Talk:IEEE 1394/Archive 2011

Merge IEEE 1394 coding system

This sub-article is not large enough nor is this article large enough to merit having separate articles. Merging could eliminte flagged problems in IEEE 1394 coding system. --Kvng (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need for a sub-article here. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done I also did a bit of reorganization. --Kvng (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The history section says PCI is serial... Read on.

This is false. Can someone fix it? --Hinata talk 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. You could have done this yourself, of course... I also removed the "such as... on the F22 Raptor" from the same sentence because very few readers will be familiar with those systems; that clause merely added confusion. Jeh (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Technical specifications

The examples of isochronous transfers in this section randomly start talking about aircraft components. This seems to me to be inappropriate (maybe this paragraph was copied from a page on firewire in aircraft control (citation link dead)), although perhaps could be made acceptable by adding "in an aircraft control system" instead of "in the aircraft". Also the sentence "FireWire is capable of safety operating critical systems" seems wrong. Perhaps safely was intended instead of safety? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ico2 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Kvng (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename to: IEEE 1394 (interface)

I think the page should be renamed to IEEE 1394 (interface) from IEEE 1394 interface. This would make the page title more uniform with other wikipedia page titles, for example Thunderbolt (interface) . If any one has any reasons why a rename would be a bad idear please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spazturtle (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are other kinds of Thunderbolts, but not other articles on things named "IEEE 1394" so by the usual convention no disambig is needed? Why not just call it IEEE 1394? I suppose to be precise the standard defines both the interface to the wire and the signals on the wire itself, but since there is no separate article on the standard itself (or the committee), and in my opinion should not be, why not just use the more concise name? See for example IEEE 802 IEEE-488 IEEE 1344 etc. W Nowicki (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

---

IEEE 1394 interface → IEEE 1394 – concise since no disambig is needed

I support a move to IEEE 1394. There's already a redirect with non-trivial history there so someone will have to submit a move request. --Kvng (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just did. Not a big deal, but would make sense to swap the redirect. The only history I see is that it used to redirect to FireWire and then for a few days an anonymous user made it one sentence back in 2007.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional Information desired

I wanted to learn how the video and audio signals are encoded into the 4 pins when used between camcorder and computer. Such understanding helps in troubleshooting. The article only alludes to 4 "circuits" which is the number of pair combinations with the 4 pins. I'd like to know what is happening among the 4 circuits to distribute ---and receive!--- information. Say, one pair is output of the digitized data stream that could, for example, be audio and video already combined and digitized, and the other 3 pairs could be for equipment control, feedback from the equipment and interconnection selection among the up to 64 items in a firewire group. But I don't feel comfortable guessing that the video and audio are combined and I would like to know how they are combined. Do Apple or Sony offer such understanding, or the IEEE 1394 working group's published papers? Joe Friendly (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Joe Friendly 13 February 2011

Anyone with more time than me fancy cleaning it up? Danno81 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I've added a banner to the section. --Kvng (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There are basically two "standards" for video transmission over IEEE 1394. One was intended for real-time machine vision, and it's quite uncommon. The other one is the one commonly found with DV cameras and similar devices. Audio and video is transported together in digital form. However, the codec may vary. In most cases, it will be DV. Quote from the DV article: "Whichever container is used, the video itself is not re-encoded and represents a complete digital copy of what has been recorded onto tape. If needed, the video can be recorded back to tape to obtain full and lossless copy of the original footage.". In other words, the A/V stream is transmitted in unmodified form over the Firewire link - Firewire does not care about the codec/format of the original video. The command link (typically from computer to camera) is of course standardized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.4.160 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hot Pluggable/Swappable?

In the chart on the righthand side, under General Specifications, it says Hot Pluggable: Yes. Then, in the article, under Technical Specifications, it says it is not hot-swappable. What do you mean by hot pluggable? Does that mean the same thing as hot swappable? If so, isn't this contradictory? If this is an error, would somebody please correct the info? If not, please explain the difference. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianemathtutor (talk • contribs) 06:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hot-swappable includes both hot-pluggable and hot-unpluggable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.4.160 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuits?

The term 'circuit' seems to be a bit misleading when describing the different connector types. Is that the proper term for identifying the pin count? It might lead some to believe that the 6-pin connector is faster than the 4-pin connector, when in reality those 2 additional pins only carry power. Also, 1 wire cannot comprise a circuit and therefore a 6-pin connector cannot carry 6 "circuits", and so on. Thoughts? Brock1912 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Try replacing circuit with conductor. --Kvng (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Logo used

If this is an article titled IEEE 1394 and the article says there are three other proprietary names used for this interface, why does the article have one of them as the logo? Should we have a section that covers the three logos in the body of the article rather than have one of them as the lead? § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. My guess is maybe this article had the title FireWire first and the infobox was inherited from that. It looks like the standards group themselves did not have a logo (only a few IEEE groups bother), perhaps since the 1394 Trade Association did. Maybe that one might be more appropriate for the infobox, and the move the Apple one later in the body. You would have to upload the one from http://www.1394ta.org/index.html and do the fair use rationale again. W Nowicki (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting data on the IEEE 1394 site. Check out this description of "What is FireWire?" According to the 1394 site, they say yes FireWire is a trademark name of Apple for the 1394 interface, but it is the most common name used. Since 1394 does not appear to have their own logo (I only see the number "1394" on a few of my HP computers along with the "Y" logo for FireWire without the name FireWire. Maybe we can still use the logo but briefly comment in the logo text something like "Without a logo from the 1394 org, the Apple FireWire logo is often used instead" or maybe someone has other ideas. § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What has happened is that Apple's name has become the common name, like kleenex has become for facial tissues. That is not a reason to put a particular company's product logo in such a definitive position in the article, just as the Kimberly Clark's Kleenex logo is not at that article. Better to have no logo there. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling/case.

""Firewire" redirects here." should read ""FireWire" redirects here.". --Mortense (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but be aware that redirect pages spelled both "FireWire" and "Firewire" exist. Also the auto case corrector will get in the act for other spellings and WP editors can't do anything about that. Jeh (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)