New Canon TX-1 Looks Weird

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:35:16 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .
There's no standard that I know of for splitting such a file and
making the second piece findable in a transparent manner. If you're
only going to play back in the camera it's not an issue, but if you
have to be able to play back without knowing what software the user is
going to be running then you need to use a compatible naming
convention and there is no standard for the naming convention.

Irrelevant. The user simply opens both files into his editor

Editor? What editor? Who said anything about an editor?

whatever they
are called. And since when did the manufacturer ever care what software the
user had?

They don't, which is why they use standard formats.

They usually provide software of their own, and if you want to use
something else, then the problem is up to THAT company. :-)

So what camera manufacturers provide video playback software?

Anyway WHY does everything have to be done in the camera when computers and
software can do it so much better? As long as the camera can save the file/s
you can write software to convert/combine/rename it however you want. (And
that is usually a trivial exercise anyway)

All this is nice for someone who has a copy of Premiere or whatever
handy, but I doubt that that's the intended market for what's
basically a point-and-shoot.

Similarly what is wrong with using NTFS these days anyway?

First, there's the problem of actually writing to NTFS using a
non-Microsoft operating system. The Linux people have been trying to
develop this capability for as long as I can remember and last time I
upgraded my kernel it was still broken--Apple has tried to do the same
and last I heard it was still broken on their system as well, so the
camera manufacturer would either have to run some form of Windows on
their camera or figure out how to do something that has proven beyond
the capabilities of some of the sharpest programmers in the industry.
Then theres the matter of _reading_ it. OS/X can, sort of, Linux has
had read support off and on and sometimes broken, the only OS that can
be _counted_ on to read NTFS is Windows and not all versions of
_that_.

Well obviously you don't need to use NTFS if your destination is not Windows
XP/Vista!

So how do you get a file size larger than 4 GB?

And if you want to use it, then unfortunately you need to license it from
Bill. Probably a good reason to stay with multiple FAT32 files, as most
manufacturers have done so far, I suppose.

MrT.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Editor? What editor? Who said anything about an editor?

So if you are *only* playing the files in your camera, where is the problem?
(other than storage :-)

So what camera manufacturers provide video playback software?

Quite a few do provide versions of Ulead or similar software in fact.

All this is nice for someone who has a copy of Premiere or whatever
handy, but I doubt that that's the intended market for what's
basically a point-and-shoot.

And just what ARE those people doing with their "video's" then do you think,
if they don't have any software to play or edit them?

Well obviously you don't need to use NTFS if your destination is not
Windows
XP/Vista!

So how do you get a file size larger than 4 GB?

You don't *have* to. See below.

Probably a good reason to stay with multiple FAT32 files, as most
manufacturers have done so far, I suppose.

And it's not uncommon to cut file sizes to 1GB chunks for video.

MrT.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:22:29 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .
Editor? What editor? Who said anything about an editor?

So if you are *only* playing the files in your camera, where is the problem?
(other than storage :-)

Who said anything about playing the files in your camera?

You seem to be having trouble with the notion that there are players
that do not have any editing capability. Windows Media Player for
example. Winamp for another.

So what camera manufacturers provide video playback software?

Quite a few do provide versions of Ulead or similar software in fact.

What manufacturers of cameras provide Ulead?

All this is nice for someone who has a copy of Premiere or whatever
handy, but I doubt that that's the intended market for what's
basically a point-and-shoot.

And just what ARE those people doing with their "video's" then do you think,
if they don't have any software to play or edit them?

Again, you're confusing the issue when you introduce editing. Player
not equal editor.

Well obviously you don't need to use NTFS if your destination is not
Windows
XP/Vista!

So how do you get a file size larger than 4 GB?

You don't *have* to. See below.

No, unless you want to record more than 4 GB of data and play it back
with any random player without having to first find the pieces and
rename them to the player's naming convention.

Probably a good reason to stay with multiple FAT32 files, as most
manufacturers have done so far, I suppose.

And it's not uncommon to cut file sizes to 1GB chunks for video.

However in this case it appears that that is not being done so what is
"not uncommon" is irrelevant.

Point and shoots are not aimed at video experts, you know.

J. Clarke writes:

My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte
pieces..
Is there a standard for doing that or does doing so lock you into a
proprietary program for playback?

My PVR is so new I haven't had enough time to play with it yet (and
I haven't recorded anything worth keeping ..
But somehow I assume the splitting part of the problem is solved
simply by concatenating the files together, there are no special
headers. After that, it's in whatever format DVB-C in Europe
gets sent.

On 24 Feb 2007 16:26:41 +0200, Toni Nikkanen
wrote:

J. Clarke writes:

My PVR records MPEG-2 off the cable onto a FAT32 hard disk in two-gigabyte
pieces..
Is there a standard for doing that or does doing so lock you into a
proprietary program for playback?

My PVR is so new I haven't had enough time to play with it yet (and
I haven't recorded anything worth keeping ..
But somehow I assume the splitting part of the problem is solved
simply by concatenating the files together, there are no special
headers. After that, it's in whatever format DVB-C in Europe
gets sent.

There are no special headers but if you check carefully you should see
that it names the files in some fashion so that it can tell which
piece is where in the sequence. "Thisdreck1", "Thisdreck2",
"Thisdreck3" or some such. Might look like a random number even.

J. Clarke writes:
You seem to be having trouble with the notion that there are players
that do not have any editing capability. Windows Media Player for
example. Winamp for another.

I just don't see the big problem here. Audio recorders face exactly
the same issue, and the ones I know of simply make file001.wav,
file002.wav, file003.wav, etc. where the user can set how often
the recorder should start a new file. People can generally figure
out what to do with the files regardless of what type of player
they're using.

On 24 Feb 2007 08:42:03 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:

J. Clarke writes:
You seem to be having trouble with the notion that there are players
that do not have any editing capability. Windows Media Player for
example. Winamp for another.

I just don't see the big problem here. Audio recorders face exactly
the same issue, and the ones I know of simply make file001.wav,
file002.wav, file003.wav, etc. where the user can set how often
the recorder should start a new file. People can generally figure
out what to do with the files regardless of what type of player
they're using.

Audio recorders face the problem of dealing with files larger than 4
GB????? That's about 6 hours at CD quality.

J. Clarke writes:
Audio recorders face the problem of dealing with files larger than 4
GB????? That's about 6 hours at CD quality.

Usually you set them to start a new file much sooner than that,
like every 1/2 hour or whatever. I think my PMD660 can even start
a file every 30 seconds.

On 24 Feb 2007 10:13:40 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:

J. Clarke writes:
Audio recorders face the problem of dealing with files larger than 4
GB????? That's about 6 hours at CD quality.

Usually you set them to start a new file much sooner than that,
like every 1/2 hour or whatever. I think my PMD660 can even start
a file every 30 seconds.

If you're talking a $500 audio recorder you're talking about a
different market from that for an under-$500 camera.

J. Clarke writes:
Usually you set them to start a new file much sooner than that,
like every 1/2 hour or whatever. I think my PMD660 can even start
a file every 30 seconds.

If you're talking a $500 audio recorder you're talking about a
different market from that for an under-$500 camera.

The TX-1 is also around $500. I think the PMD660 was around $400.