Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!gatech!ncsuvx!ccvr1!hgm
From: hgm@ccvr1.uucp (Hal G. Meeks)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: LIVE! digitizer
Message-ID: <3700@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 18 Aug 89 21:47:49 GMT
References: <206@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: hgm@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Hal G. Meeks)
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Lines: 65
Summary:Live works fine

In article <206@crash.cts.com> root@crash.cts.com (Super user) writes:
>Network Comment: to #2171 by stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu
>
>C'mon Steve!  "Does this broadcast camera output good NTSC?"  What the heck do
>you mean by that?  Of course it does.  It wouldn't be a broadcast camera if if
>didn't.  I can tell you right now (being in the video profession as a
>*PROFESSIONAL cameraman [no weddings!]) that the broadcast camera's on the
>market usually run a good $40,000.00 and up and *ALL* output a perfect RS170a
>NTSC broadcastable signal.
Well, I'm a video person too. Yes, I occasionally do weddings ($60 an
hour is nothing to sneeze at). I've had one of my films shown at the museum
of art in NC. Reasonable broadcast cameras can be bought for considerably
less than $40,000. The JVC BY110 is one that I'm familiar with. It's around
$3,000 (discounted). And it does work with my Live!.

Now, I'm not a technician, and I don't play one on TV. Why you had problems
getting sync with the Live! is beyond me. 

>Now, let's get to the Amiga hardware.  I've found that most of the people
>producing these Video Digitizers don't know their butts from a hole in the
>ground when it comes to Video.  I've been to several Ami-Expo's and have yet
>to see anyone running a framebuffer or any other video capture/manupulation
>equipment that had any *REAL* video knowledge.  
Unfortunately, I have seen too many Video people who have no understanding
of what a computer can do or how it works. This why things like the Microgen
titler ($2000) continue to sell, when an amiga would do just about as good a
job. There is a distinct lack of communication between the two fields. 

Incidentally, the term "Broadcast quality" is about as useful as the term
"water resistant" is for watches. Small stations that can't afford M2 or
Betacam are starting to use SVHS. Frightening, isn't it?

>What makes you think the people who produced LIVE! know anything about video
>in the real broadcast world?  I would lay a bet that the LIVE! you have looks
>great to you because you've probably not experienced what a *REAL* Video
>capture board can do.  Try taking a look as some TARGA or VISTA outputs and
>tell me that LIVE! is anything more than a waste of money.

One last time; if you want to use a Live! to capture still images for
broadcast, that you are going to be sorely disappointed. If you want to use
it as an animation aid and inexpensive special effects box, then it's money
well spent, at least until the Video Toaster or Vmachine becomes available.
 
Come on, I spent $350.00 for my Live! for my 2000. I wasn't expecting
broadcast quality output. A loaded AT based targa system will run you
between $7000 and $10,000. It's hardly in the same league in terms of
performance or price. But it's still damned neat. 
>I wish some of these manufacturers would
>wise up and produce a REAL capture board someday so that the Amiga will share
>the spotlight with some of the Mac & IBM video using community.
I think the PVA board that Commodore should have released by now would be
a good start. But you are absolutely right; something needs to be done
soon if the Amiga is going to hold on to it's edge. The MacII is catching up
fast, although it's animation software isn't even close yet.

None of this is intended to be a flame. I believe you know from which you
speak. But I happen to like my Live!, for what it is and what I use it for.

--hal


---------------
hgm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu       "Things have changed, things will change, 
netoprhm@ncsuvm.bitnet     and it breaks down."
			   The Past Revisited 4/88