Announcement

**Hulk** · 15 January 2001, 13:22

I don't have an RT2000 but I'm going to add my opinion anyway. I'm sure someone will jump in and correct me if I make a mistake.

As far as I know the purpose of the RT 2000 is to speed up rendering. Hopefully in most cases to real-time.

From Matrox:

"Matrox RT2000 lets you work with two video streams and a 32-bit, uncompressed, animated graphics layer in real time. Choose from organic and 3D transitions, 2D and 3D DVE, and transparency effects – in real time, NO RENDERING!

The realtime editing power of RT2000 gives you the creative freedom to experiment. There’s no penalty for changing your mind. Everything happens instantly, at full online quality, and you see the results immediately on your PAL or NTSC monitor. "

It seems as though MOST of a project would reneder in real-time. Only areas with extensive overlays and effects would be less than real-time.

I don't think the quality of editing with our without the RT 2000 is any different. That depends on the quality of the video you are working with, the rendering capabilities of the program you are using, and the final output format.

Basically the RT 2000 is a hardware assist to the software rendering of the video editing application you are using.

I am using MediaStudio Pro 6.0 with a PIII 850 right now and am quite happy with the stability and speed of the system. In addition, MS Pro has a smart render feature. It only renders parts of the project that have not been rendered. If your input and output formats match, rendering is only performed where there are effects and overlays. Not only is speed improved but so is quality since everything isn't being re-rendered all the time.

You can also just check small portions of a project while working on it. A transition say. MS Pro then saves that transition in the final rendered form so that unless it is changed that transition doesn't have to be re-rendered again. If you do this often you (to various parts of the project while working on it) really don't have to wait on the software too much.

Is it worth it? Tough to say because I don't own one. I guess if you're a pro or do a lot of editing.

My opinion is that as processors become faster and faster the gap between software and hardware based systems will continue to close as it has been for the past few years. For example. If I was running a PII 266 right now (and that was the fastest chip available) I would most likely buy an RT 2000.

In a year or so when 1.5GHz is affordable I think a hardware based solution will be even less useful. IMHO.

If you want to see some benchmarks for MS Pro check my site out here:

http://www.hyperactivemusic.com/MS%20Pro%206.0.htm

I am waiting for a guy with a RT 2000 to check in with his scores. It should be interesting.

**Dr Mordrid** · 15 January 2001, 13:26

The P3V4VX is on the compatability list. Here's the page to getting it up and working with the RT-2000;

http://www.matrox.com/videoweb/suppo...asus_p3v4x.htm

Editing on the RT-2000 is a whole other experience from working with the Marvel and other such cards. Of course there is the mandated use of Premiere that can cause some frustrations (Mac-ish interface etc.) but overall it's a very powerful environment.

I think the idea of gigahertz processors replacing hardware video editing solutions is misguided. Yes, a ghz processor can replace the BASIC functions of hardware in a device like the upcoming eTV.

In advanced devices like the RT-2000 however these powerhouse CPU's will just take them to another level. The fast CPU's will provide such devices even more complex effects OR extend realtime into portions of its functionality where they may not occur now.

You have no idea how cool it is to put a project together and then play it in realtime to the SVHS or VHS deck for distribution. The quality of the video is great.

Inscribers TitleExpress provides a very professional titling environment (realtime as well) and the number of bundled effects is just flat bewhildering. In the recent MEGAPACK update they also added a bunch of Pixelan's Spice organic effects to the mix as well as ME support. IMHO though I'd stick with Win98SE. ME is slower.

Also, and I don't think this is too much of a secret, Windows2000 drivers are being tested and these add even more advanced functionality. And I mean a LOT of functionality. Sorry, I can't go into details.....

If I decide to export to MPEG that's no problem either. I just use AVISynth and TMPGEnc's VFAPI interface to frameserve a project from Premiere's timeline straight to TMPGEnc for encoding to whatever preset or setup I want. This without having to save anything the *.avi first. Nice....

I love mine.....

Dr. Mordrid

[This message has been edited by Dr Mordrid (edited 15 January 2001).]

**Hulk** · 15 January 2001, 13:54

Dr Mordrid -

"I think the idea of gigahertz processors replacing hardware video editing solutions is misguided. Yes, a ghz processor can replace the BASIC functions of hardware in a device like the upcoming eTV. "

I never said they would REPLACE hardware based systems only that the gap between software and hardware systems has been closing and I believe it will continue to do so.

The very highest end systems will probably always be hardware based. Professionals need the best to stay competitive.

But software based systems are accomodating a larger and larger number of people. More people are able to do what they need to do with software based systems and the capabilities of those systems are reaching more and more toward the pro level.

I think the bottom line will be how much video editing someone does. Sure there are a million effects available but most of what I see in film is simple cut-aways and dissolves. That's what seems to be at the crux of good story-telling.

I could be wrong but I don't think I'm misguided.

**cjyo~** · 15 January 2001, 14:05

You seem like a borderline case to me...

I recently decided to upgrade to the RT2000 from a G200 Marvel, because I started doing freelance work where time is money (so my jobs paid for the hardware).

The Marvel does a pretty decent job with Media Studio (I used Premiere with mine though), you won't see a huge leap in functionality with RT Premier 6.

As for video quality, Marvel has very decent MJPEG, but you will see some improvement with DV. My day job is DVD production, so I'm used to Digibeta and studio quality MPEG2. There are compression artifacts/limitations to DV that bug me (not so much an RT problem - I even see artifacts on raw footage from my VX2000). On the other hand, it's much better than the VHS or SVHS I have had at home until now.

Reasons I like the RT2000: super easy and consistent DV capture, output and deck control. You get dual-head output to your TV/Monitor in addition to the computer screen, without having to loop through your DV camera since the RT has the DV/MPEG2 encoder/decoder (which you don't have with the $99 cards). Realtime transitions (even though I usually just use simple dissolves). Quick renders for output to tape from the timeline. IBP MPEG2 export - I use this to export finshed files for my client to drop into his authoring system (otherwise I would have to output to DV, then he would have to encode that).

I don't really make use of any of the RT3d transitions or effects. Most of them are too cheezy for "serious" work and the current effects have a problem with jagged edges (though I heard this was being fixed). I currently capture footage and cut down sequences in Premiere, then I bring that footage into After FX for real motion/fx design. If the jaggies problem is fixed, I might try doing more fx work in the RT, to make elements to speed up After FX work.

Like I said, the reason I upgraded was that it payed for itself. If you can afford it, I would say "go for it." Otherwise, I think you can actually do quite a lot with Media Studio. The Marvel MJPEG quality is quite good, definitely adequate for home movies and VHS output. If you get your hopes up to high, you may actually be disappointed that there isn't a bigger leap in visual quality with the RT2000, but you definitely won't be disappointed with ease of use and speed.

**This_Idiot** · 15 January 2001, 14:10

I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone with a 233Mhz processor to buy an RT2000 (that's just in case anyone got the wrong idea).

Seriously, if you are thinking of investing in an RT2000 (for a heavy investment it certainly is !) then take a tip and go see one in action. You'll find that they are frequently demonstrated all over the world, either by Matrox themselves or by their appointed video dealerships. I've had the pleasure of sitting in on a couple of 1-2-1 demos, and was very impressed. And that was a while back, and the product has been improving ever since.

I'd also encourage you to witness a Pinnacle DV500 at first hand, which is also a fine card. It isn't as "realtime" as the RT2000, but is still an impressive piece of kit.

While you're at these demo's you'll be able to discuss your own specifications and discuss the performance of the products with experts.

Chris

**Dr Mordrid** · 15 January 2001, 15:14

Where I find realtime useful is in creating those simple projects that can make you a fair bit of money for little work.

Example: video slideshows with background music. In my area a lot of folks really have taken to these for sending to grandparents and distant relatives.

Using the RT2K I can slap 'em together and get them onto a distribution format (usually VHS) in much less time than before. Before the RT2K rendering these took more time than putting them together.

Dr. Mordrid

[This message has been edited by Dr Mordrid (edited 15 January 2001).]

**JamesSchmeling** · 15 January 2001, 17:26

Dr. Mordrid - can you slap these same projects together on CD-R media in a time efficient manner?

Just curious, this isn't what we bought our system for. We are going to edit conferences and then disseminate the videos/audios/transcripts/papers on CD-R, and DVD as blank prices are dropping. Also VHS for the video and audio.

I'm looking forward to getting ours tomorrow.
James

**Elie** · 15 January 2001, 19:27

I also recommend a dual proc. board, guess why
I love my RT2000, it spoiled me rotten.

All you need to do, is follow the hardware compatiblity list offered by Matrox, along with a few of our own, you can easily put together a nice a reliable system as long as you know what you're doing.

If you don't want to deal with the hassles of worrying about configurations etc. then buy a turnkey system.

Regards,
Elie

**rwierenga** · 16 January 2001, 07:47

Wow. Thanks for the feedback, everyone - especially those of you who went to trouble of posting links. For now, I think I'm going to save the money (and potential hardware headaches) and just upgrade to MS Pro 6. But if the RT2000 ever drops in price . . .

Announcement

Does it make sense to upgrade to the RT2000

Does it make sense to upgrade to the RT2000

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment