Forum unknown
· Videophile
#Sony 8mm dig.video
13 messages in this thread
Good news folks! Commodore Amiga will not be marketing the Live! frame
grabber! If this doesn't sound like good news to you, perhaps the news
that A-Squared Systems of Oakland CA will be marketing it will sound
better.
Apparently, A-Squared has (re)acquired the rights to the A1000 unit,
though the details of the marketing of the A2000 unit (yet to be announced)
remain fuzzy.
Here are some details about the unit. It is a true "frame grabber" that
has the ability to grab a single video frame, unlike the Digiview style of
viseo digitizer, which samples portions of successive frames. This means
that you can capture frames from a "moving image", freezing the action. It
takes over the entire machine while digitizing (a necessity considering the
amount and speed of the data it has to capture). It will work with Genlock,
adding a cheap chroma keying ability. It terminates the bus, ie. has no
passthrough, but will work with all current memory expansion devices.
Live! will digitize in 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 colours, as well as HAM. The
speeds range from an astonishing real time 60 frames/second for 2 colours
(1 bit plane), to 5 frames/second for HAM mode, with 32 colour (5 bit
planes) coming in at 12 frames/second. It will come with the driver
software, as well as a complete library of user functions callable from any
language that is able to call standard Amiga libraries, including Basic.
The hardware and software will be fully documented, and will come complete
with sample source code.
The software incorporates the ability to process the HAM images captured,
and the result is said to be as good or better than Digiview.
The price? $295.00. Availability? The first production run will be 1000
units, and orders are being taken on a "first come, first serve" basis.
They are quoting 6 weeks for the initial orders, and once they get ramped
up for production, are expecting a two week deklivery from receipt of
order. They are in the process of getting credit card payment ability.
Orders may be placed by calling:
In CA 1-800-626-9541
other 1-800-452-4445
If 800 numbers are not available in your area (Canada, Europe, Asia,
etc.), you may call Grab Inc. (their marketing arm) on fridays between 1
and 5 PM PDT at (415) 562-1555.
Note: I am in no way connected with A-Squared Systems, except that I
ordered mine yesterday.
Regards, Larry.
: 71594 S6/Videophile
11-Jun-87 19:38:02
I remember seeing an ad for the sale of Sony 8mm digital video recorder
that was altered internally and was bundled with software that would
control the recorder. Does anyone remember reading that particular ad in
either Amazing Computing or Amiga World, and if you do remember would you
please leave me a message leaving the name and address and phone number?
Why are you so hot on Live!, Larry? I have played with Live! for several
hours on end, with the software as of January 1987. I own a Digi-View. I
am convinced it takes longer to produce a good image with Live! than with
Digi-View. Also, the two do not compare in image quality. Which is most
important to people who want digitized video images, quality or real-time
speed? I can think of very few applications of real-time digitizing, if it
doesn't look real. Maybe I'm not using my imagination, but… New Tek is
also working on a stabilizer that lets them capture from video tape still
frames, they used it to make the soon-to-be-famous Maxine Headroom demo
they showed at COMDEX. (This was a 2-3 minute rolling demo of HAM
animation with digitized sound.)
Mimetics says they'll have a $200 frame grabber for their $600 frame buffer
board, the 24 bit-deep one. That looks like fun. They are working with
New Tek on future projects. You can send your Digi-View DGVW files to this
frame buffer for display in full detail. My rumor scouts say that there
are several companies working on other real-time digitizers as well.
Maybe I'm strange. I don't want to be limited to still pictures, as I am
with a digitizer like Digiview. I also have a few ideas for projects that
will require real time digitizing and image processing. I have heard about
the Mimetics digitizer, but have seen nothing of it. If it could be used
without a $600 frame buffer board, I might be interested.
Maybe I'm strange. I don't want to be limited to still pictures, as I am
with a digitizer like Digiview. I also have a few ideas for projects that
will require real time digitizing and image processing. I have heard about
the Mimetics digitizer, but have seen nothing of it. If it could be used
without a $600 frame buffer board, I might be interested.
Could you be a bit more specific about Live! image quality as compared to
DigiView? The "reviews" in AmigaWorld and a couple of other magazines were
pretty vague on that point. In his reply to my question, Larry says that
Live! "grabs" one vertical scan in 1/60 second, which suggests that it's
limited to 320×200 (no interlace).
Like you, I'm an enthusiastic DigiView owner. Used to be a pro
photographer many years ago, so my "frame grabber" is a 35mm camera loaded
with Kodacolor film – the local 1-hour lab develops it for me while I wait,
and I digitize from the negatives. It even lets me "grab" images from the
TV screen!
You said in the latest issue of "Amazing Computing" that the next one will
concentrate on video – I enjoy every issue, but am really looking forward
to that one.
Could you be a bit more specific about Live! image quality as compared to
DigiView? The "reviews" in AmigaWorld and a couple of other magazines were
pretty vague on that point. In his reply to my question, Larry says that
Live! "grabs" one vertical scan in 1/60 second, which suggests that it's
limited to 320×200 (no interlace).
Like you, I'm an enthusiastic DigiView owner. Used to be a pro
photographer many years ago, so my "frame grabber" is a 35mm camera loaded
with Kodacolor film – the local 1-hour lab develops it for me while I wait,
and I digitize from the negatives. It even lets me "grab" images from the
TV screen!
You said in the latest issue of "Amazing Computing" that the next one will
concentrate on video – I enjoy every issue, but am really looking forward
to that one.
Why are you so hot on Live!, Larry? I have played with Live! for several
hours on end, with the software as of January 1987. I own a Digi-View. I
am convinced it takes longer to produce a good image with Live! than with
Digi-View. Also, the two do not compare in image quality. Which is most
important to people who want digitized video images, quality or real-time
speed? I can think of very few applications of real-time digitizing, if it
doesn't look real. Maybe I'm not using my imagination, but… New Tek is
also working on a stabilizer that lets them capture from video tape still
frames, they used it to make the soon-to-be-famous Maxine Headroom demo
they showed at COMDEX. (This was a 2-3 minute rolling demo of HAM
animation with digitized sound.)
Mimetics says they'll have a $200 frame grabber for their $600 frame buffer
board, the 24 bit-deep one. That looks like fun. They are working with
New Tek on future projects. You can send your Digi-View DGVW files to this
frame buffer for display in full detail. My rumor scouts say that there
are several companies working on other real-time digitizers as well.
Larry,
Nice to hear that Live! will finally be released – if memory serves, it was
supposed to come out in October '85! The price is good, too – the "guess"
back then was $200-$250 (which usually means a "real" price of $500+).
Could you clarify one point for me? I know what "frames/second" means when
applied to film. I think video people define a "field" as one vertical
scan (1/60 second) and a "frame" as two interlaced fields (1/30 second), so
the standard video rate is 30 frames/second. How does Live! digitize in :
e HAM mode at "5 frames/second"?
If it takes Live! 1/5 second to capture the data for one complete frame,
does it "grab" all the data it needs immediately and "go away" to process
it, or does it keep on taking data from successive scans? Seems to me that
the second method wouldn't give sharp images of a moving subject …
Regards, Vince
I use the word 'frame' in a manner that does not comply with standard video
terminology. I mean that one complete vertical scan is grabbed at a time.
It takes Live! 1/60 second to "grab" a frame, and the rest of the time up
to 1/5 second is taken up by processing and displaying it.
Thanks for the information – using data from a single vertical scan seems
to be the only way to get sharp images of moving subjects. Being used to
movie film, I find the "still" frames from a video monitor pretty strange.
If you have a vertical line moving fairly quickly from left to right in the
scene, a movie camera gives you a series of images with straight vertical
lines at successive positions. Each one of them is an accurate "still" of
the original subject.
In video, the first scan produces an "almost vertical" column of pixels on
alternate scan lines, with the bottom pixel displaced to the right by the
amount the vertical line has moved in 1/60 second. The second scan, which
is supposed to fill in the spaces between the first column of pixels,
starts directly above the last pixel in the first column and does the same
thing. So, instead of a straight vertical line, you end up with two slanted
dotted lines. We don't notice this if the image keeps moving as it's
supposed to, but it isn't a very satisfactory "still" of the original.
"Grabbing" a single vertical scan may not give you broadcast quality, but
at least it gives you sharper images!
Thanks for the information – using data from a single vertical scan seems
to be the only way to get sharp images of moving subjects. Being used to
movie film, I find the "still" frames from a video monitor pretty strange.
If you have a vertical line moving fairly quickly from left to right in the
scene, a movie camera gives you a series of images with straight vertical
lines at successive positions. Each one of them is an accurate "still" of
the original subject.
In video, the first scan produces an "almost vertical" column of pixels on
alternate scan lines, with the bottom pixel displaced to the right by the
amount the vertical line has moved in 1/60 second. The second scan, which
is supposed to fill in the spaces between the first column of pixels,
starts directly above the last pixel in the first column and does the same
thing. So, instead of a straight vertical line, you end up with two slanted
dotted lines. We don't notice this if the image keeps moving as it's
supposed to, but it isn't a very satisfactory "still" of the original.
"Grabbing" a single vertical scan may not give you broadcast quality, but
at least it gives you sharper images!
I use the word 'frame' in a manner that does not comply with standard video
terminology. I mean that one complete vertical scan is grabbed at a time.
It takes Live! 1/60 second to "grab" a frame, and the rest of the time up
to 1/5 second is taken up by processing and displaying it.
Larry,
Nice to hear that Live! will finally be released – if memory serves, it was
supposed to come out in October '85! The price is good, too – the "guess"
back then was $200-$250 (which usually means a "real" price of $500+).
Could you clarify one point for me? I know what "frames/second" means when
applied to film. I think video people define a "field" as one vertical
scan (1/60 second) and a "frame" as two interlaced fields (1/30 second), so
the standard video rate is 30 frames/second. How does Live! digitize in :
e HAM mode at "5 frames/second"?
If it takes Live! 1/5 second to capture the data for one complete frame,
does it "grab" all the data it needs immediately and "go away" to process
it, or does it keep on taking data from successive scans? Seems to me that
the second method wouldn't give sharp images of a moving subject …
Regards, Vince