 

Most new Macs within the last two years come with USB 2.0 and some flavour of Firewire, don't burn Apple if you're Mac is outdated and doesn't have the latest technology.


----------



## jonmon (Feb 15, 2002)

macguy.nielsen said:


> I would suggest you purchase this if you are worries about USB ports and Media Card Reader.
> 
> => http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail~dpno~189256.asp <=


nice! now do they have a card reader/hub/ipod dock?


----------



## ncoffey (Apr 6, 2005)

It's funny that the issue that everyone asks me when I say I use a mac is "but they're not compatible are they?"


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Can you still use the iPod as a external drive if it no longer uses firewire? Is it bootable?


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

MacGYVER said:


> What's going on here is that you're two years too late with your complaint! Apple already left the Firewire era when they introduced the iPod photo version a couple of years ago.


While they may have shipped USB they still supported FireWire for those of us who want superior quality and data transfers (Why do you think DV Cams don't use USB 2 and why FCP doesn't support capture for the ones that do?).



> The other main reason is a cost issue. Would it make sense for Apple to design, produce two separate iPods? One with USB 2.0 and one with Firewire 400?


No but it would make sence to have BOTH, like they have up until the Nano. 

And so you know, I have a DP G5, just because it has USB 2 does not mean I want to use it. 



> Can you still use the iPod as a external drive if it no longer uses firewire? Is it bootable?


Another great question about this. I use my iPod for a HD all the time


----------



## Howard2k (Feb 9, 2005)

You could still use it as a HDD - but you could not boot from it.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Howard2k said:


> You could still use it as a HDD - but you could not boot from it.


There is a big downer right there. I use mine to boot from all the time at work when I am trouble shooting.


----------



## Banny (Jul 8, 2005)

I bought an iPod photo like 2 months ago or so. It came with a 2.0 USB AC Adapter. Would that work with the Video?

What I'm trying to say is that if I sell my iPod, could I keep the Adapter and use it for the Video iPod?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

draz said:


> While the two fo you go off to rub each others backs...it is the principle of the whole thing. First hell froze over and apple's will run off intels


How quickly we forget....

Apple has dumped it's own tech whenever it seemed prudent.

ADB was great, eh? Now we're all USB.
ADC was an awesome innovation! Now we're back to DVI.
Ever had a Mac with NuBus? Now we've got PCI.
Remember the Toolbox on the motherboard? Didn't think so.

But Apple *has not* dumped FireWire. It has merely been repositioned back to it's original purpose.

FireWire was designed for the digital camcorder, and it remains king in that arena. It also functions great for high-performance external hard drives, especially with FW800 (I got one. It's nice.)

We need a FireWire iPod now like we need a FireWire Joystick. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Without FireWire, Apple could never have invented the iPod. But USB2 is here: cheaper, cross-platform, and still capable. Apple has made a good move.

Is the Mac moving closer to the PC? Yes. Soon, the architectural differences will completely vanish, with the coming MacIntels. Just wait - the MacIntels will have no less than 4 Intel techs inside: cpu, gma, wifi, and system controller. Hell, the entire motherboard might be manufacturer at Intel, just for simplicity.

Fast forward 10 years....
kid: Dad, what's a Mac?
dad: Son, that's a PC running OS X from Apple.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

The ONLY reason why you would want FW on the iPod (after the first upload) is if you have a 
Shuffle. Why? Because uploading 240 new songs each time you refresh it is very time consuming with USB 1. My defunct PB was USB 1 and it took a loooong time about once a week. Almost as long as synching my Nokia phone 

However you would then loose the coolest feature of the Shuffle, namely its USB key functionality. I never tire of watching PC users when I pull out my headphones and port their little files across...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Moscool said:


> I never tire of watching PC users when I pull out my headphones and port their little files across...


that is fun!


----------



## Banny (Jul 8, 2005)

Banny said:


> I bought an iPod photo like 2 months ago or so. It came with a 2.0 USB AC Adapter. Would that work with the Video?
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that if I sell my iPod, could I keep the Adapter and use it for the Video iPod?



No dice?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I was really considering purchasing an iPod because of it's capability to boot as a HD. With that functionality gone, it's much less appealing.


----------



## Marvin (Jan 27, 2005)

So originally the iPod used Firewire, correct?
Then Apple switched the USB 2.0 but you could still buy a Firewire cable if you wanted, correct? 
Then Apple dropped Firewire and just allows USB 2.0 now, correct?
So for awhile, the iPod supported both Firewire and USB 2.0?
Why can't they still? And is there not some cables out there that allow the iPod to connect to both.
Why not just continue this?


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Marvin said:


> So originally the iPod used Firewire, correct?
> Then Apple switched the USB 2.0 but you could still buy a Firewire cable if you wanted, correct?
> Then Apple dropped Firewire and just allows USB 2.0 now, correct?
> So for awhile, the iPod supported both Firewire and USB 2.0?
> ...


The only way the iPod supported both Firewire and USB 2.0 was by buying a cable at $40 I believe the cost was. I believe the connector was huge compared to the ones now used to connect via USB 2.0 on the iPod itself. 

Now here is the problem, who is the number one buyer of iPods? What technology are they used to using and own in just about every house hold? That's right, your neighbour and the average PC user running Windows. Mac users come in second for sales of iPods, but most of us Mac users do have both Firewire and USB 2.0 or USB 1.x, either way we are not left out in the cold. 

Why would Apple continue to put money into something that is useless to its number one customer user base? It doesn't make sense from an economic, marketing or cost view to continue to support both technologies into one tiny product like the iPod. Remember design is another issue that Apple looks at when producing iPods.

I find it strange that this time around there is so much anger towards Apple because they got rid of Firewire on their latest iPod. Where were you people when Apple introduced the iPod photo? iPod mini? and how about the iPod Shuffle? All of them gave you a choice of either Firewire or USB 2.0 except for the iPod Shuffle, at an extra cost to the consumer. What a waste of resources and money coming from Apple. 

You do realize that Apple had to pay people to design the Firewire cable for the iPod photo, pay people to do that, pay to have it made, pay to have it shipped and packaged, all extra costs and for what? 5% of the market? Let me know when you run a huge company and have to make cost decisions based on who your customer is and see what kind of budget you're willing to spend. 

It would kind of be like Apple going to Pickle Lake, Ontario and building the worlds largest Apple Store


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

So you just get a Pocket Dock for Firewire, No big deal, It also at the Apple Store.
http://www.sendstation.com/us/products/pocketdock/index.html

D 

Oops!...Just read the fine print


> This PocketDock is compatible with the following iPods:
> • 3G iPod (touch-wheel)
> • 4G iPod (click-wheel)
> • 5G iPod (video) [1]
> ...


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

There were plenty of complaints when Apple decided not to include firewire cables with the iPod photo, mini.. just because you don't remember, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This isn't the first of complaints regarding Apple snubbing firewire.

And that cable that included usb and firewire, was $29.. the connector wasn't any bigger than the one now, it just had two ends for obvious reasons.

With all of these devices becoming usb only, I think it's time for me to pick up a powered usb hub.. but im expecting quite the bottle neck.. I would MUCH prefer firewire. It has always been proven to be superior to usb 2.0.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> HBut Apple *has not* dumped FireWire. It has merely been repositioned back to it's original purpose.
> 
> FireWire was designed for the digital camcorder, and it remains king in that arena. It also functions great for high-performance external hard drives, especially with FW800 (I got one. It's nice.)
> 
> ...


Wake up and smell the coffee, if we let them dump firewire they will! Firewire shoud remain on the Video iPod.

The Video iPod IS a HD. What do you think is inside it?

Firewire is still better for HDs and as you said yourself Apple should use firewire for HDs.

The iPods with a HD should ALWAYS have firewire. I don''t care if you don't include a cable, but include the support for firewire.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I've been reading some pretty bad transfer speeds being reported.. the more data being transfer, the slower it goes. Not looking good.

It's one thing if it's for music.. but now that it's for videos, transferring full movies (if one wants to) on there will be annoying.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

kloan said:


> It's one thing if it's for music.. but now that it's for videos, transferring full movies (if one wants to) on there will be annoying.


Good point.

Hmmm... I remember a certain person saying that firewire should be used for digital VIDEO camcorders. How about moving video between a computer and HD? Sounds to me like Apple shot themselves in the foot. They should have kept firewire support.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Kosh said:


> Wake up and smell the coffee, if we let them dump firewire they will! Firewire shoud remain on the Video iPod.


What do you mean "if we let them." What are we gonna do to stop it?


Kosh said:


> Firewire is still better for HDs and as you said yourself Apple should use firewire for HDs.


I use my external HD for recording and editing music in Logic Pro, and editing with iMovie. The performance of the FW800 is very important here, because the material is being played back in real-time.

Not so with an iPod. The transfer is passive, so performance is a non-issue.

I did not say that Apple should use FW for HD, only for high-performance drives.; the HD in an iPod is probably only 3200 or 4800 rpm. Don't put words in my mouth.


Kosh said:


> The iPods with a HD should ALWAYS have firewire. I don''t care if you don't include a cable, but include the support for firewire.


No thanks, but I prefer a cheaper, thinner iPod.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I dunno about that.. do you think that little chip actually increased the cost and size that much?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Marvin said:


> So for awhile, the iPod supported both Firewire and USB 2.0?
> Why can't they still? And is there not some cables out there that allow the iPod to connect to both.
> Why not just continue this?


FireWire support means more than just a cable. The iPod requires internal hardware and software to support FW. Removing that stuff allows Apple to make the iPod cheaper and thinner. Everybody wins, except for the guys who think they need to boot OS X off the HD of an iPod.

These same guys were whining when Apple switched to Intel. Hell, they are probably still bitching about the missing parallel, serial, SCSI, and ABD ports.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

kloan said:


> I dunno about that.. do you think that little chip actually increased the cost and size that much?


yes


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> FireWire support means more than just a cable. The iPod requires internal hardware and software to support FW. Removing that stuff allows Apple to make the iPod cheaper and thinner. Everybody wins, except for the guys who think they need to boot OS X off the HD of an iPod.


proof?



> These same guys were whining when Apple switched to Intel. Hell, they are probably still bitching about the missing parallel, serial, SCSI, and ABD ports.


I wasn't, and am not.. dunno about others..


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> These same guys were whining when Apple switched to Intel. Hell, they are probably still bitching about the missing parallel, serial, SCSI, and ABD ports.


You assume too much there... I'm glad to have USB and Firewire. I never cared for SCSI. And the Mac never had a parallel port. If you're thinking of the printer port, that was a serial port. I have no problem with Apple going Intel either. I just don't like seeing Apple either 1) catering to the PC market instead of the Mac, or 2) giving in to a standard that is inferior to one they created and should be pushing.

As for the firewire taking space, it doesn't require an extra port since it uses the dock connector and it doesn't require the iPod to be larger since the iPod, especially the 60GB, is roughly the same size as the old iPods. That's just a lame excuse...


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

> What do you mean "if we let them." What are we gonna do to stop it?


http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html
Thats what we can do about it. Let them know how you feel about it. Well, not YOU per say since you could care less, but the rest of us.



> No thanks, but I prefer a cheaper, thinner iPod.


I prefer FireWire and don't mind paying more for it. Where am I supposed it plug it in exactly? I already have 5 USB devices and a hub, and 1 FW device, my camera.
I dont like being told what connection I have to use, especially after being a 6 year loyal iPod user with FireWire just so they can save a few buck and cater to the Windows crowd.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I really don't think it added any size to it.. I read some specs on the mini, and the portalplayer chip it used had integrated usb and firewire controllers. As far as cost savings? What are we talking about here.. maybe $0.50 per chip to Apple?

Bottomline, there's no logical reason to drop firewire from the iPod.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

kloan said:


> I really don't think it added any size to it.. I read some specs on the mini, and the portalplayer chip it used had integrated usb and firewire controllers. As far as cost savings? What are we talking about here.. maybe $0.50 per chip to Apple?
> 
> Bottomline, there's no logical reason to drop firewire from the iPod.


Amen!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

This is pretty much in line with Ford figuring that putting a 25 cent bladder inside the fuel tank of their infamous Pinto model to prevent leakage of gasoline in the event of a rear end accident was more expensive than paying for the lawsuits for the deaths they knew would occur because of this decision. 

Except in this case it's not a life and death decision, it's just a few extra minutes of syncing time whenever you need to transfer large amounts of data which is hardly ever anyway.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Ok, 

How about we get Carbon Computing in Kitchener or Toronto to test out which takes longer USB 2.0 or Firewire 400 to fill up a 30GB or 60GB iPod if it can be done. Obviously we can't test Firewire out on the new video iPod.

Anyone up for the challenge? I want to know from start to finish in seconds, minutes, hours it takes to fill up those iPods with the same data using first USB 2.0 and then via Firewire.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

MacGYVER said:


> Ok,
> 
> How about we get Carbon Computing in Kitchener or Toronto to test out which takes longer USB 2.0 or Firewire 400 to fill up a 30GB or 60GB iPod if it can be done. Obviously we can't test Firewire out on the new video iPod.
> 
> Anyone up for the challenge? I want to know from start to finish in seconds, minutes, hours it takes to fill up those iPods with the same data using first USB 2.0 and then via Firewire.


Good Idea, but we wont be able to get accurate testing because of the video feature without firewire. I would still like to see the audio transfer and HD backup from FW to USB2.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Firewire vs USB 2.0 transfer speeds are mentioned in this review of the 30GB and 60GB iPod: http://playlistmag.com/reviews/2005/10/30gbipod/index.php



> Speaking of slow, some people have suggested that USB 2.0 syncing penalizes users because it’s slower than synching over FireWire. My tests disprove this claim. On a 2GHz Power Mac G5, I synched 997 AAC files (weighing in at 3.95GB) on a 60GB iPod photo using FireWire and a new 30GB iPod using USB 2.0. The new 30GB iPod (USB 2.0) took 12 minutes and 37 seconds to sync. The iPod photo (FireWire) was just 2 seconds faster at 12 minutes and 35 seconds. On a Dell PC with a 3.2GHz Pentium processor, FireWire synching was slower than USB 2.0—requiring 19 minutes and 12 seconds to sync a 996 track library (4.57GB) versus 12 minutes and 4 seconds for a USB 2.0 transfer. These figures hint that synchronization times have as much to do with each operating system’s (and computer’s) implementation of USB 2.0 and FireWire as they do with the iPod’s synchronization capabilities.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Good point.
> 
> Hmmm... I remember a certain person saying that firewire should be used for digital VIDEO camcorders. How about moving video between a computer and HD? Sounds to me like Apple shot themselves in the foot. They should have kept firewire support.


The reason Firewire is the best option for Digital Video cameras is because its a digital-to-digital connection, meaning no loss in video quality. However, that means nothing when you're transferring video FILES. You're not transcoding the video you put onto the iPod in real time, its already been encoded for you. At that point it wouldn't matter what kind of connection you used, you'd still have the video file at the same quality it was originally encoded in.

The only people who should care what kind of connection the iPod uses is anyone with an older computer that doesn't come with USB2. In that regard you have a (small) reason to complain. But as many have said in this thread already, its smart for Apple to go with USB 2 because they can simplify the iPod, make it smaller, and make it cheaper. Paying for one component will always be cheaper than paying for two, regardless of how much that extra component costs.

Trev


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

TrevX said:


> The reason Firewire is the best option for Digital Video cameras is because its a digital-to-digital connection, meaning no loss in video quality.


For those less familiar with digital-to-digital connections, can you explain the difference between the connection if your camera has a USB out? Does that mean you loose video quality with USB?


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> For those less familiar with digital-to-digital connections, can you explain the difference between the connection if your camera has a USB out? Does that mean you loose video quality with USB?


Sorry, I should have elaborated on what I meant there. Technically a camera with a USB connection is also a digital-to-digital connection, so if you're transferring pictures (say, from a digital still camera) you will not see a loss in quality (simply because you're moving FILES, again the connection doesn't really matter for this purpose). However, if your digital VIDEO camera has USB 2.0 instead of Firewire you very well could see a loss in quality. The reason for this is because Firewire has a much higher sustained transfer rate than USB. USB transfers in bursts, meaning lots of highs and lows, but Firewire transfers much more consistently at higher rates which is critical when transferring uncompressed video data at full frame rate.

How this translates to USB over Firewire for the iPod is this: you're moving sound and video FILES, stuff that has already been compressed and doesn't rely on sustained speeds to maintain quality. If you were transferring one giant music file that is several gigs in size to the iPod instead of hundreds or thousands of little files then Firewire would have the clear advantage because it would be able to sustain a higher transfer rate rather than working in bursts. But since the iPod uses thousands of smaller files the computer has to continually go back and "restart" the file transfer after each individual song has been transferred...its not one big stream of data coming over. Its basically working in bursts, the same way that USB works. That's why having Firewire on the iPod isn't an advantage (save for using the iPod as a hard disk) over having USB.

Trev


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Finally we can put the Firewire issue to rest regarding the iPods


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

DV Video on a 60 minute tape is about 12-13GB of raw data.
13GB / 60 Minutes = ~220MB/minute
220MB / 60 Seconds = ~4MB/second

USB2.0 can sustain data transfer rates of 16MB/second, which is 4 times what is necessary for DV video ( http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html ).

There is never any data conversion. DV footage is stored on video tapes in a raw data file format. When the video is dumped to the computer, it is simply a data copy procedure. This is why DV camcorders can be used as Tape Backup machines ( http://www.coolatoola.com/ <- very neat ).

USB2.0 SHOULD be good enough for DV, but camcorder manufacturers will likely stick with FireWire since it is proven, and works generally flawlessly.


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

TrevX said:


> Sorry, I should have elaborated on what I meant there. Technically a camera with a USB connection is also a digital-to-digital connection, so if you're transferring pictures (say, from a digital still camera) you will not see a loss in quality (simply because you're moving FILES, again the connection doesn't really matter for this purpose). However, if your digital VIDEO camera has USB 2.0 instead of Firewire you very well could see a loss in quality. The reason for this is because Firewire has a much higher sustained transfer rate than USB. USB transfers in bursts, meaning lots of highs and lows, but Firewire transfers much more consistently at higher rates which is critical when transferring uncompressed video data at full frame rate.
> 
> How this translates to USB over Firewire for the iPod is this: you're moving sound and video FILES, stuff that has already been compressed and doesn't rely on sustained speeds to maintain quality. If you were transferring one giant music file that is several gigs in size to the iPod instead of hundreds or thousands of little files then Firewire would have the clear advantage because it would be able to sustain a higher transfer rate rather than working in bursts. But since the iPod uses thousands of smaller files the computer has to continually go back and "restart" the file transfer after each individual song has been transferred...its not one big stream of data coming over. Its basically working in bursts, the same way that USB works. That's why having Firewire on the iPod isn't an advantage (save for using the iPod as a hard disk) over having USB.
> 
> Trev


The other reason FireWire is better suited to digital camcorders than USB is that the FireWire system includes a dedicated coprocessor at both ends to handle the actual transfer, resulting in a lower CPU load--important when a steady stream of data absolutely must be delivered. USB's processing is handled by the device's CPU, which allows it to be a less expensive interface--but it also eats into the computer's resources, leading to potential dropped frames when transferring to/from camcorders (mainly if you've got a slow or fragmented hard drive, or are running too much in the background). For more typical data transfers, as used by iPods and flash drives, this is not an issue. I've used both interfaces with my 60GB iPod photo, and frankly I don't notice any difference--except that connecting via FireWire interferes with my iSight.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> DV Video on a 60 minute tape is about 12-13GB of raw data.
> 13GB / 60 Minutes = ~220MB/minute
> 220MB / 60 Seconds = ~4MB/second
> 
> ...


Correct, but whenever I imported DV from a MiniDV tape it was never in real time, it was more like 2x or maybe slightly faster. The tape seemed to be in a sort of fast forward mode while importing, though obviously not as fast as actual fast forward. I don't have any hard data for what kind of data rate would need to be reached for that kind of transfer.

I think planders put it best when he mentioned that Firewire has independant controllers on each device to facilitate the transfer of data. This is why Firewire has much higher SUSTAINED (this is key) transfer rates and why it is better suited to the transfer of digital video. With USB 2.0, it cannot guarantee any given transfer rate due to its reliance on the host CPU to facilitate the transfer.

Trev


----------

