Panasonic NV-GX7 and DV Terminal

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by Alan Conchie, Jul 2, 2004.

  1. Alan Conchie

    Alan Conchie Guest

    I've had the NV-GX7 for 18 months and have built up a stock of tapes
    that I now want to put on computer, edit and burn to DVD. I'm trying
    to build up the specification of the computer to do this. The NV-GX7
    manual is very unhelpful about the DV Terminal on the camera. Must it
    connect to the computer via firewire or does it use a USB port?
    I'm thinking of using Ulead's Videostudio for editing but am unsure
    how to transfer the raw video from the camera onto my hard disk. Is
    there separate software to bring this about?

    Many thanks to any experienced user who can point me in the right
    direction.

    Alan
     
    Alan Conchie, Jul 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Have a look at http://camcord.info/basics/ for starters.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Now I've a little time, perhaps I could address your primary question.

    IMHO, for a PC you need a minimum of:

    CPU: 2GHz or better.
    Memory: 512Mb DDR or better.
    Hard Drive: 80Gb 7200rpm or better.
    CD R/W.
    USB (4), plus the usual bundle of serial, SVGA etc.
    Sound card, graphics card.
    IEEE1394 (Firewire).
    I prefer LCD monitors - much smaller desktop footprint and (IMHO) a
    better picture. You'll be paying £100+ more for one though. One thing
    that fold often fail to appreciate when choosing is that a 15" LCD gives
    you the same visible screen size as a 17" glass monitor, and la 17" LCD
    gives you the same visible screen size as a 19" glass monitor.

    For a DVD burner, see my comments below.

    If you're going broadband for the Internet, I'd recommend you get an
    ADSL Router rather than a modem. I'd also recommend that you fit a
    dial-up modem (even if you go broadband - for a backup Internet
    facility).

    The DVD burner may depend on the particular domestic DVD player you
    have. Go to http://www.videohelp.com/dvdplayers to check compatibility.
    If your domestic DVD player doesn't support DVD-R and/or DVD+R then
    think about an ASDA Pacific DVD player at under £40.

    There will always be arguments as to whether to go for DVD-R or DVD+R.
    IMHO DVD-R just has the edge since the blank media are cheaper, and
    there are more domestic DVD players that support it than do support
    DVD+R. Some DVD burners support both (as do domestic DVD players).

    If you're able to wait a little time, ALDI periodically offer a superbly
    specified PC (it doesn't include a monitor - so you can make your own
    choice in that direction). They also periodically offer a superbly
    specified laptop with a full desktop spec.

    When you get your PC it will come with Windows XP, and you'll need to
    convert the file system from Win32 to NTFS (otherwise you'll be limited
    to 20 minute videos).

    I think, with the addition of reading my web-site, I've covered all of
    the bases.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Surely a new WinXP PC would come set up as NTFS? Why would it be set up as
    win32/FAT32 which is a sort of legacy format. Certainly a Toshiba Laptop I
    recently purchased was NTFS by default.
     
    Adrian Boliston, Jul 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Alan Conchie

    Alan Conchie Guest

    Thanks for your response, Tony. I found that you had made a
    reference to the site in a posting a couple of weeks ago so I have
    been there and it is most useful! I know where I am going now!
    thanks Alan
     
    Alan Conchie, Jul 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Because XP defaults to Win32 on installation.
    Really? Now where did you read that urban myth?
    I believe you'll find that that's the exception rather than the rule.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 2, 2004
    #6
  7. If it finds a formatted partition, it defaults to "leave it be". If
    it finds an unformatted one,or an unsuitable format, it asks you if
    you would like to create a partition, and then what file system to
    use. Is FAT32 the top option? Maybe, but hardly the default one.

    Is it a myth? I hadn't heard it before :)
    It's a format compatible with DOS. This has its uses. One untruth
    that certainly IS an Urban Myth is that an XP machine can't run DOS.
    Of course it can, and DOS is still a very powerful tool for some jobs.
    (The emulated DOS reached by typing "cmd.exe" in XP's Run box is also
    very powerful, and a lot of "real" DOS programs run fine in it.
    What's more, it supports NTFS)

    I'm seeing it more and more. Certainly video users need a very good
    reason NOT to use NTFS, if only to avoid any issues with maximum file
    size.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, Laurence Payne
    Really? I know Dell come with Win32. And I'd suggest you have a stroll
    around your nearest PC world.
    Hasn't the penny dropped that less than one in 1000 PC purchasers buy
    for video editing? And I'd be very interested to hear about any
    application other than video where the 4Gb filesize limit is an issue..

    You have only to browse here to realise that filesize limitation is an
    issue for most PC purchasers. Indeed you have only to talk to some of
    the PC suppliers to know that most of the sales people aren't even aware
    of the limitations of Win32.

    Then of course there is the performance against spec issue that the
    marketing departments have to live with.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Really interesting fact that only 0.1% of computers sold need NTFS.

    I wonder why microsoft, mb developers, etc went to all the time, trouble and
    cost of developing NTFS for such a very very small market.

    Stuart McKears

    www.mckears.com
     
    Stuart McKears, Jul 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Good God! What for? You wouldn't suggest anyone actually BOUGHT
    anything in there, would you? :)
    Indeed. And those who DO use one for video editing need a good reason
    not to use NTFS. Agreed?
    Well - audio? You can't record one of the BBC's excellent themed
    evenings in quality stereo inside the 3GB limit.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 3, 2004
    #10
  11. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Obviously you are unaware that NT was (and still is) Microsoft's server
    operating system.

    You are similarly unaware that NTFS (as it's name implies [1]) was
    specifically developed with/for the NT Operating System.

    [1] NTFS is the abbreviation for "NT operating system File System".

    NTFS has a large number of features and attributes other than the
    extension of the 4Mb file system limit of Win32 operating system.
    Features and attributes that are required for operation as a server.

    There are, in addition, a number of NT OS extensions/add-ins that
    require NTFS - and these won't run on Win32 OS. Among these are IIS
    (Internet Information Server), SQL Server. And you perhaps are unaware
    that NT cost about £1000 whereas Win2K/XP cost little more than £200.

    When Windows 2K Home/\Pro were developed, they used some of the
    architectures of Windows NT, and were able to support NTFS. Similarly,
    XP was developed from Win2K and again was able to support NTFS.

    To round things off, about the time XP was released, Microsoft upgraded
    NT, but decided to rename it Windows 2000 Server. So NT is no longer
    being sold by that name.

    But the native file system for Windows XP Home and XP Professional
    remains Win32. And most computer users have absolutely no need for any
    of the NTFS features.

    It's also significant that unless you're running a RAID disk array, NTFS
    is slower in operation than Win32 - especially with the relatively small
    file read/writes that occur in workstation/desktop operations.

    If Adrian's Toshiba Laptop is running NTFS then his machine will be
    running noticeably slower than it would if it were running Win32.

    If anyone doesn't believe this, then I'd suggest that they get something
    like Sandra and benchmark their system before and after converting to
    NTFS.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, Laurence Payne
    It's not so cut and dried as that Laurence.

    Pre-Win2K/XP operating systems ran on top of DOS - in fact if DOS were
    not there they wouldn't run at all. You could say that Windows was an
    extension of DOS.

    When Microsoft developed Win2K they threw out DOS and developed Win2K as
    a stand-alone OS. This, BTW, was one of the main reasons why it was
    delayed by more than a year in release. To allow the running of legacy
    DOS programs Microsoft made provision for DOS to be loaded *on top* of
    Win2K - in fact it runs as a separate Win2K/XP process. DOS was also
    seen to be necessary for scripting (much used by system builders).
    Windows XP followed on in this architecture.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 3, 2004
    #12
  13. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, Laurence Payne
    Isn't it 4GB? I have no experience but aren't BBC's programs streamed in
    one of the compressed formats?
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 3, 2004
    #13
  14. Obviously, you don't understand irony.

    Snipped all the gobbledegook

    A direct quote from Microsoft

    "NTFS - the recommended native file system for Windows XP Professional"

    PWS is the win98 version of IIS.

    IIS runs on FAT32. Runs on FAT16 also, IIRC

    Applications are often tied to a FOS that says nothing about the FOS but says a
    lot about the application.

    Speed differences between NTFS and FAT32 depend, IIRC, on FAT32 partition size.

    Etc etc

    However, I'm really not going to be drawn in yet another pointless argument, as
    you always seem to have an infinite opinion about your knowledge and an
    tenacious belief in the total accuracy of your answers.

    Neutral readers can decide for themselves.


    Stuart McKears

    www.mckears.com
     
    Stuart McKears, Jul 3, 2004
    #14
  15. This is a perpetual topic in computer-audio forums. In practice,
    no-one manages to find either FAT32 or NTFS (or different cluster
    sizes in either) appreciably faster or slower. This may have
    something to do with the sophisticated caching systems on modern hard
    drive controllers.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 4, 2004
    #15
  16. You're falling for another myth :) And a strangely common one,
    considering how silly it is. Only last week I had a customer
    arguing about getting a new machine with XP because she had been told
    a favourite DOS program wouldn't run.

    If you want DOS, boot into DOS. From a floppy or, if your use of DOS
    is more than casual and you want a particular DOS environment, from a
    multi-boot on a hard drive. Who cares what species of Windows is
    waiting on disk and whether it is DOS-based or not? We aren't going
    to run it!

    You probably won't have to, though. The Command Prompt in XP, though
    a Windows program emulating DOS, seems very efficient and compatible.
    With the advantages of Windows-style long file names, NTFS
    support.....and probably a few more things I haven't remembered :)
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 4, 2004
    #16
  17. Yup. My misprint.

    BBC programs, as I recall, are broadcast in FM stereo at remarkably
    high quality. Well worthy of recording off-air at 16-bit/44.1 KHz.

    I believe they also broadcast a digital system which, although capable
    of high quality, is compromised by the decision to use bandwidth for
    cramming in lots of channels . Then there's the Internet "Listen
    Again" service, which provides streamed audio. Invaluable for a
    missed program, but very iffy audio quality.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 4, 2004
    #17
  18. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, Stuart McKears
    I try to take a more balanced view than you appear to.
    Indeed.

    And for those who also wish to take a more balanced view than you do
    Stuart, they might like to read what Brien Posey has to say on the
    Microsoft site at:

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ittasks/deploy/fat.mspx

    And there are more issues that Posey addresses like (for instance)
    dual-booting. For example, an increasing number of people are now going
    that way, often to run Linux. Indiscriminate conversion to NTFS as you
    Stuart seem to advocate will then introduce real issues.

    Having said this, in the context of video editing, then as I said in the
    first instance (and often do say here) running on NTFS (perhaps on a
    separate partition or drive) is necessary unless you are prepared to
    accept the issue of the 20 minute video limit associated with DV AVI
    file size.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 4, 2004
    #18
  19. Alan Conchie

    Tony Morgan Guest

    I thought that it was the latter that you were referring to - hence my
    comment..
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 4, 2004
    #19
  20. Alan Conchie

    ...Jerry... Guest

    I seem to remember reading someplace that the Linux community have dealt (or
    are dealing) with the above issue.
     
    ...Jerry..., Jul 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.