#The remaining Taga+64
19 messages in this thread
<<my suggestion would be to pick up a Targa+64, a 7750, and either a DQ422 or
SoftVTR>>
Paul: I'm just curious. Why do a large percentage of forum members recommend
the Targa+ 64 as opposed to the Targa+ 16/32? It is my understanding that the
+64 does nothing more than cost a couple hundred more and does nothing more for
frame accurate recording resolution at 24 or 32 bit than the targa+ 16/32. I
understand that the +64 has an additional meg of ram but is not utilized for
NTSC output. The usefulness of the +64 becomes apparent when used with certain
image prepress application software. My source: Truevision Tech Support.
Also, the VISUAL comparison of the ATVista with the Targa+ is like comparing
SVGA 800X600 res at 24 bit with 640×480 res at 24 bit. However, the price
difference is about 4 to 1. What do you think?
FWIW: Last week I did a demo for a Toaster based production company. They
tried to match my Targa+ quality 512×486 with their toaster output at 1500×900
purported resolution. The winner? I now do their animation at $/frame even
though they have all the necessary ingredients for frame accurate
rendering/recording in house. The evaluation was based solely on video
visual/waveform signal quality of the first generation tape output. The
toaster3.0 was rendered to an AG7750. My targa+ was rendered to VO5850. The
graphics/animation was their toaster artwork redesigned on 3Dstudio by their
artist. The only complaint: toaster reflections were better than 3Dstudio. I
told them to wait until 3DS r3.0 comes out.
Don "sticking my neck out" Landis
Don,
The price difference in the two Targa+ boards is due primarily to the fact that
the 64 with it's two Mbytes has a maximum NTSC addressable resolution of
1024x1024DB in 8bit versus 1024x512DB for the 32, 1024×1024 at 16 bit versus
1024×512, and 512×1024 at 32 bits versus 512×512. Although most software
doesn't utilize the different NTSC resolutions, it is availbale, and that is
the primary reason for the few hundred dollars in price difference.
My rationalization of why there wasn't any real visible difference between your
tape and the Toaster's tape is because they're dumping that high resolution
down to 400 lines of resolution on the SVHS tape. If you rendered the two
images out on monitors that could display the true resolutions , I'm sure that
there would be a difference. If you dumped both signals to BetaSP or D2 where
the resolution was visible there would no doubt be a definate visible
difference.
As to the Vista question ….. we use a series of BetaSP decks for both field
aquisition and animation. With the format running at around 700+ lines of
resolution, it is useful to be able to output at least that level. If you're
outputting more, than it would seem to just provide more info for better
picture definition when scaled. We also have two 7750's in house and I can
testify that there is a night and day difference between Targa+/SVHS or Umatic
output versus Vista/BetaSP output.
Additionally, we use the Vista for all types of photoretouching and viewing
large format images. When you can run a card effectively at up to 1024x1024x32,
and perform image capture at 756×486 it's worth it to us. The price disparity
between the Targa+64 and the Vista 4 meg is only around 2.2 to 1, not 4 to 1.
I'm sure Kevin Krell (Truevision Dealer) or Greg Pyros (Vista Professor) could
elaborate more on this subject, but the reasons I've listed above determines
our purchase decisions.
[>> Continued in next msg]
[>> Continued from previous msg]
Hope this helps.
Paul
P.S. – I think I have a couple of Umatic Fanatic T-shirts around here
somewhere. Would you like me to look and send them to you? <g>
.
OK I got a little confused with all your res vs res stuff but having all that
in print from true vision I do understand what your saying and it's really no
different than what I said previously. The difference in the +64 vs +16/32 is
zip for rendering 3DS to NTSC video. I don't care if the +64 can do 5000 lines
at 8 bit color using whosywhatsits new $10,000 software. If it doesn't get me
any higher than 512X486X32bit for my rendering system than why spend the extra
bucks for it?
Regarding the 4:1 price ratio I was comparing card output vs card + output ie
you can't just compare the ATVista alone because one usually needs an encoder
to have the same signal format as the Targa+. I'm not aware of a tape deck
that has RGB input, are you?
The toaster test WAS seen rendering on a live monitor for each frame and the
results were still hands down for the Targa+ when stillstored from the Umatic.
However I'm sure if you put a half a million dollars worth of high end
broadcast stuff on the the 1500 purported resolution might be there. But all
this is academic since what the toaster heads really want is a better quality
picture for their animation without spending for all that high end stuff.
Paul, what I saw was very poorly done antialiasing and a lot of chroma noise in
the toaster picture with a fair amount of dot crawl. High res tends to get
swamped with all these artifacts. PS- I know that a 700 line 62db camera
always looks better than a 500 line 56 db camera on a 400 line industrial
monitor. Even Cecil Smith knows this but can't offer a valid explanation for
it.
Umatic fanatic? No, but I do believe, currently, you won't find a better bang
for the buck. 5850's are going for $2750 and DQ50P's are hard to find but
generally get 500-600 bucks. How about a Beta SP digital wannabe T-shirt.
Don,
In your setup, I'm sure the Targa+32 is fine. I was just answering your
question regarding the different prices. You did ask me for my twisted, biased
opinion. Right? If you're strictly running 3DS, then the Targa+32 is no doubt
fine for outputting to the 5850. What type of lines do you get out of that
unit? We had a Umatic SP deck for about a month to help a customer, but I never
really checked it out.
You can output the RGB from the Vista directly to the CRV's that Greg runs.
I always use external encoders/transcoders, and prefer it that way. I've never
been happy with the "built in" type. By using external units I tend to get
better quality and have unlimited options. We also prefer using component vs
composite signals for our frame accurate work.
We don't run 400 line industrial monitors, we have to run 600 and 700 line
monitors, that's the same equipment our work gets viewed on, so I have to be
looking at the exact same image, before I'm willing to let others view it, but
you're right the higher res images still look phenomenally better on a standard
400 line monitor v/s the lower res cards.
I wasn't joking about the T-Shirts. I actually have a couple that say that. We
once did a lot of Umatic setups for universities etc. , and Sony had this great
ad campaign with U Matic Fanatic T-shirts, Stickers, Coffee Mugs, etc.
I still have some of them!
Don …. like I said before I firmly believe that each individual should only
purchase the equipment that they can utilize. There are a tremendous number of
people who never need frame accurate equipment. Others can get by with
industrial grade. However, if one is planning on producing a piece of work that
is going to be viewed in a broadcast environment, then IMHO the correct
equipment is necessary. We have the capabilities of doing simultaneous tests
using Targas and Vistas with Hi-8, SVHS, and Beta SP.
[>> Continued in next msg]
[>> Continued from previous msg]
IMHO There is no comparison between Targa+/SVHS or Hi-8 to Vista/CV22/BetaSP.
My 6 year old daughter can pick the better image 10 out of 10 times. (We've
actually asked her!):-)
This is probably the reason that most organizations, including the Yost Group
ask for BetaSP and Vista Hi for their demo tapes.
I'm hoping to get a look at Digital BetaSP at Siggraph. 🙂
DQ50P's for $500-$600? I thought the parallel DQ card was more than the DQ-422.
As a matter of fact my last book from Diaquest has the DQ422 at $2380 and the
DQ50P at $2780. Did I miss something?
Paul
.
DQ-50P for 5-6 is used price as was the 2750 for the 5850 ! dummy! <G>
Dittos on quality difference and I did want your opinion on the +64 thing. I
just don't see it as an option in the recording environment I previously
mentioned and didn't understand why the big deal of the+ 64when it won't do any
more in the application it is being requested for.
I guess what I was driving at was if I got a PVW-2800 and used the targa+32
with component Y-C ($1300) input how would that compare with the PVW 2800 using
an ATVISTA + encoder ($5200 guessing using my 4:1 as I've not actually priced
encoders lately)on quality alone.
<< including the Yost Group ask for BetaSP and Vista Hi for their demo tapes.>>
Well Gary did admit that since he now has one he has become a Beta SP snob. I
don't recall his requiring thet the graphics board be a Vista though for
anything sent to him.
Paul, with my luck as soon as I can land that big one to justify Beta SP
everybody will say "well if you don't have ATV, HDTV, D1, D, D33, etc it's not
broadcast quality"
see ya I've got to go over to the studio and do some animation now.
Don,
As a final word, the reason that I personally consider the BetaSP level minimum
Broadcast level is probably centered on the fact that out of the 7 television
studios in this area, none of them use or accept anything below BetaSP. The
vast majority use D2 as their primary format and BetaSP as an aquisition
format.
As to the Vista, If you're using a BetaSP deck (PVW2800 Minimum) then it's
better to use at least the line resolution that the format is running at. IMHO.
Also if you use a CV22 or a FR730 to obtain Betacam component as your signal vs
the Y/C Targa signal, you're going to obtain a cleaner image due to the
seperation of the chrominance into seperate components(R-Y, B-Y).
Just as the Y/C format helps prevent "cross color" by applying the luminance
and chrominance signals seperately, BetacamSP Component does this one better by
further seperating the chrominance. They then adopted the CTDM System to
standardized the playback through a delay line built into the output luminance
signal.
Hence both cleaner signals and crisper, cleaner, outstanding picture quality.
That's why we use it. It really has nothing to do with what the Adesk IDL uses,
but I kinda figured that they used it for the same reason.
Paul
Very good, Paul I liked your final answer about the ATVista thing. I agree it
is the next upgrade AFTER the PVW2800 upgrade. Now, if only ATVista could get
some good competition to lower the price of that output. In our area TV
stations will accept any format if they really want the stuff. They bump it to
1".
Don,
The advantage of the Targa+64 is apparent when using such applications
as Inscriber, from Mainframe Computer Graphics. This program uses the
double-buffering (2 x 32-bit images) for snap transitions and other real-time
effects.
Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
Thanks, you answered me by confirming that it has no advantage in frame
accurate animation rendering/recording.
Don,
The 64 is not available for the PAL system, but it'll give you 32 bit double
buffer to NTSC. In the Targa+ you can play with two images at one, but a 16bit.
With the 64+, you will get full 32bit support. You are right about the 512
issue. Which we, Targa+ users, really need is an upgrade to get full hires 32
bit support. I'm tired of hearing this Targa+/ATVista distinctions by
Truevision (they say that if the Targa+ has the same res than the Vista, they
will sell more Targa+, but less Vistas (???!!!). Hey there, experts! <g> What
are the TRUE differences between the Targa+ and the ATVista (apart of the
resolution difference and the TI processor)?
Ana
I found a dealer who used to work for Truevision and lost his job over the
memory management issue of the targa+64. It was done that way, he said, so as
not to loose ATVista sales.
>> I found a daler who used to work for Truevision and lost his job over the >>
memory management issue of the targa+64. It was done that way, he said, so as
>> not to loose ATVista sales.
Hmmmm, this is interesting. I always suspected that. Let me look into the
thing. If the board was designed for that much memory, there should be no
reason for not being able to reprogram a "new" mode allowing 720x486x32.
Gus,
I wouldn't believe the rumours re: the Targa+ design/marketing
(crippling ATVista, etc.). For compatibility with the older Targa 16, 24, & 32
software, the arrangement of memory on the Targa+ IS such that it is limited to
512 pixels across in 32-bit. Going to lower color-depth (16- or 8-bit) allows
them to "straddle" the banks of memory for the higher resolutions of 640×480,
756×486, etc. This is not to say they could not have built a better board, nor
that they haven't. Marketing considerations will always remain a factor. I
suggest you check out new products at Siggraph.
Kevin Krell – Computer Support Associates
I'm not too worried about that. In fact, I don't care myself for more than
512x486x32. I was just thinking if the board is totally programmable, there
could be a way of going around the memory banking limitation.
I'd be curious as to what you find out. I originally bought my targa+ 16/32
from a dealer that lost it in Hurricane Andrew in Miami and learned this stuff
from another in Georgia. I called him to do the upgrade and he first informed
me there would be no gain for my application then told me this memory/ market
decision fiasco. If it can be done, 756X486X32, on the 64 I might be tempted
to do the upgrade. ( actually its a trade up )
Don:
>> rendered to VO5850 vs. AG7750
And I thought I was the only one who still liked the 5850! I have one set
up in conjunction with at 5800 and a Convergence 90 (remember them?) with a
Panasonic WJ-MX12 for a nice little in-house 3/4" edit bay.
I don't to layoffs to it anymore, but it sure is a workhorse system!
Congrats on winning the job!
Greg Pyros