connecting dv deck to MacPro

Question

Level 1

15 points

connecting dv deck to MacPro

Ugh. I have run into a huge snag trying to set up a video editing suite.

We have a Loaded Mac Pro (yay!) but can't find a way to connect our HDV deck to it to easily transfer and edit tapes. (It's a Sony HVR-M15U).

The plan is (was?) to use the deck as the input/output, to save wear and tear on the camera.

The deck says you need an i.Link (IEEE) 1394 cable to connect to a computer.
The Mac folks said Firewire 800 would work.

They are NOT the same.

Help? suggestions?

Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.5), Final Cut Pro

Posted on Nov 18, 2008 8:23 AM

Reply

Answer 1

varjak paw

Level 10

182,668 points

Nov 18, 2008 12:52 PM in response to bug_girl

i.Link, aka IEEE 1394, is Firewire 400. The FW800 port in your Mac Pro is backwards compatible with FW400 devices and so should work. All you should need is a 9-pin to 4-pin Firewire cable. 4-pin FW, which is what I'm guessing the Sony has as that's pretty typical for their products, is FW400 without the pins for providing power. Or you can use one of the Firewire 400 ports and a 6-pin to 4-pin cable.

Message was edited by: Dave Sawyer

Reply

Answer 2

direwolf8

Level 4

1,286 points

Nov 18, 2008 12:53 PM in response to bug_girl

In addition to what Dave Sawyer said, there are actually three common Firewire connectors: The 9 pin is for Firewire 800, the 6 pin for Firewire 400, 6 pin with 4 connected for Firewire 400 w/o power, and 4 pin miniDV for desktop video devices, which is really Firewire 400.

Reply

Answer 3

Ricktoronto

Level 6

11,560 points

Nov 24, 2008 11:12 AM in response to varjak paw

Plus there are native FW400 ports on the MacPro so using a 6-4 cable (which I bet is easier to find and cheaper) is all you need. I am amazed that Sony or anyone would have only a 4 pin iLink/FW400 port on a deck and not have at least one normal 6 pin if for no other reason than to have a more secure connection and to use commonly available cables.

Reply

Answer 4

varjak paw

Level 10

182,668 points

Nov 24, 2008 1:23 PM in response to Ricktoronto

Said that, Rick, last sentence in my post.

Cheers.

Reply

Answer 5

Ricktoronto

Level 6

11,560 points

Nov 26, 2008 11:08 AM in response to varjak paw

Wait a minute....it says....edited! Coincidence? I think not.

Or you said it before I did which is entirely possible.

Reply

Answer 6

varjak paw

Level 10

182,668 points

Dec 1, 2008 8:06 AM in response to Ricktoronto

My post was on the 18th, Rick. Your post was on the 24th. The Discussions only allow editing of a post for about 15 minutes, so clearly I couldn't have added that information after you posted.

It's not a big problem, but you did respond to me with information I'd already included.

Cheers.

Reply

Answer 7

Ricktoronto

Level 6

11,560 points

Dec 1, 2008 10:07 AM in response to varjak paw

I think you had already included that information when I replied. *

* Just pulling your leg, now

Reply

Answer 8

varjak paw

Level 10

182,668 points

Dec 1, 2008 10:23 AM in response to Ricktoronto

You mean like this?

😉

Reply

Answer 9

Ricktoronto

Level 6

11,560 points

Dec 1, 2008 11:08 AM in response to varjak paw

That appears to be 1/2 leg and 1/2 ankle so you should edit your post or get a new picture. Nobody says "I am just pulling your ankle" (other than an orthopedist or a fairly articulate baby).

Reply

Answer 10

varjak paw

Level 10

182,668 points

Dec 1, 2008 12:07 PM in response to Ricktoronto

From Dictionary.com:

"an⋅kle [ang-kuhl]
–noun

3. the slender part of the leg above the foot."

So the picture is by definition still applicable. Neener, neener, neener. 🙂

Probably should let the poor OP alone now so she doesn't keep thinking we're actually adding anything useful to her thread.

Cheers.

Reply

Answer 11

Ricktoronto

Level 6

11,560 points

Dec 4, 2008 10:14 AM in response to varjak paw

Not true. She knows (accroding to your one spurious source, obviously made up by you) the ankle is part of the leg. I don't agree unless you are dealing with an obvious person with cankles wherin the demarcation line is patently unclear.

Reply