#Digitizer Advice
36 messages in this thread
What's the best value in Amiga video digitizers for capturing and
manipulating output from a VCR? I'm interested in storing and doctoring
HAM images with paint programs. I'm not particularly concerned about
animation. I've heard of FrameGrabber, and was wondering how its image
quality compares to DigiView. I'd also like to know if there are less
expensive alternatives to FrameGrabber, which goes for about $600.
You are talking apples and oranges when comparing Digi-View to
FrameGrabber. Digi-View is basically a static image, slow scan digitizer.
FrameGrabber is a near real time color capture system. DigiView can
capture images from a VCR, but only in B&W, only if the image is stable for
a relatively long period of time, and, as I recall, only at 320×200
resolution. FrameGrabber captures in approximately 1/60 second and in
color, as I recall.
From my point of view, the images captured by FrameGrabber fall short of
the quality I would want. The captured images done with Impulse's VD-1
(approx. $1000) seem far superior to me. Never having seen images from
NewTek's Video Toaster (maybe to be released some day) or Impulse's
Firecracker24, I can't compare them. The latter two are over $1000 systems
in any event. There is a limitation imposed on resolution for all frame
grabbers imposed by NTSC broadcast standards/state-of-the-art.
Cheaper than FrameGrabber? Hmmm. There is a system called Live! by A
Squared. (Unsure of pricing.) The colors tend to seem terribly artificial
to me. I can't think of any other alternatives off the top of my head.
There used to be images created by Live!, VD-1, and Framegrabber up in
the libraries. Since the split of the forums, I'm not sure whether they
still are there or not. I don't recall any captured images done by
DigiView. If they still exist, you can download them and compare the
quality for yourself.
Maybe someone else will jump in and be of more assistance.
Bill, K3OZM
Digi-View can capture images from video when using a color splitter & a VCR
with a flying erase head or digital freeze-frame capability. Digi-View
works in resolutions from 320X200 up to 768X480. Digi-View can also
digitize images in hi-res with up to 4096 colors, depending on the nature
of the subject matter.
Digi-View is also a high quality image processor. It also has the
capability of linking together with Digi-Paint 3 if you have 2 megs of ram.
Both Digi packages also have ARexx ports to allow you to write
sophisticated ARexx programs to automate the digitizing process. Images
then exported into an animation program will be assured of being top-notch
quality, so the slow-scanning is worth it.
The nice thing about the two programs linking up, is that, as soon as you
digitize the picture, it goes into the paint program for immediate
retouching.
Digi-View also saves in two larger file formats to allow export to hardware
capable of displaying over 16 million colors in high resolution.
There are many options and many more details to be mentioned on this
subject, so hang around, and pick up as much pertinent data as you can on
it.
**** Vance ****
Sure Digi-View can capture images up to its maximum resolution when using a
color splitter (read extra hardware expense) and an extremely stable
digital freeze frame (read not a normal consumer unit – extra hardware
expense.) Digi-View can also digitize images in Hi-Res at 4096 colors,
with noticable color banding, sometimes very severe.
I think digi-view is a good product, but I would hardly call it a high
quality image processor. It does the job economically, and far better than
similar systems on either the Amiga or other platforms, however.
OK. IF YOU HAVE 2 MEGS OF RAM, you can link to Digi-Paint 3, a stand alone
product at extra software expense. I have NEVER seen an advertisement for
AREXX, and cannot get anyone to give me an understandable description of
what it does and why it is a needed product. Perhaps you can write AREXX
programs doing all kinds of miracles, if you happen to be a programmer and
can find the product.
Some versions of digi-view may save in larger file formats. I don't know.
My version saves in 320×200 or 320×400 in HAM mode. It does have high
resolution, which does a creditable job in grays, but lacks a sufficient
number of colors to do the job with people, portraits, and nature scenes
when using high res. color. (A limitation of Amiga hardware.)
The fact remains that it is a slow scan digitizer, designed to reproduce
static images with a video camera. Good images require a stable image for
at least 30 to 60 seconds. Most video recorders cannot provide a stable
enough image for that period of time to do a creditable job.
I'd sure like to see hardware capable of displaying 16 million colors. By
my count, a normal 320×400 interlaced screen has 128 THOUSAND pixels, while
a high resolution 640×400 interlaced screen has 256 THOUSAND pixels. Even
if each pixel were addressed separately with a discrete color, there is no
way a normal Amiga screen can approach displaying 16 million colors. Even
your high resolution overscan screen has only 354,640 pixels available.
[ MORE ]
Bill, an advertisement for Arexx these days would be like advertising a
Workbench 1.3 disk; It's widely-used system software, now distributed by
Commodore and there have been several articals on it's use published
recenty if I remember correctly. Programming skills are not necessary to
use it effectively, in my opinion. Perhaps you don't use Shell, either.
As for a digitizer at 16M colors, see DCTV. It converts Amiga video output
for such a color palette and can digitize images. HAM-E can also convert
Amiga output for a larger palette (but may require a seperate digitizer).
Workbench 1.3 disks come with computers, and are available in Enhancer
packages at dealers. I have never seen an AREXX package anywhere, nor have
I seen it advertised. I have no idea of its capabilities/price, or even
where to obtain such a thing. I have had an amiga for just about 3 years
now.
A 16 million color palette is considerably different than being able to
display 16 million colors. The statement to which I was responding stated
that you would be able to display 16 million colors in hi-res with the
appropriate equipment. Further in the message, a resolution of 768×480 was
mentioned at the highest capable of being produced by the writer's
digi-view. That still works out to 354,640 pixels – nowhere close to 16
million. Now, you can choose discrete colors for those 354k pixels from 16
million in the palette (not in HAM mode), but you cannot display 16 million
colors at that resolution.
Bill, K3OZM
AREXX will be (is) included with Workbench 2.0. It is very good at a
number of things, especially controlling applications in a coordinated
fashion. I believe it can still be bought seperately for those who wish
to use it under 1.3. (Check the various Mail Order companies.)
–>Steve Bennett
Well, my new 2000 came with the guarantee of getting ECS/2.0 whenever they
are released, so I guess I'll find out about AREXX someday. (Given
Commodore's useal documentation, being able to use it may be a different
question all together.)
I have never heard what is to be included with 2.0. Guess Commodore-Amiga
doesn't have much time to spend on letting its customers know what is going
on.
Bill, K3OZM
Bill,
I don't know what the 2.0 documentation will look like, but the docs I
got with my 3000 are _spectacular_. The section on ARexx alone is 154
pages long.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Vic,
I'll be the first page of that section starts with " Welcome to Arexx…"
and the last pages are an index!? (Bet it is the whole Arexx doc
reproduced)
wmc
Nope, it starts out:
Chapter 10. AREXX
_Programming Language_
This chapter introduces you to AREXX, shows you how to
…..
and ends with:
Template Procesing…….
…..
used with all source forms of the PARSE instruction.
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Well, most of the articles which have been done on 2.0 (both as "2.0" and
also when it was still being called "1.4") have mentioned that AREXX would
be included. In fact, that's what originally prompted me to buy AREXX
about a year and a half ago… <grin>
–>Steve Bennett
Bill:
I believe you, but I suspect you were just "looking the other way" when
AREXX stuff was being discussed.
Bill Hawes wrote it. It has been around for a bouple years, and has indeed
been advertised, though usually in small, 1/4 page black and white ads.
It is listed for $36 in the Go Amigo! ad in the July, 1990 issue of Amiga
World, for example.
It is, to a certain extent, a programming language. But, to do most things
you don't need to get much more complicated than you would with scripts in
AmigaDOS clis and shells. Certainly, if you can do things with BASIC< you
can do a LOT with AREXX.
What is it? It is a way to make Amiga's multitasking sit up and beg. If a
program has an AREXX port, it can receive or send messages to any other
program which has an AREXX port. (At this point, since CBM is making AREXX
a part of the operating system software in ver. 2 — and, btw, this has
been written and talked about for MONTHS — virtually any serious program
either has, or will have an AREXX port.) Properly set up, that means that
these programs, no matter who supplies them, can work together in a totally
integrated way, can not only swap data, but can control each other.
An example: DigiPaint3 has an AREXX port. It is put out by MewTek.
Mindware has a program (DigiMate?) which also has an AREXX port. DigiMate
will let you create HAM animations through DigiPaint! Instead of having to
buy an expensive HAM animation program, if you already own DigiPaint,
DigiMate will work as a full animation front end for you (and is relatively
inexpensive).
Mindware also has a 3D rendering program with an AREXX port. So, one of
the Amiga magazines had a utility on its disk which used this port to a)
generate a set of 3D letters in PageRender (the Mindware program), and then
output them as encapsulated postscript files which could be imported into
DTP programs. Now, if the DTP program had an AREXX port, you could set it
up so that this could all become totally automatic!
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
I've fooled around with AREXX to link UltraCard and BaudBandit (a comm
program). An UltraCard deck acts as the front end. It lets me point and
click on certain types of stock holder data files I want. Then it logs
onto a service, gets that data (I can choose from about five different
types of reports), logs off, strips out the data I don't need, and then
converts the whole thing into an ASCII file I can load into Lotus at work!
Finally, Khalid Aldoseri (in the AmigaTech forum) created a program called
Scripit which can control non-AREXX programs, and which itself has an AREXX
port. So, using these two together, you can custom link just about any
software into an environment that works just the way you want it to! Do
you have any programs you constantly use together? Porting files from one
to the next and back, all the time? Use AREXX and Scripit to hot link
them!
?|^] Ray Lewis
Sounds interesting. I've never been able to get anyone to tell me what
AREXX was, or why I needed it. To tell the truth, I never really dug for
it because I didn't know what it was.
I have no doubt it has been available for some time. I have heard
others (read?) speaking of it, but, again, not knowing what it was, paid
little attention to it. I've still never seen it advertised or on my
dealer's shelves though. In any event, I'm supposed to be getting 2.0
free, so I guess I'll have it soon(?).
You really read all those ads? I look through them, but all the small
print causes me to look elsewhere very shortly after beginning. The
cryptic designations they use to categorize things also doesn't help any.
(Is a thing like Pixmate a video tool, as sytem utility, or what? – in the
ads. Almost as bad as trying to figure out where to find a program when
it's listed under the author's software house… which may or may not be
the distributor of record.)
Thanks for the info.
Bill, K3OZM
Bill,
Under what rock have you been living the past year!! :^} There have been
numerous article in teh Mags going over 2.0 features, much discusion and
several uploads with info here, and you can go to a dealer and play with it
on a 3000. I think the Amiga community does better at getting advance news
about UGs than does the MSDOS world (but that maybe cause they don't
improve it much, just add more bandaids!!)
wmc
2,0 is not yet released, according to all the messages I have seen. A
prototype version was released with the 3000, and, whenever someone
complains that 2.0 is broken, dozens of people jump in shouting it is not a
release version. You, me, the magazines, and probably Commodore itself,
doesn't know exactly what 2.0 will look like whenever it arrives.
A little over 2 1/2 years ago, the magazines were reviewing, and raving
over, a piece of hardware. That hardware board was shown at numerous
shows, but the Toaster is still not released, and the specs have changed
considerably since those articles. When, and if, the Toaster ever gets
released, I'll know what comes with it and what it does. Similarly, when,
and if, 2.0 gets released I'll know what is in it.
Bill, K3OZM
Bill,
If you choose to remain in the dark by refusing to read the stuff thats
around, including CBM announcements, you don't wanna play with the A3000
version, then it seems to me unfair to say that the CBM et al are bad boys
for not providing you with the info. Sounds like you want a gilded
invitation to a private showing with a product that is nailed down and
never gonna change two years before its ship date! Nice if you can get it.
But I still think its unfair to accuse the community of not telling you
about Arexx and Ados 2.0 because you don't wanna read the
messages/articles/press releases. You can lead a horse to water and all
that…. ;^}
wmc
I don't understand how some users can say they didn't know ARexx was going
to be included with 2.0, when Commodore said they were going to include it
when 2.0 was still 1.4?
**** Vance ****
Bill,
AREXX has been available in the local stores for years. It is also now
comes with 2.0 which is shipped with the 3000.
-sja
Bill, I have an Arexx package that I bought at Creative Computing (you've
seen their ads, right?). The product was always adverted in the back of the
Amiga Magazines along with other Bill Hawes gems. It is bundled with
Ados2.0 BTW. If you can't walk into your local AMiga dealer and get the
package (disk and 154 page manual), I'd say he is almost as bad as no
dealer at all.
wmc
"A 16 million color palette is considerably different than being able to
display 16 million colors."
You must be quite popular with the VGA fanatics, Bill. 😉
Please take yourself aback a minute and consider that this is just one
technical merit with several 'grey areas' (no pun..)
Had you read the previous messages, you might have discovered that the
fixed resolutions created by digi-view have a maximum number of pixels
numbering less than 400,000. I defy you to show me any image created on
digi-view that can display 16 million colors in that number of pixels. In
fact, I defy you to show me any image created on digiview that can display
even a half million colors.
Bill, K3OZM
[ continuation ]
Digi-View is a fine, economical product, and you can get good results on
static images from it with practice, but it is not a frame grabber, nor
does it produce images with the clarity of even a JX-100 with normal
consumer level input products.
Bill, K3OZM
Quick note: ARexx is NOT needed for DigiView to communicate with
DigiPaint. It's completely transparent to the user.
ARexx is two things: A BASIC-like programming language and a standard
protocol for interprocess communication. DigiView talks to DigiPaint using
the ARexx protocol. That means ARexx programs you write can talk to
DigiPaint as well but Arexx need not be present for DigiView to dance with
DigiPaint. Clear? 🙂 — Art
I never claimed it was a framegrabber. As for quality, I disagree. It can
and does compete with a JX-100 scanner, as long as you aren't using the
limiting Panasonic security cameras. I use a portable color studio camera,
and have produced excellent results. I also use a Panasonic AG-7500 S-VHS
editing deck and a Sunrize Industries color splitter, when digitizing from
a video source.
Sure, the JX-100 is faster to get pics digitized, but it's not meant for
doing 3D objects and has subject-size limitations.
As for 24-bit pics, I never said anything about viewing them on a regular
Amiga monitor.
Now, as a wiseman once said,"Please don't compare apples with oranges".
**** Vance ****
Hold on a minute….. You jumped in over a reply I made to a person asking
SPECIFICALLY about framegrabbers, and even asking about LESS EXPENSIVE
alternatives to FrameGrabber (about $600 range.) Now you are talking about
what amounts to professional level equipment.
A digi-view runs about $180 retail. It can digitize in B&W in low res, if
it has a stable input. A color splitter is going to add about $150 or so
to that, so we are approaching the $600 range already – without even
discussing the input device. A VCR stable enough for producing good images
with the equipment mentioned before runs over $1000. A broadcast level
studio camera can run in excess of $25,000. I would certainly hope it can
do a better job than a $250 home security camera, but it is well over the
price range under discussion, and the camera doesn't do a darn thing about
grabbing frames from a video source.
I did not say anything about viewing 24-bit or any other pics on a
normal Amiga screen. Your resolution of 768×480 is the limit. There are
still 354,460 pixels available no matter how it is displayed. By my
figures, this will fall some 15,645,540 colors short if each of the pixels
are assigned an individual color. What you can, and do, have is 16 million
colors from which you can choose the 354k your image can use. Quite a
different thing.
I will agree that digi-view can do 3d images, but I have yet to hear of
a case in which someone has grabbed an image off a video tape by aiming a
camera at the tape itself. The original question and reply concerned
grabbing images from video tape.
I am not sure the JX-100 is faster than digi-view. I rather suspect it
is slower. However, it is independent of ambient or directed light sources
– which are critical to digi-view in the same digitizing situation. The
JX-100 also scans at 200 dpi over it's entire field of view. Your 768×480
resolution digi-view would be limited to about a 2.5" area of target image
to realize such a resolution. And, since you seem to want to compare
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
professional level equipment to consumer level, the JX-600 does full legal
sized pages at 600 dpi.
All this has little bearing on the original message and reply. Digi-View
was not intended to be a frame grabber, and to turn it into one with the
capabilities of at least FrameGrabber, you would be well out of the price
range indicated.
Bill, K3OZM
Only if the user in the states has a closed mind, will it cost what you
stated.
My portable studio camera originally was worth about $14,000 a few years
ago, then the cost of the camera was about $5,500… I bought a used one in
mint condition for $2,900. My industrial editor originally cost me $8,995.
My color splitter cost $110. All of those are in Canadian dollars, so the
splitter would be under $100 U.S., the camera would have been just over 2
grand, and yes, the editor would still be out of range of most average
non-professionals. BUT, there are alternatives!
Even if I couldn't afford the equipment, we have, up here at least, rental
facilities which are quite reasonable for hourly rental. Rental includes a
full editing suite with studio cameras, etc.
Mentioning the JX-600 doesn't bear any relation to digitizing from a video
source, the way Digi-View does. I entered the convo, as most buyers don't
just want to get the fastest digitized image from a video, but also want to
get the BEST results, and I stand firm that the image processing of MY
Digi-View 4.0 gets the best results over a framegrabber anyday! Smoke it
and choke it if you don't like it, because it's a fact that the side by
side results of a slow scan over a fast scan are far superior.
As for your other arguments, you are really misguided, and I've just
realized I've been wasting my font on a brick wall.
Please do NOT reply, as I am sick of long-winded, two paged mail of little
substance. Go ahead and mislead the newer users, but if you had an ounce of
sense, you would refer them to the appropriate AMIGA VENDOR SIGs to hear
the facts from the people making the equipment!
Later…. MUCH later…
**** Vance ****
Since I am so misguided, I am sure you will be able to do the following two
things:
1. Show me ANY 768×480 image digitized by digi-view which shows 16
million colors on any outpud device.
2. Show me any captured color television image equal to or better than
those provided by FrameGrabber/VD-1, in which the total digi-view system
used costs less than $1000 US.
When you have done those things, I will publicly apologize to you and
accept your insults.
Bill, K3OZM
Jumping in here… <grin> Number 1 is impossible. Nobody anywhere will
ever be able to show you a 768×480 image with 16 million colors whether
digitized by DigiView or not. The most they can show you is 368640 colors,
since that's the number of pixels in that size of image. <grin>
As for Number 2, I find it unlikely at best. Digiview, IMHO, isn't
really designed for a color input source. It's best use is with a high
quality B&W video camera using their color wheel to grab images of objects
or photographs. In this manner one can conceivably get much better input
than you can get with any framegrabber with a color source. But you give
up the ability to get really good images from a standard color video
source. So it really depends on your application to determine what is more
appropriate for your uses. If you are primarily trying to get pictures of
objects or photographs which you can put on a copy stand, DigiView is by
far to most cost effective way to high quality. If you are primarily
digitizing video output from TV, VCR, or LaserDisc, you're going to have to
spend more to get good quality at a still relatively low price. This is
all IMHO, by the way. It's a subjective call.
–>Steve Bennett
To reiterate, from the first message to which I replied:
" #: 864 S6/DeskTop Video 27-Sep-90 13:22:34 Sb: #Digitizer Advice Fm:
Stephen Marano 72415,1507 To: ALL
What's the best value in Amiga video digitizers for capturing and
manipulating output from a VCR? "
Steven then goes on to mention FrameGrabber by name and asks about less
expensive alternatives. My reply:
" #: 866 S6/DeskTop Video 27-Sep-90 15:37:40 Sb: #864-#Digitizer Advice
You are talking apples and oranges when comparing Digi-View to
FrameGrabber. Digi-View is basically a static image, slow scan digitizer.
"
I think we are in agreement at this point. Now Vance Schowalter jumps in.
In his message:
" #: 874 S6/DeskTop Video 27-Sep-90 19:26:34 Sb: #866-#Digitizer Advice
Digi-View also saves in two larger file formats to allow export to hardware
capable of displaying over 16 million colors in high resolution. "
Further on, Mr Schowalter discusses his digitizing studio, which includes
broadcast level equipment.
In his last message, Mr. Schowalter accuses me of misleading newer users,
of being misguided, and of having a closed mind.
I am now saying to Mr. Schowalter, "Put up or shut up." I am in agreement
with your assessment of the hardware, even if my math shows 354,640 pixels
(I did it quickly and didn't check it.)
Bill, K3OZM
In a way, you're both right. Given the equipment Vance said he had, it is
quite likely that he can get better images than a typical Frame Grabber
board (although if I recall, DigiView only does 21 bits, not 24, and is
thus at only 2M colors for it's selection, not 16M.) If you have access to
such equipment, he's quite right. Of course, that equipment costs quite a
large amount, but then again so does the more serious color framegrabber
boards.
–>Steve Bennett
I'd have to agree with Vance in the essence of his message, that Digi-View
can achieve better image quality, and you can start with it at a low price.
I started with a substandard B/W (cheap) camera and eventually got a color
camera and a splitter and now enjoy high-quality digitizing that isn't
degraded by 'realtime' scanning technique.
I would not buy a flatbed scanner unless I were specifically working on an
indefinite number of color-publishing projects.
Disagree all you want. Show me a digiview system that can compare to
FrameGrabber or VD-1 in capturing vcr signals that you can put together for
less than $1000. ((Note: I am giving a $400 benefit here, as the actual
price range mentioned was $600))
Bill, K3OZM
Bill,
Firecracker is output only. From what I hear/see, Live! stinks.
You forgot the FrameBuffer from Mimetics. It captures four fields (1/15
second) in digitized NTSC format, then converts this to RGB or Amiga mode
IFF via software – read: very slow at this process! It can give very nice
results. Check the libraries for some pictures I uploaded. The program
doesn't have any real controls like DigiView software has, so what I do is
save in RGB format (640×400) and either use RGBExchange to convert it to
DigiView 21 bit format or use TAD (when I get it from my dealer!).
When digitizing from live video, the final results really depend on the
picture – both in terms of noise and lighting, with lighting being the
biggest concern. After a while of playing with the FrameBuffer, I can
generally tell what will digitize into Amiga formats well and what wont.
The most important point to watch out for is the subject must be well
lit/bright. The picture needs to have good contrast – either intensity or
color contrast. Dark video just wont look good due to lack of depth with
4096 colors.
73, Kelly