So... now what do I do? (which card is best?)

[scottnic]

I just barely put together a new computer, and one of my goals for the new system is to be able to capture all my home videos and convert to VCD or SVCD (possibly eventually to DVD?)

I also wanted a dual-head display, as I do a lot of Photoshop work and find it very convenient to have the palettes on one monitor with a full screen still available for the image.

I planned on running Windows 2000.

After doing a fair amount of research, I decided that the Millennium G400 and Rainbow Runner G Series would do everything I wanted my video system to do. The main factors in my decision were the hardware (MJPEG) compression and the advanced dual-head capabilities of the latest (5.52?) G400 driver.

I was somewhat concerned about the beta status of the drivers and Video Tools, but was lead to believe (as apparently we all were) that final drivers would be released soon.

So now I find that that is not the case, and that I will be unable to use the MJPEG hardware (which was one of the main selling points of the card for me).

I purchased the hardware from shopmatrox.com, and they offer a 30 day return policy, so I've got a couple of weeks to decide if I want to keep one or both of these cards. I'd like some opinions.

My interpretation of Haig's post in the Matrox forums is that it is only the Video Tools that are being "scaled back" to only support software compression and that the G400 Win2k drivers will continue to be developed. Is this true? If so, I may only be interested in returning the Rainbow Runner.

... Except that without the Rainbow Runner, I would probably do better to exchange the G400 for a G450, wouldn't I? Are there any features, other than RRG compatibility, that give the G400 an advantage over the G450?

If I do decide to return the whole video system (which I'm considering, as this move by Matrox leaves me less-than-confident in their commitment to Windows 2000 -- who's to say they won't discontinue driver development for the G400 as well?) My only other one-card option for dual-display (as far as I know) is ATI's Radeon VE (based on reviews I've read, I don't consider the nVidia card a contender). Does anyone have any experience with this card under Win2k?

And once I've decided what to do for my main dual-head display (keep the G400, exchange for G450, or send back and purchase Radeon VE?) I still have to decide what to do about capture.

I suppose I could keep my current system and forget about MJPEG, wait for the VidTools with YUY support and use software compression (I've got an Athlon 1.2Ghz, so I ought to be able to decent software-compressed captures, I would think).

If I decide to get the Radeon VE, the ATI-TV card for the Radeon series would be an option for capture, although as far as I've been able to determine there is no hardware compresion with this card.

Another option I've considered are the Dazzle Digital Video Creator II, with hardware MPEG. This is an attractive option, since I'll be putting my video on VCD (thus the hardware MPEG would be a big help), but the cost is a little more than I was hoping to spend.

Are there any other good capture cards in the $100-$200 range? I've only got an IDE HDD system, so some of the "pro-sumer" cards from Pinnacle and the like that require a SCSI setup are out.

I appreciate any and all input that anyone cares to give. Hopefully I can get this all figured out soon.

Thanks,
Scott

[AndrewDV]

Hi,

Avoid the Radeon as it is very problematic. I tried it under Win2K for awhile. My system became very unstable with it. The quality was very good.

I have a system with a GeForce2 in it. It works really well in all OSes thrown at it. The hardware MPEG playback support is great (looks almost as good as a stand-alone DVD player). There is a catch. The TwinView features are currently limited in Win2K (standard TVOut). I do have confidence this gets improved.

If you can return the cards, consider doing so. If you still want a Matrox card, consider the eTV. Its the latest, so Win2K support is going to be there. Spend some time reading up on it. Some have problems ranging from dropped frames to choppy DVD and general playback of video on the 2nd head. These seem more like driver/configuration issues.

If you are considering the DVCII, you are going to have to give up Win2K. It is a good setup, but too costly for the setup headaches.

At this point, panic is a not an option There lots of other solutions out there.

[scottnic]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by AndrewDV:

Avoid the Radeon as it is very problematic. I tried it under Win2K for awhile. My system became very unstable with it. The quality was very good.
</font>

Care to elaborate on the problems you experienced? Were they common problems (i.e. a lot of people have the same problems) or specific to your particular hardware config?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
I have a system with a GeForce2 in it. It works really well in all OSes thrown at it. The hardware MPEG playback support is great (looks almost as good as a stand-alone DVD player). There is a catch. The TwinView features are currently limited in Win2K (standard TVOut). I do have confidence this gets improved.

If you can return the cards, consider doing so. If you still want a Matrox card, consider the eTV. Its the latest, so Win2K support is going to be there. Spend some time reading up on it. Some have problems ranging from dropped frames to choppy DVD and general playback of video on the 2nd head. These seem more like driver/configuration issues.
</font>

My problem with the eTV is that, from my understanding, the second display is TV only (i.e. my nice new 2nd 19" monitor becomes useless). Is this correct?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
If you are considering the DVCII, you are going to have to give up Win2K. It is a good setup, but too costly for the setup headaches.
</font>

Since my post last night I've learned that there are problems with the DVCII and Athlon systems, so this may not be an option anyway.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
At this point, panic is a not an option There lots of other solutions out there.
</font>

Thanks for the input.

Scott

[scottnic]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by mikiem:

From a less then thrilled Matrox customer, I want to ask first why you want hardware compression? For example, the marvel g400 tv allows a max data rate around 3 meg, which is something easily surpassed today in software only.
</font>

I'm new to this whole video capture thing, so maybe I'm doing something wrong, but with my current setup, when I try to capture 640x480x24 video with 44/16 sound at 30fps, using HUFFYUV I end up dropping enough that I'm only averaging 23fps or so. I'm pretty sure the bottleneck is my HDD. I've just assumed that hardware compression of some sort is the best way to go. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
While I may have missunderstood your concerns re: drives, the new IDE hard drives are just about comparable to the much higher priced SCSI versions, and can easily handle more then the 3 meg data rate I mentioned. A lot of folks go a step further and set up a RAID system, which is within the price range of most people given current drive prices, & this easily surpasses anything you could buy SCSI at a comparable price.
</font>

My current setup has a single IBM 7200 30GB drive, but I did get the Abit KT7A-RAID motherboard, with the intent of setting up a RAID in the future. Problem is I maxed out my budget and couldn't afford the second drive. My father says he's willing to pay me to VCD all his home video, so I may be able to get him to buy me a second drive so I can stripe them. Will I be able to get full-size 30fps captures with a 2 drive RAID0?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
One card I haven't seen mentioned here that you might want to check out is the Osprey, which a few web pros use, and which is supported in winmedia (implying at least some microsoft support).
</font>

Thanks. I'll look into this.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
There are quite a few ways to achieve dual displays -- you might want to explore this separate from any video issues &/or concerns. This will allow you to concentrate on getting the best display card(s) for your money. Further, with solutions like the RR or Marvel, if later you want to upgrade your graphics display or video capture, you can't always do it independently.
</font>

This is kinda what I've started thinking. I know I can do dual-display with two cards, but I've assumed that an integrated solution would be preferable, since the drivers would be written specifically for dual-display.

Do you have any opinions on the G450 vs. Radeon VE?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Finally, the last think I might suggest is that I'm a bit *concerned* when it comes to the etv card... Everything just about handles mpeg1, and as far as I can tell, development is focussing now days on mpeg4. Editing mpeg2 can be problematic on all but the high end setups (often with proprietary codecs etc.) since this is usually an archival format. I'd definitely wonder whether etv users will find themselves with a useable product this time next year.</font>

So capture to AVI is better from an editing standpoint? That makes sense.

Thanks for your input.
Scott

[mikiem]

Hi Scott

You're trying to reduce the amount of data that has to get onto the hard drive, which is the why behind compression. Hardware compression takes the load off your CPU, which is less important considering your available horsepower. When it comes to capturing with HUFYUV, I've seen posts of folks capturing full size all day long with a much, much slower precessor.

Assuming you're using the RR, you want to make sure the YUV option is selected under format, & that Ultra DMA is turned on for your hard drive. A raid setup would definitely help, but the DR. seems the expert there so he'd be the one to ask how much.

As for software vs hardware compression, HUFFYUV is lossless, and it can output a pretty hefty stream to your drive. If you used the Morgan or Picvideo codecs, you'd have a (lossy) compression ratio similar to the Matrox hardware mpeg1 & I really wouldn't expect you'd notice much difference re: dropped frames between the 3.

A lot of folks, myself included, find it best all around to capture to 352 X 480, which gives you both fields at a reduced size and bandwidth. Compressing the video for VCD, SVCD or WMV etc., myself I can't tell the difference in the final render.
----

RE: graphics cards -- to be honest with you, I'm not enough of an expert. There are a LOT of people out there running dual PC monitors, particularly in CAD & 3D, and I'd look there to find out what real-world success and failures they've encountered.

I will say that in my experience every time I've gotten hung it's not been because the features weren't there, but rather because the manufacturer didn't update the drivers.

Best of luck
mike

[dancray]

Dumb question here;

but is capturing in 640x480 really THAT much better than capturing in 320x240? My eventual output from capture after editing is VHS tape and maybe VCD (mpeg1 based) to be vied on a computer.

regards

[mikiem]

Hi

From a less then thrilled Matrox customer, I want to ask first why you want hardware compression? For example, the marvel g400 tv allows a max data rate around 3 meg, which is something easily surpassed today in software only.

While I may have missunderstood your concerns re: drives, the new IDE hard drives are just about comparable to the much higher priced SCSI versions, and can easily handle more then the 3 meg data rate I mentioned. A lot of folks go a step further and set up a RAID system, which is within the price range of most people given current drive prices, & this easily surpasses anything you could buy SCSI at a comparable price.

One card I haven't seen mentioned here that you might want to check out is the Osprey, which a few web pros use, and which is supported in winmedia (implying at least some microsoft support).

There are quite a few ways to achieve dual displays -- you might want to explore this separate from any video issues &/or concerns. This will allow you to concentrate on getting the best display card(s) for your money. Further, with solutions like the RR or Marvel, if later you want to upgrade your graphics display or video capture, you can't always do it independently.

Finally, the last think I might suggest is that I'm a bit *concerned* when it comes to the etv card... Everything just about handles mpeg1, and as far as I can tell, development is focussing now days on mpeg4. Editing mpeg2 can be problematic on all but the high end setups (often with proprietary codecs etc.) since this is usually an archival format. I'd definitely wonder whether etv users will find themselves with a useable product this time next year.