Tweet
RT2000 vs DV500
Is there a good comparison somewhere between the RT2000 and Pinnacle DV500? Is there enough anticipated difference to warrant the $300 price difference?
-
-
As RT-2000 is still vapourware, who can tell?
------------------
Brian (the terrible)
Brian (the devil incarnate)
-
The DV500 will be licensing the C-Cube's DV portions only, whereas the RT2000 will be licensing the DV and MPEG-2 portions and include a G400 card in the package. This, as far as I can tell from various press releases and ng postings, is the long and short of the main difference between the two unreleased products, and would account for the significant price difference.
Once one of them actually starts shipping, of course, then there will be another significant difference: one will be real and the other won't...Comment
-
The RT2000 can capture analogue or DV footage to DV or MPEG2. It's your choice. But: when using DV captured files, you cannot edit anything in RT. You only have access to RT effects when using MPEG2 files.
Also: only the RT specific, Matrox built effects are RT, not the Premiere specific FX.
Also: the 3D RT effects from Matrox are not keyframable, and very little adjustable: only the shadows' and borders' colour, softness and width can be adjusted, not the followed path or speed.
Also: with the RT2000, one of the G400's monitor ports is disabled and used to process the analogue video output. So, single monitor operation!
Also: to output the RT effects to DV: the effects parts need to be rendered at max. 3x RT. You only get RT in MPEG2 editing mode, to the analogue outputs only!
In my book: this takes away an awfull lot of the shiny goldplated cover of this new toy.
For those of you who refer to the Matrox site: read it carefully. What I just said fits in nicely, but isn't there in print. But fit this in between their lines and you get the full story. I've seen the latest prerelease versions, asked the pants of of the reps, and will be playing again with one in 2 weeks at another trade show in Brussels.
Watch out for the RT2000.
I don't like the DV500 that much too, but it's a bit more honest. It's DV only, only MPEG2 output foir DVD and that needs rendering. Same thing here: no RT to Firewire, and very limited in RT capabilities. This means, for the DV500: 2 videostreams with a 2D transition or a title (not moving, not both together, and only fading that title in and out, nothing else). The RT2000 can do a title and a 2D effect at once in RT. But RT is allwasy, for both, to analogue only. Firewire needs rendering!
------------------
Jan De Wever - Leuven, Belgium
Anyvision Media ServicesJan De Wever - Leuven, Belgium
Anyvision Media ServicesComment
-
While I would agree with Jan De Wever's analysis about the non availability of
realtime to firewire port, I think that this in no way a reason to dismiss the
tremendous capabilities of this board. In the first instance, the Raptor which is the
alternative that he suggests DOES NOT HAVE any realtime capabilities whatsoever.
Also most of us who would consider the RT2000 do not merely need a firewire solution but an analog one as well and at the end of the day would also need to present our clients with the finish product on analog tape. Also all the fuss about the fixed 2D and 3D effects is really nonsense since any effect that you want you can get using premiere or relevant plugin. The only thing is that you would have to render it JUST AS YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO with the Raptor.
There is also this talk about this big drop in quality when going from DV to MPEG2, however let us be reasonable. It seems to me that there would be a bigger quality drop when transcoding from lets say analog SVHS to to MJPG, however persons have been using analog capture cards with as low data rates as 3000 Kb/sec and are happy with the results. Do you really think that they would think that a negligible drop in quality from DV (digital) to MPEG2 (also digital) a big problem? I think not.
Therefore the long and short of it is if the RT2000 can edit native DV and also transcode to MPEG2 in realtime AND output to analog in REALTIME, then we can conclude:
1. The RT2000 can do EVEYTHING that the Raptor can do.
2. The RT2000 can do MUCH MORE than the Raptor can do.
3. Those things that the RT2000 can do which the Raptor cannot do are the very same features which most of us regular users need.
Lets face it if all you do is DV editing then a Raptor will be adequate but if as I suspect, the MAJORITY of people who have shown interest in the RT2000 need an analog solution as well then the RT2000 is far and away the winner. Also realtime is realtime whether its analog only or not. I hope this helps.
DJComment
-
While I would agree with Jan De Wever's analysis about the non availability of
realtime to firewire port, I think that this in no way a reason to dismiss the
tremendous capabilities of this board. In the first instance, the Raptor which is the
alternative that he suggests DOES NOT HAVE any realtime capabilities whatsoever.
Also most of us who would consider the RT2000 do not merely need a firewire solution but an analog one as well and at the end of the day would also need to present our clients with the finish product on analog tape. Also all the fuss about the fixed 2D and 3D effects is really nonsense since any effect that you want you can get using premiere or relevant plugin. The only thing is that you would have to render it JUST AS YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO with the Raptor.
There is also this talk about this big drop in quality when going from DV to MPEG2, however let us be reasonable. It seems to me that there would be a bigger quality drop when transcoding from lets say analog SVHS to to MJPG, however persons have been using analog capture cards with as low data rates as 3000 Kb/sec and are happy with the results. Do you really think that they would think that a negligible drop in quality from DV (digital) to MPEG2 (also digital) a big problem? I think not.
Therefore the long and short of it is if the RT2000 can edit native DV and also transcode to MPEG2 in realtime AND output to analog in REALTIME, then we can conclude:
1. The RT2000 can do EVEYTHING that the Raptor can do.
2. The RT2000 can do MUCH MORE than the Raptor can do.
3. Those things that the RT2000 can do which the Raptor cannot do are the very same features which most of us regular users need.
Lets face it if all you do is DV editing then a Raptor will be adequate but if as I suspect, the MAJORITY of people who have shown interest in the RT2000 need an analog solution as well then the RT2000 is far and away the winner. Also realtime is realtime whether its analog only or not. I hope this helps.
DJComment
-
While considering the RT-2000 as still vapourware -- and it will remain so until it has been marketed for a few months and the bugs ironed out of it from complaints from the courageous first users -- I would like to make 2 remarks about the foregoing:
- interline reading can be quite dangerous
- if the quality obtained from DVDs or digital satellite TV is too poor for you, then don't use MPEG2. If it is OK, then do. Because this is what is used.
------------------
Brian (the terrible)
Brian (the devil incarnate)
Comment
Comment