DV500 cheaper and more flexible then rt2000

[jeff b]

It looks like the DV500 will be licensing the C-Cube's DV portions only, whereas the RT2000 will be licensing the DV and MPEG-2 portions. How can that make video capture/edit on the DV500 more flexible?

Having a system that can not only capture/edit video, but is open to a change of video cards, I agree, will make your computer more flexible, but using the DV500 to that end does limit the capture/edit capabilities one will end up with.

I think that anyone who has been doing desktop video for any length of time will agree that the computer one uses for NLE will generally have to end up being set up to center around NLE. To the extent that people don't dedicate their computer to NLE, their systems will show up with problems running NLE.

As far as the "consumer" level NLE products that have come onto the market over the last two to three years, it's true that there are "horror stories" that abound for people on tight budgets. To those of us who have gone this route, but have also stuck to this hobby with a passion, the lesson learned is that a dedicated system yields better results and fewer headaches in the long run. Consequently, the prospect of a dedicated NLE/Video card combination at the "prosumer" level with the RT2000 is something that makes more sense to anyone who has invested any serious amount of time on NLE over the past couple of years.

I think that all it really boils down to is that one's individual choices for how they set up an NLE system will be predicated upon how serious they want to be with it. If it's just a thing that you want to "dabble" in from time to time, then you'll probably end up unhappy with NLE altogether. In that wise, I agree with each and every pissed off victim of the hype that led them to believe that any level of NLE was going cheap and simple. It's never been anything but "plug and pray".

One way or another, getting NLE to work well on any system will always mean throwing more time and/or money at it. It also means moving towards dedicating one's computer to that end, too. Once someone has learned that lesson, the prospect of choosing new hardware/software for NLE based on something being "cheaper" will make you wary.

In the case of the DV500 being "cheaper", it's simply because you get less for your money than the RT2000.

[wkulecz]

Interestering to see the passionate arguments about products that aren't even for sale yet.

Count me amoung the unhappy G200 Marvel users, so much so, if I opt for an RT2000 it'll be from a place with a good return policy and it'll go back upon the first problem.

As to "professional" or "make money with", recording from my D8 camcorder with my G200 Marvel and writing back to VHS tape gave better quality that 90% of what I see delivered from "wedding videographers" etc.
So if you have customers willing to pay for VHS output you "can make money with it" in theory. Where the Marvel is unprofessional is the crashes, driver problems, installation failures, and not working correctly with Premiere.

People who got Media Studio with their Marvel seem happy.

As to everyone who is all ga ga about the C-cube MPEG2 encoder I suggest you read an article in "Advanced Imaging", April 99, by Charles Reis. He compared the Phillips SAA6750H chip, C-Cube's DVexplore, and Matsushita (Panasonic) MN85560 chips. He called Phillips offering "too little, too late". C-Cube had an impressive demo but the results on his test tape were horrid. He felt only the Matsushita chip was "prosumer" quality MPEG2. Of course he could be a Canopus shill, but in the same vein this forum could be seen as populated with Matrox shills.

--wally.

[Dr Alien]

First off: Jeffb- apon a re-examination of the my link I see there is no real mention of MPEG2 format capture but what difference does it make? If the mpeg2 export on the DV500 is not accelerated, there's one very good feature of the RT2000 (that is, if you have any need for MPEG2 files). Soon this question will be answered though so we'll have to wait and see. It does have analog and dv output though so from an editing standpoint, it should work just as well.
I'm reserving my judgement of the stability and execution of the drivers until these cards are released. I do know that the the issues with the marval series as a serious editor should not disuade you all from the RT2000. The matrox pro-video division is a whole different ballgame in terms of attention to editing compatibility and driver stability. The Digisuite is high-end and very well regarded. I've heard the same pinnacle horror stories as everyone else has and that is a factor to consider. I again strongly recommend visitind and calling electronic mailbox - www.videoguy.com

later

[DaddyBay]

wally,

You said "He compared the Phillips SAA6750H chip, C-Cube's DVexplore, and Matsushita (Panasonic) MN85560 chips..."

The RT2000 uses the DVxpress-MX25, which is far superior to the DVxplore.
ATI's US$199 Video Wonder will use the DVxplore chip. Clearly the DVxplore is a low-end chip.

[This message has been edited by DaddyBay (edited 19 October 1999).]

[DrMordrid]

And who's to say that the RT2K won't accept the sucessors to the G400?

That seems to be the working assumption by some in this thread, but it's a rather poor one. A very poor one.

Has anyone really considered what an RT2K would be like with a G800 and updated Flex3D drivers optimized for IT'S special features? How about a G1200??

Based on what info is available most of the interfacing seems to be done with the Flex3D drivers and they can be updated.

Think about it....

One other point>

IF you bothered to read the relative specs for DVxplore and DVxpress-MX25 and still think a DVxplore solution would be better, you are dreaming bigtime. It isn't even close.

Dr. Mordrid




[This message has been edited by DrMordrid (edited 19 October 1999).]

[This_Idiot]

Interesting thread. And I'm not going to get involved with the technical details.

Seems to me that the main thrust of the thread is whether a dedicated NLE combination system (eg G400 & RT2K) is a better or worse proposition than "seperates" like the DV500 and the overlay card of your choice. Looking at the information already posted, cost isn't an issue here, since it is going to be pretty close (by the time you have added a good 2D/3D overlay card to the second solution).

The advantage of buying an all-in-one solution is that it is supported in-toto by a single organisation. None of the "it's the other guys fault" stuff. That goes for driver updates too. Of course, the downside is that you are then tied in to the overlay card (or, as Doc pointed out, possibly to its successors).

Buying two seperate cards does give you the option of upgrading the overlay card. But who picks up the pieces when it doesn't all gel ?

As always, there are pros and cons. Personally, I'd love to test both sets of kit out to see how they stack up.

[Dr Alien]

I do have one very specific question for whoever is in-the-know on these things: Does the G400 that comes with the RT2000 have fully functional dualhead support or is it like the Marval G400 which uses the Dualhead port for analog video out. A major advantage to the RT2000 is the ability to run multimonitor without another card, unless they use the marval approach. Anybody know for sure? This_idiot?

[Filmgeek]

"Buying two seperate cards does give you the option of upgrading the overlay card. But who picks up the pieces when it doesn't all gel ?"

Problem is, just because both cards are made by the same company (RT2000) or both parts are one card made by the same company (Marvel) doesn't guarantee they'll gel either. And Matrox doesn't always pick up the pieces even when they're the only one to blame.

Filmgeek

[This_Idiot]

DR Alien, I don't know for sure the answer to your question, but it seems that the Marvel has had to cut certain of the "standard" G400 functions in order to squeeze both 2/3D and vidcap onto a single card. That would insinuate that the dual-card setup of the RT2K would NOT suffer from the same. Or what do you think, since I am only putting forward conjecture.

Filmgeek, I don't accept your argument. Look back to the G200 Marvel/SBLive problem back in February. It became clear that the fault lay with the illegal calls that the SBL was making on the keyboard driver in order to provide capture timing. Matrox addressed the issue immediately, while Creative took a further 2 months to come out with a patch.

I agree that the driver releases from Matrox have not been as timely this year as many users would have liked, but they have been working solidly on them and releasing betas all year. Most of that delay has been in getting the vidcap drivers to capture over the new powerdesks. Now try to axtrapolate that over a NLE board that has to communicate with a dozen overlay boards instead of just one !

[Dr Alien]

This_idiot, your conjecture makes sense from what I understand of the RT2000 and from the pictures of the hardware, so hopefully that is the case. As for he whole 2in1 integration thing, You are very right that integrated products tend to behave with each other better then separates do. The marval's integration is excellent (both g200 and g400) and their software implementation is straight forward and concise. The real problem with the marval is it's to good for it's market in many ways. People see full frame MJPEG capture and assume that it will/should work with premiere or mediastudio flawlessly. The marval ships with AVID Cinema and works very well and wihout incident in AVID Cinema. If you want stable editing in Premiere, you'll have to spend more money. Period. The reason Matrox is including the g400 in the RT2000 bundle is to accelerate 3d transitions, not to avoid conflicts with other displays, though that happens by default.
In mhy experience, using an accelerator from the editing products supported list typically prevents any video conflicts. Conflicts tend to arrise in the compatibilty with premiere. Having recently seen the Geforge real video demos, I must say I'm very VERY impressed. The speed with which that card manipulated large polygon count models and environments reminded me of SGI demos I've seen not too long ago. Also, cost is a factor, because why be forced to replace your current videocard to get editing capability. My TNT1 has been adequate for gaming so far and I'd rather wait and see on the next generation (maybe even from matrox) than be forced to spend an extra $300 on a card I don't NEED right now.

[Elie]

Doesn't the Geforce do video is software????

Just curious

Regards,
Elie

[Filmgeek]

This_Idiot,

I think you misunderstood me, I'm not talking about scenarios like whether Creative or Matrox was to blame in SBLive/G400 conflicts.

I'm talking about conflicts with Matrox software and Matrox software (like Powerdesk and general video drivers and the Video Tools). I'm not going to bitch about this too much, since we just got new Video Tools today, but the fact remains that up until very recently, if you had a Marvel, the video editing part was actually a bad thing if you wanted to run the latest PD drivers. And for a while the VTs and the approved PD drivers that went along with them were lagging waaaay behind the latest PD drivers for non Marvel G200s. But, like I said, we just got new VTs and an approved PD today, so I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Anyway, I would think you'd have to see some truth to what I'm saying. I'm just saying Matrox seems to suffer occasionally from a lack of intra(is that the right prefix?)company communication, which can cause problems similar, if not as severe as, buying a video card from one company and a capture card from another.

Blah, that was wordy as hell. If you can't make any sense of it, nevermind.

Filmgeek

[Filmgeek]

Elie,

I think we're talking about buying a GeForce for it's 3D capabilities and then adding an editing card (like the DV500, OR something else) to do video editing and playback, not buying a GeForce to edit video alone (which I'm certainly not suggesting).

Filmgeek

[Grigory]

DVxpress-MX codecs deliver the high image quality
that your NLE and DDR applications require by uti-
lizing PerfectView, C-Cube’s patented encoding algo-
rithm technology. PerfectView produces superior
MPEG-2 image quality at all bit rates through the
use of multilayer motion estimation, error masking,
inverse telecine, and optimal bit allocation.

The DVxplore codec delivers MPEG-2 video to consumer
PCs, allowing full-screen DVD-quality video recording and
playback at consumer prices. The codec runs downloadable
microcode that lets it operate as both a DVD-quality digital
video recorder (encoding) and player (decoding). C-Cube’s
patented PerfectView encoding algorithm produces superior
images using a number of techniques—including multilayer
motion estimation, variable bit-rate encoding, inverse
telecine, and optimal bit allocation—that work together to
improve encoding efficiency and picture quality.

Is the difference in MPEG2 encoding only in "error masking" of DVexpress, and in higher than 10 mbps MPEg2 datarates?

If so, both seem to be equivalent for me.

Grigory.

[VIKINGMAN]

Dr. Alien.

Simply to clearify - That both the RT and the DV500 have the same C-Cube chip, does NOT say ANYTHING about their quality being the same!!! Look at how many TV-sets that feature the same picturetubes, but with different picture quality as the result. No the final quality result is a combination of ALL the components of the card! And the Matrox RT being made by the Matrox pro-devision and the DV500 by Pinnacle's consumer division, I believe there'll be noticeable difference in quality.

------------------
ASUS P2B-S, PII-350 (o/c to 412MHz), 128MB RAM, Cheetah 9.1 GB, Matrox Mill. G200SG, SB 64AWE, Plextor 32x CD-Rom, Sony CDU-924S CD-R, Canon BJC-7000 InkJet and Canon CanoScan 300 Scanner.