#DPS PAR really BETACAM?
29 messages in this thread
Hi alex again
I read a few more answers to your question and if you are wondering the max
with its new mini raid system is at a compression ratio from 0 to 2:1 there are
no artifacts to be seen.
Thanks
Mark Rasmussen
Enigma Animation Productions
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your relply. I was wondering what ever had happened to that
thread. I haven't seen the MAX's output, so I don't have an opinion. All I
know is that I want to be able to acquire somehting that will be useful to make
an END PRODUCT, not a demo, not a previsualization, and not a proof, but the
finished prduct.
And I know that a lot of people have invested in the PAR system, but I'm just
not convinced, if you get a lot of conflicting arguments from people, it just
doesn't give you the confidence to plop down $3000 for it. I'm sure you can
understand my frustration.
In anycase, I appreciate your help, however, and I'm sure you understand this
as well, if I were to use you guys, or anyone for that matter, as an output
facility, at the end of 3 or 4 jobs, I would have paid you enough money for me
to buy my own system. (g)
Take care…
Alex K.
Hi alex
Thanks for getting back to me. I thought your name look familiar but I couldn't
place it. But then it hit me, you have seen my info package before and asked
for a fax that I sent to you. We have changed our name from MIPS Computing
Centre to Enigma Animation Productions to better describe what we do.
p.s. don't take what I'm about to say to hart, this is good feedback for my
company and I would really like to have a responce if you don't mind.
Yes, you are correct in one way when you say that you would have paid out some
money and then you could purchase it your self. But 3 or 4 time I don't think
so. Look at it this way, I have invested $100,000.00+ in computers, software
and video equipment etc.to get this level of service and quality, and alot of
it will need upgrading in 1 or so years so each year I will need to spend
anywhere from 30-50 g's to keep up with everyone else. So if you did more that
$50000,00 worth of business with us in one year I could maybe see your point.
But you would prob. have to spend some of it maybe half on equipment upgrades
yourself to keep up todate. Don't forget the initial payment for equipment
also. I don't no what level of production you are at but anyone can take
advantage of a service such as this, even if its just for one job only when
your in a time crunch. Oh ya I have a max charge of only $5000.00 CAN or
$3600.00 U.S. so no matter how big your job is it will never go over that
amount. There is one exception and that is the rendering can't go over one
month in time. And with the number of machines we have I can't see that
happening to often. It could happen though.
Thanks for reading this and let me know what is on your mind good or bad.
p.s. I could send you the updated info package on our services if you would
like.
Mark Rasmussen
Enigma Animation Productions
1-800-887-MIPS
Hi alex
Sorry I allways remember something else when I send off the first message.
I agree that the PAR does not measure up for final output. I it very simple in
my mind. The PAR is good for what it is intended for s-vhs or betacam preview
or cable work etc. The MAX is better for all betacam-sp broadcast work etc. and
for film go to a accom or abacus.(I hope I spelled that correctly) Just
remember you get what you pay for, is the way I look at it. The max is 3 time
the amount with a computer included. And the abacus it 2-3 time that amount
again. And you also need the sgi computer. So it just comes down to dollars and
cents the bottom line.
Chow have a good one.
Mark Rasmussen
I have been following this thread with some ammusement.
1. Is the DPS PAR really Betacam? Of course not. Silly, everyone knows that
the PAR is a digital disk recorder using JPEG compression. A betacam is a
standard for tape recording using component recording technology.
2. Is the PAR worthy of output quality that is acceptable in the broadcast
industry? It most certainly is. This is a proven fact and no matter how much
those who nay say it still doesn't refute the fact that the PAR has indeed been
used for output that has been broadcast on local, and network TV.
3. Is the PAR as good as the MAX? No. By definition of compression ratio and
artifacts the MAX has to be a better quality output.
Is the better output of the MAX worth the price? Not in my opinion. But,
then, I am doing just fine selling my PAR output.
4. Is the Abekas needed for film? This is a new one on me. I always thought a
film recorder is required to output to film.
5. Should one give up the idea of doing his own rendering and output in favor
of using a service bureau? Absolutely! Of course, I. too, own a $$$,$$$ of
video post facility and offer the services for output to others. I need to
support my facility too and encourage others not to do their own rendering,
especially when outputting for them. It makes good business sense to me. <BG>
I really think all animators should stop rendering and start using our
services, then you and I can afford more new toys to offer them. <Ber G>
6. What if I should have a client with an attitude about JPEG compression and
is willing to pay for better quality? I would do it but advise against it. I
would single frame output to betacam in YUV format for him using my current
system.
7.If one wants to do better than the PAR in a DDR and wants to have the
difference be obvious then go into a single channel ACCOM. These can be had
for the low teens, about double of the MAX system and compression would be
moot.
Hi don
I don't want to debate the PAR and MAX but you have good points. I thank you
for your comments.
1. I do realise that the PAR is a DDR I think the discussion was about the type
of output different systems can do 🙂
2. I do agree with you 100% but it just comes down to who you are talking to as
far as a client. Some can except it for broadcast tv and some can't, its black
and white. I would like to ask if you have scoped the PAR, because when we did
this there was a definit difference. All I can say is that the MAX was rock
solid. The PAR was not so solid. Can't you give me your opinion. Thanks. Just a
small note in my opinion, allthough not worth much, 🙂 I think the PAR is one
of the best products in it price range. As I said before the two systems are
hard to compare as the target markets are not the same. It's like this, you
have a pc with 3DS but if you had the money you would get wavefront and a SGI
as an example. 🙂 Both do just fine in producing animations. But we know which
one we would take if we wanted to be flexable and productive with great output.
😉
3. The MAX is very close now to no compression. Give it a little more bandwidth
and it will be there. Some of the only differences between the MAX and a Abekas
(thanks for the correct spelling):-) is the abekas is 4:4:4 better sampleing
rate and no compression. Not to bad if I say so my self. p.s. I know there are
other differences but I just wanted to point out a few things. The $ question
well Im in canada so if I talk about prices its not in u.s. $. Yes the MAX is
much more expensive but as in anything, the more you pay the better the
technology. (not all the time mind you 🙂 ). It's an easy answer if you can
afford the MAX you get quality output. If you can't you get the next best thing
the PAR. There is no in between. You get what you can afford. If I could have
afforded it I would have gone further.
4. As per usual the point can be mistaken on the e-mail system. 🙂 🙂 What I
was trying to say was that the accom abekas type of system would be used in the
film industry for the level of quality. Yes, you are correct it would not be
used for the output to film. Sorry about the mix up.
5. Sinple answer I agree. 😉
6. As I mentioned before, I offer both options to my clients frame by frame or
the MAX. But after I bring them into my office and show them our sample tape
and real time output from all three systems and video of the scoping process
they make there mind up very quickly. 95% go with max system.
7. I would agree here also, but that the accom system is cheap but you need a
box the go with it and it is not that cheap. A complete system that is not a
dog, would set you back about, don't quote me on this, $35000.00 to $45000.00
with everything. definitely more expensive that the $10000.00-$15000.00 for the
MAX everything included. Please don't forget the computer. AS I said above the
compression is not a issue with the accom or abekas systems but soon it will be
the same with the max.
I enjoyed the exchange of ideas, please get back to me about what I have said.
Have a great day and I will chat again soon.
Mark Rasmussen
>>The PAR was not so solid
You better take this up with DPS as I found the output, on a WFM and VS, very
stable. Infact, I found its patterns as stable as my tek pattern generator.
>>you have a pc with 3DS but if you had the money you would get wavefront and a
SGI as an example.
I doubt it. While I have never owned a Wavefront / SGI I have sat through many
demos and have gone up against them in bids and I would NOT trade my system $
for $ for a WF and SGI. Back in the days of 3DSr2 I would but not today.
Sorry, but I'm beating the pants off of the WF in quality and efficiency. I'm
not the only one here in town using 3DS to compete directly with the WF
competition either. Bad example!
>>As I mentioned before, I offer both options to my clients frame by frame or
the MAX. But after I bring them into my office and show them our sample tape
and real time output from all three systems and video of the scoping process
they make there mind up very quickly. 95% go with max system.
This is pointless as a comparison because I can go one better! I offer both
FxF and PAR and now with the PAR 100% of my clients choose the PAR. Last year,
before PAR I had two systems for FxF. After PAR I ditched both but then
acquired another FxF system that came along for the ride with my editing
system. I have never used it on a job. If you really wanted to compare you
would offer the MAX and the PAR output at prorata pricing based on real costs
to output based on capital outlay of each plus cost to do. ie. if you charged
X amount for PAR then you would have to charge 3.5X amount for the MAX and 15x
for the FxF. Maybe 8x if using Quickpass.
7. I'm not really prepared to debate the Abekas/accom costs as I have not
inquired as to the real bottom line. While the unit itself may be in the low
teens, I was not aware that it could only be run from an SGI which would
substantially raise the cost to initiate this technology. I was led to believe
these were stand alone recorders. If this is so then this technology is still
out of reach of the upgrade path I mentioned.
There are other emerging technologies in the 1:1 / no compression DDRs. The
recent DPR by FAST can be run as a single channel for about the same $ as the
MAX but requires at least VM Lite to implement. For YUV I/O it requires
another YUV board and the thing uses 4:2:2:4 sampling. You could do this for
under $20k and have a component NLE editing system too. The dual channel DPR
would add another $2.5K. I'm sure there will be more options in DDRs in the
near future but for now the MAX just seemed to be not worth the extra $. I
really don't believe its slight added quality would have paid for the increase
cost in more business.
Don,
I probably should be posting this to Mark but I have to agree the output on the
PAR is absolutely stable. His is the first comment I've seen to the contrary. I
don't think you can fault the framebuffers output at all.
On the issue of the MAX, your points are well made, it might not generate any
more business, but I would feel more confident about my output if I had one.
They've come down in price by about $1500 I learned today. This won't cause you
to run out and get one I'm sure, but market forces are driving this market.
Unfortuneately there is no MAX upgrade discount for my Ill Pro. I hope they
will change their policy.
But more than likely, will be most interesting is the DPS SCSI version, which
is only *rumor*, but I suspect that because Matrox has dropped their price, the
DPS into the SCSI market is imminent.
Now how does a DPS coupled with a Barracuda sound? Jammin….
(Course I shouldn't be getting people's hopes up. But it sure sounds nice to
me. )
To the defense of IDE…
I just read this afternoon that the Mode 4 and mode 5 IDE's will be shipping
this spring in time for Comdex. About a quarter behind schedule! The mode 5
will have a sustained transfer rate of 20MB / sec. I now use a mode 3 WD
Caviar drive with a Mode 3 Side 2 controller and it is the fastest thing I've
seen at 3.5 Mb/sec. It's the HD on my Video Machine system. I'm sitting tight
to see what happens but unless necessary, now is not the time to get heavily
invested in HD's. Too much is about to happen real soon. Things will probably
stabilize after Comdex in April.
Don,
I'd heard about those 20 MB/sec transfer rate drives some 6 months ago as being
in development but I thought they were alot farther off.
I have a bias to SCSI so please excuse the unintended oversight. The fact that
IDE's don't take up page frame space is definitely a plus. So far however the
largest capacity highest speed drives have been SCSI and I like the fact that I
can chain more drives. You points are well taken and I'll remind myself to be a
little more objective about it.
John
To the defense of IDE…
I just read this afternoon that the Mode 4 and mode 5 IDE's will be shipping
this spring in time for Comdex. About a quarter behind schedule! The mode 5
will have a sustained transfer rate of 20MB / sec. I now use a mode 3 WD
Caviar drive with a Mode 3 Side 2 controller and it is the fastest thing I've
seen at 3.5 Mb/sec. It's the HD on my Video Machine system. I'm sitting tight
to see what happens but unless necessary, now is not the time to get heavily
invested in HD's. Too much is about to happen real soon. Things will probably
stabilize after Comdex in April.
Hi Don
>>I found the output, on a WFM and VS, very stable.
Thanks for pointing that out to me I don't have it in my office as it was in
the test period before purchase I did all this testing. I saw what I saw, maybe
it was not working correctly or I did not set something up correctly. oh well
not much I can do about it now.
>>I doubt it. While I have never owned a Wavefront / SGI, I have sat through
Many demos…
That is good to see that you are doing so well with 3DS. I use it also and I
think it is a great product and it has matured many times over over that past
three years. In fact I have been working with it since the begining. But I have
been doing some freelance work for a game company Electronic Arts Canada here
in Vancouver. They have 10 SGI workstations with Soft Image and they also have
3DS. After seeing what they do and how much productivity they get out of this
combination I would go to that system tomorrow. Please note that I would not
get rid of 3DS it is a very powerfull product. Even the guys at EA canada agree
or else they would not have it. This is just my view and it comes down to
productivity. I have a rule that I go by, and basicly it is that I don't care
what the product is, if I have a job to complete and I requires something
special to finish it, I just use what ever I can to get the job done. Profit is
the bottom line.
My pointless comparison is just a small point. Again I am glad to see that it
is working so well for you. I guess I just have a few clients who need a little
more time to see the light. I don't, as far as I know charge much more than PAR
people, I charge based on what the market can bare. This works very well for
me. Maybe you should raise your price to that of what the MAX people charge if
the production times are the same. which they should be :-)<BG> Then you will
make more dow.
I will very awnest about the accom stuff I know for a fact that when I use that
system I need to rent the accom and a SGI. This not to say that a nother system
could not work with it. I have never tryed that approach. I will look into is
if you would like and get abck to you.
Again I am located in Canada so these prices are hard to compare for me. This
product sounds interesting (DPR by FAST), could be some competition on the
horizon.:-) The increased cost did not bother me as that was the cost for a
better quality picture. Which translates into a better selling feature. I just
tell my clients the facts and I usually get the contract, you win some you lose
some.In there mind they are getting something better for around the same price.
Which they are, the bottom line here is that with max or anything else like the
max you get a better throughput therefore a better quality video image. That
how I justify the extra cost.
Just for the record in canada the par with component out cost around $5000 and
The max system with component out is $9050. Not even 2x the difference. The
only problem for some people is the Computer will need to be purchased if you
don't have a EISA system, then it could get costly. I was lucky I had the exact
system required. I also like one other main feature, you can use the Matrox
Illuminator Pro frame buffer board for many other things than just DDR work.
That is important because that is allmost half the cost there, about $4500. I
will not go into the list of other features but it is a key component in my
setup. I use it as my 3DS frame buffer, I also have my harddrive free fo use
for other things if needed. The max can also be used with another product, well
parts of it anyway, that matrox produces that will allow for NL editing. I
don't know the whole cost of this setup, but I just wanted to point out the
flexiable uses of the system, in particular the Illuminator Pro board. If you
look at it this way, its an overall good package. But not so good if you have
everything and want to get a DDR. Oh ya, if you have Illuminator Pro Frame
buffer board already, It's very inexpensive to get started. So to recap I think
when you look at all the feature that can be done with the MAX setup it will
pay off in the long run. Please let me know if the PAR can do Frame Buffer work
I am not to sure. It has been a while since I used it.
got to go now,
Have a good day don and I hope to chat again soon.
Yes there are many parallel roads all leading to the same destination. Some
roads have a speed limit of 35 Mph while others have a limit of 70 mph. But
the 70 Mph road has a toll charge so you end up paying more to save the time.
That is how I feel about Soft Image and SGI vs. 3DS. It might take me twice as
long to model and map in 3DS than your SGI/wavefront but I paid far less so I
can still save my client money. As for rendering times, I'm actually faster
with 4 slaves than the single SGI indy. We compared this locally.
Right again about the MAX being very versatile with its higher quality but I've
always been wary of Matrox products when it comes to video. I haven't met one
Studio owner that is happy with the system. The PAR can operate as a pseudo
frame buffer but some aspects are limiting. It really is just a DDR. I still
use a targa+ to check colors from my materials editor and it resides along side
the PAR.
When I priced the MAX it came in at roughly 3X the cost for the PAR. Of course
things change, HD's got lower and Matrox has lowered the price of the MAX to
make it more competitive. The real reason I stayed away from it was it
(system) was just too complex compared to the alternatives.
Now here's where the PAR fails, in my opinion. As long as my rotoscoping
projects were ending up on 3/4 video or less the PAR was fine but when I
started outputting to betacam component the straight animation passed with an
A+ but as soon as the animation included any rotoscoped video from betacam the
resultant PAR output after rendering showed a definite quality loss in the
finished video. I have been considering going to Quick Pass product from
Diaquest to rectify this. The product is called Anamaq. It is a Quick Pass
windows software that works with RS232/RS422 controlled decks, LDR, and Abekas
DDR's. It uses your FB and saves the file in original component betacam SP
quality with no compression. List for $995. While I don't cherrish the
thought of single framing again, this might be the most expedient and cost
effective way to resolve the rotoscoping quality issue on betacam SP products.
I have confirmed that you stand corrected on the Abekas requiring SGI platform.
Abekas says the PC will work or any ethernet feed, or SCSI-2 feed. You just
have to feed it *.TAR file format rather than tga's. You need software for
this. Elastic Reality, I thought can do the conversion. I still would choose
the Abekas over the MAX if I need better than the PAR. One thing, there are
some audio features that are nice if you do have the SGI. I understand these
are not yet available on the PC as the Abekas software is for the SGI only.
Don:
>> You just have to feed it [Abekas] *.TAR file format rather than tga's.
FYI, a "tar" file is not a graphics format, but a much more generic beast. It
is closer to a ZIP file without compression. By convention, creators often add
a ".tar" to the end of the file name to remind themselves what it is, but it is
not required. (After the file has been created, it can them be run through a
compression program – if you ever see a UNIX file called something like
"bigfile.mine.tar.Z", the "Z" tells you that it is compressed.) It is often
used to back up UNIX systems onto tape, or to gather a group of files for
transfer over a modem. It is probably one of the most common file formats in
UNIX.
I think the format you are looking for is the YUV format. The YUV format,
popularized by Abekas, has some advantages, the biggest one we found is that
the files are much smaller than Targas – 1 meg vs. 650K for a typical,
same-resolution comparison. They are always 720×486 in resolution.
We uploaded a functioning demo in the ASOFT libraries for an IPAS BXP YUV
reader/writer that handles 1/2 size images.
Greg (UNIX-R-us) Pyros
Thanks, Greg. This answered my final questions regarding the compatibility
issue of the Abekas and the PC. Paul Lind also popped in to straighten all of
us out on this issue too.
Don:
For you, anytime!
Greg Pyros
RE:MAX
Hi Mark,
I noticed that you claim to have a well functioning MAX with component
video out -a rare thing. That you happened to have a system already that was
compatible is rarer still. I'm trying to compile some information about
motherboards that will work with MAX (esp. the 3 board CAV setup). Would you
mind telling me what model motherboard you're running.
Thanks in advance-
Paul Lempke -Rising Star Graphics
Hi Paul
Would be happy to. The board is a pentium p66 micronics mother board, EISA/PCI
(M5PE).
Could I just enquire as to why you collecting this info?
Could I also ask why it is a rare thing to have this MAX system running
properly? 🙂
Mark-
<<pentium p66 micronics mother board, EISA/PCI (M5PE)…MAX system running
properly>>
Thanks for the reply. And yes, your motherboard was already on the short list
of qualified boards. I am a Matrox dealer and am trying to confirm the largest
number of candidates for use with MAX. The component output version is
especially tough. I can rule out most EISA motherboards just by looking at the
slot layout. It requires 3 full length sidexside slots ( ISA or EISA ) with
the cards in a particular order. The 3rd card ( in ascending slot order ) needs
to be an EISA bus master slot. Most Pentium motherboards don't offer EISA and
when they do they usually have that big CPU chip blocking the slots so that
full length cards won't fit. If not the CPU, then simm sockets etc.. or, they
will have three full length slots, but the one that needs to be the bus master
will have VL-bus on it instead.
If the card passes this visual test, then I can check into what chip set and
BIOS it uses -Some are incompatible with the Illuminator Pro card.
Most motherboards that I know work are no longer in production!
I can build someone a system from scratch that will work, but the likelyhood
that someone already has a system that will work is not so good. You are lucky,
and you have system with beautifull output -enjoy it. 🙂
Paul Lempke -Rising Star Graphics
Paul,
I'm using a Micronics EISA VL-BUS 486/DX2 with my ILL Pro and CAV board. The
two boards are sitting in the two non bus mastering VL slots (7 & 8) with the
SCSI controller in slot 1 (right next to them). Slot 2 is right next to 8 and
is a bus master as is Slot 3. Both are open and not in the way of the CPU or
SIMM cards. This should work fine for a MAX upgrade, should it not?
Like this from the front looking to the back:
Slot 6 Slot 5 Slot 4 Slot 3 Slot 2 Slot 8 Slot 7 Slot 1
Slots 1 – 6 are full length bus master. 7 & 8 Non bus VL.
TIA
John
Hi Paul
Thanks for getting back to me. I know the odds were against me, but I beat the
odds by planning. I guess I should have pointed this out before, but I didn't
think if would matter. I needed a new computer, so I started to look for one. I
had decided on the micronix board. One week before I was to have it delivered,
I was looking at DDR system and noticed the max and found out I had a bud
working for forfront graphics the people who make the software. The gave me a
list of systems they worked with. The system I saw was a micronix so I just
changed my order a bit and got the system that would be correct. The max was
still down the road about 3 months so I was not sure if I was going to purchase
it. But if was I was prepaired. I needed a computer anyhow. So thats what I
meant when I said that I had the correct computer already. Not so much of a
fluke but good planning and a little bit of luck.
I must admit though they have a problem with this compatibility with computers.
But once they start looking at the pci down the road maybe that will help. But
for now. I love what I see.
Thanks again
Mark
Don,
PMJI but I have a related question to this thread. I have been looking at all
of the NLE options for a while now, and have not yet decided where to plunk my
money down.
My question is this: how is the compression in the PAR different to the JPEG
compression in 3DS? I recently did a job that was over 1500 frames of
animation, and my disk drives at the time could not hold all of the frames. I
opted for JPEG compression in 3DS and then single framed to my Beta deck. Would
I see any differnce doing the same animation with the PAR? Is the JPEG at100%
in 3DS inherantly better or worse than the PAR?
Secondly, I currently have a VLAN/OZ editing suite and would like to integrate
a NLE option. The ultimate would be the "hybrid" FAST solution, but I've
already spent my money for edit control. Can Adobe Premiere control the PAR?
Premiere can now talk via VLAN to my decks and if I had the PAR could I then
use Premiere to capture video and then return it to the desired tape deck? This
would not be as elegant as having direct VLAN control of the PAR from OZ but it
would work and eliminate the need for single frame edits and second generation
edits.
Thanks for any information you can supply,
Tom Flannery
Aptos Multimedia Productions
I had some similar questions in the early days of owning my PAR. I did some
comparisons and your assumption is correct that JPEG is still JPEG no matter
where it occurs. Compression ratio beyond 2:1 is going to be lossy. Whats
worse is using any form of double JPEG. Like using JPEG files for texture maps
from the CD-ROM etc. and then JPEGing again for the PAR. I often wonder if
some of those who see blatent artifacts in their SVHS output from the PAR arn't
really double JPEGing and don't realize it. This is why my Rotoscoping work
gets a bit nasty as compared to straight animation. Why I think my betacam
output of simple animation from the PAR is acceptable while I have always said
the Rotoscoping output is OK for 3/4 or lessor format only.
As for NLE, I'm still undecided as to what's best. I think I might get my feet
wet with the Premier product since I can get it for a low price. It is
supposed to work with the PAR but not as well as Razor PRO. If I like working
in this NLE environment I might move up to Razor Pro and then on to the DPR
from FAST. For now I have to make some bucks to pay for the recent purchase of
three betacam SP decks, and a DAT recorder so I'm not even considering NLE at
this time.
Thanks for the info Don…
Tom
Hi Don,
I've been reading your correspondence with Gregory and you seem to know quite a
bit about Video & 3DS. I was wondering if either of you guys have heard of
"MARS" by Daewood? If so is it any good, I think it's 1/2 the price of the PAR.
I'm looking for a good board to get my feet wet with writting Animation out to
VHS.
Don't know any details on the MARS thing.
PMJI
I have a MARS in my demo system next to my PAR and MAX. I've seen a few
threads about the MARS, but I haven't read them yet -you might check them out.
MARS is MPEG1 (352×240) output to composite video or S-Video. At one quarter
the resolution of the PAR and 30 images/sec vs 60 images/sec( with field
rendering on) on the PAR, there is really no comparison. However, considering
that it uses any ole hard drive and consumes only 150KB/sec ( vs 3600KB/sec)and
has its own sound output, its cost is much less than half of a PAR.
I think that its quality is perfectly good for dumping presentation videos out
to VHS which is probably exactly what most 3DS'ers need. It is not a video
production tool or a tool for a video professional. It also provides an MPEG
encoding solution for distributing animations via network, CDROM, floppy disk,
etc.
A good tool for the right use, what's yours?
Paul Lempke -Rising Star Graphics
Paul,
Do you happen to know if Daewoo (sp?) has a demo tape for this card? Is it
actually available for sale? The ad states that they haven't gotten FCC
approval yet. Am I correct in assuming that rotoscoping isn't an option? (I
called for info, but found it very difficult to communicate with these guys).
Thanks!
-Scott Lawrence
Scott-
Yes it is Daewoo ( apparently they are a huge conglomerate -one of the biggest
companies in the world making everything from ships to Leading Edge computers!
). The last time I talked to them, they didn't have FCC approval, but I've been
busy with other things and haven't called in a while.
Sure you can rotoscope, if you have a video capture device<G>, which this is
not. But, anything you can render out from the keyframer or video post could
be MPEG encoded and output to video with this.
This is video and sound out and MPEG file encoding. Video or audio capture and
manipulation would require the appropriate other hardware and software.
In tests we have done, it generates a nice MPEG file and can output to tape
MPEG files generated by other means as long as they are the right resolution.
I'll check on availability tomorrow at the office.
Paul Lempke -Rising Star Graphics