Marvel 200 VS 400 & a bit of winging !

[dizzynoodle]

[1] i have been a very happy user of the Marvel 200 for quite some time now, i am thinking of buying the Marvel 400 for a new system, are there any major quality, speed ...etc improvments in the latter making it worth the buy or not ?

[2] I also use the Dv500, a good card when it works ! I know there is alot tweaking required to amke a complex card like that work well , specially on a win2k machine, but what annoys me [and i came to realize the RT2000 has th same limitation] is that such an expensive [sort of] piece of hardware forces you to use Adobe Premiere [even though all of us use it...] it is the most unstable piece of hardware ever... why do we have to use it to capture ?

[Dr Mordrid]

The Marvel G400 adds the dualhead/DVDMax feature. This allows you to encode your video to about any codec and send it to the video output of the Marvel as long as it is properly formatted. 704 wide for MJPeg, DivX etc. and 720 wide for MPEG-2 or DV.

As for the "instability" of the RT-2000 that's overblown now that the 2.0 drivers are out. These are quite stable and add a ton of features. As for it being limited to Premiere, that too may soon be a thing of the past. Word has leaked out that Ulead is working on an RT-2000 plugin for MSPro6.

Dr. Mordrid

[lovepeace]

In terms of NLE Isn't the Marvel 200 just as capable aside from perhaps a cable and driver change in order to output any codec to TV/VCR

also what is the proper format size for HUFF or RGB captures?