#Matrox Illuminator PRO
15 messages in this thread
Martin, I've checked and there are two versions of the PRO, one of which
conforms to the CCR 601 standard and as you said is 4:2:2:4 with the daughter
card. My friend tells me however he has not seen the daughter card yet, and
that supposedly they are working on it. Your point about price is well taken,
as it is less than half the cost, and most people would not need the daughter
card if they went with the EXABYTE/ABACUS/ASDG combination. It
> Your point about price is well taken, as it is less than half the cost,
> and most people would not need the daughter card if they went with
> the EXABYTE/ABACUS/ASDG combination. It <—–!!!!!
I think part of your message is missing.
Martin – apparently had line problems during last transmission. Basically it is
this – as you said there is a CCR 601 version, the daughter card has not been
released which would give you digital output, but for my application, I just
need the resolution which is 720×486. The price is half what the Digital Vista
runs and has the added advantage of composite out. I don't know about RGB out
but am assuming so. It may be the better alternative all things considered.
I've been told that design wise they are of comparable quality, which is also
an important factor. -JE
As I have been told, it has RGB out. If not directly, then through a
daughter board. Several third party manufacturers are building boards for it,
like real-time broadcast quality MPEG. In not aware of anybody building
anything for the Digital Vista. The Pro can also be expanded into a desktop
video post system, including DVE, editing, and lots of goodies. Soon, they
expect to have non-liner editing capablites that work with the Pro. It can also
connect to the MGA cards through the MOVIEBUS.
On the other hand, the Truevision board seems to me to be out-dated,
way over-priced, and passe. Their Targe is crippled for broadcast quality
video. Why waste money on dead-end hardware.
John:
>> the Truevision board seems to me to be out-dated, way over-priced, and
>> passe.
Wow! John, please don't hold back! Tell us what you really feel! <g>
Did you get run over by a distributor's truck carrying AT-Vistas in a past
life?
I've used many boards in my time (we have 15 3DS stations on our network
right now) and have tried many different combinations. The AT-Vista has
been the most solid and stable high quality board I have ever had. It is
totally programmable (how many other boards do you know that you can switch
the field order at will on?) and does a mean 1024x768x32 display. It is
still the standard that all other boards are measured up against.
>> out-dated, way over-priced, and passe
Sounds like you are talking about a Porsche 911! And I might agree, but
they sure are fun to drive! <g>
Greg Pyros
Greg,
I think you ment it for me, Martin.
That's my big mouth going off.
>> John:
>> >> the Truevision board seems to me to be out-dated, way over-priced, and
>> >> passe.
>> Wow! John, please don't hold back! Tell us what you really feel! <g>
Greg:
Let's take away your laser disk, and give you an AG-7750. All of a sudden, the
AT-Vista starts looking a bit pricey.
Evan
Evan:
>> Let's take away your laser disk, and give you an AG-7750. All of a
>> sudden, the AT-Vista starts looking a bit pricey.
Actually, I had the AT-Vista long before I had even the _dreams_ of a laser
disk! I had a Vista since I got my old Sony 3/4" 5850, 'way back when! And
the AG-7750 probably gives a better picture than the 5850 does!
I just knew that I would want the 33% higher resolution that 756×486 gives
you over 512×486 out to video, coupled with the 1024x768x32 bit operations
for paint programs such as Hi-Res QFX and TIPS.
I got it for the same reason the old adage about office clothing came about:
"Don't dress for the position you have, dress for the position you want!"
I wanted to do broadcast animations, and even if it was overkill for the
first pieces I did (boy, was it ever!), it did help enable me to get where I
wanted to be.
Greg Pyros
>anything for the Digital Vista. The Pro can also be expanded into a desktop
>video post system, including DVE, editing, and lots of goodies. Soon, they
>expect to have non-liner editing capablites that work with the Pro. It can
>also connect to the MGA cards through the MOVIEBUS.
Martin, can't say nothing about it yet, BUT you have to wait and see what will
come out from Truevision in the desktop video arena.
I agree with Greg in the AT-Vista issue. I haven't see the Digital Vista yet,
but the AT-Vista is the best high-quality board I've seen. It's old, but its
quality has not been beated yet. I'm a Truevision fan (yes 🙂 but I think that
this is not only my opinion. Regarding the Vista vs. Illuminator Pro, quoting
an answer from Jerry Thompson to you in the Truevision forum:
"The Matrox literature has some "inaccuracies". I'm confident that if you test
an Illuminator Pro and a TARGA+ in the field, the TARGA+ will have a better
quality video signal. Also, the DVE module to do video in a window is an
additional expense."
We have tested at the studio some of the Illuminator series boards, as part as
our work to PC Actual, and found some bugs in their drivers and software,
specially working with Windows 3.1. Althought they are very good video boards,
I found their Truevision antagonist, the 1024-32 and the Targa+, better. In the
general side, design, documentation, manuals, Truevision boards are also in the
first place. Of course is just our opinion 🙂
Take care,
Ana
Martin,
I'm in with Ana on this – use an ATVista or wait. The most obvious
disadvantage to the Illuminator Pro is the YUV frame buffer, which requires
that the video be converted to YUV and then back to video for output,
introducing signal & color degradation. The Targa+ and ATVista operate in the
RGB domain. In fact, the Ill Pro doesn't provide RGB video input (for use with
studio decoders or transcoders), according to their spec. Capture resolution
is limited to 640×480. Their alpha channel output does not provide a software
controllable delay. Thus the board will only sync to house sync if the video
source is already synced to house. If not the case, the entire studio must be
re-timed. The IP also violates several video specs, measuring higher than the
allowable max. values (FCC H Blanking, FCC Front Porch, Breezeway Width and
RS-170A H Blanking are examples). Targa+ measurements are well within
appropriate boundaries.
Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
Kevin, your arguments have me sitting on the fence regarding the two
boards. What about the TARAG+ supposed inablity to do full broadcast resolution
at 24bits. I was told the board does something like 20, or 16 bits at that
res.? Any info on that.
Thanks.
PMJI, but you've hit a pet peeve of mine. Define Broadcast Resolution.
Actually there is no such specific definition. It will vary depending on who
answers the question: BE's, news men, ad agencies. CG directors, producers,
etc.
If the ATvista didn't exist targa+ would be it by most on this forum.
My definition is the highest resolution you can produce that is accepted by the
broadcasters.
Kevin, Thanks for your comments re the Illuminator PRO. I'm filing them for
future reference. I hope your source of info is accurate and you've verified
the specs with Matrox. I was on the beta test team for Magni producer and
experienced a similar problem with one of their earlier prototypes; their
release product was perfecto! You might have had a bad card. I don't believe
a company like Matrox would deliberatly design outside RS170A. I was hoping to
hear better though because I wanted them to be the competition for that
$$$ATVISTA$$$<g>
Kevin:
I guess my problem with the Vista is that, if a person plans to go out to a
mid-priced VCR, they'll have to buy an encoder — and in the end, that makes
for a fairly expensive setup. The other Truevision option is the Targa+ — but
that has resolution limitations.
It seems that the Illuminator-Pro offers something in the middle for those who
don't have the cash for a Vista/Encoder combo. What do you think?
Evan
Evan,
You may be right, and I agree that the Illuminator Pro is a decent
board. However, if the rest of the setup is so meager anyway, the Targa+ (@
512x486x24-bit) is probably a very acceptable solution, with a tremendous
amount of software support. This may all be moot – are you coming to Siggraph?
Of course you are.
Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates