Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!stevel From: stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Ludtke) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: LIVE! digitizer Message-ID: <11629@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: 17 Aug 89 08:05:20 GMT References: <206@crash.cts.com> Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu Reply-To: stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Steve Ludtke) Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 59 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 Ok. I'll be the first to admit it. I was kinda out on a limb with this one. I still think the probalbe cause is a bad board. >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. ......... You're probably right. The amiga is a $1000 machine, most people who wish to do "broadcast quality" video work have tens or hundreds of thousands to spend on the real thing. I doubt there are a sufficient number of Amiga users who have the $$$ to spend on "broadcast quality" equipment to really justify the r&d it would take to come out with such products. Then again, I have seen a few products claiming "broadcast quality" in the $2000-$8000 price range, so it may be coming now. In any case, 4096 colors is hardly sufficient for professional image processing anyway. >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. Well, I have seen and played with a top of the line TARGA board, and I agree it's quite impressive, and LIVE! doesn't even compare. A waste of money, perhaps. If I had $10000 laying around (the cost of a top of the line TARGA system) and spend $250 on a LIVE! it might be a waste of money, unless I spent the remainder to buy myself a nice car. I don't claim LIVE! produces broadcast quality images, nor do I think you could get broadcast quality images from the framegrabber that costs twice as much. In comparison to other digitizers in the same cost range, LIVE! produces very nice results. The $600 framegrabber probably produces better quality images from a moving video source, but there are a few things that a LIVE! can do that it can't. When you're choosing a digitizer, you need to define what you want to do with it. Overall, If you just want high quality still shots, go out and get yourself a DIGI-VIEW for $150. If you need to grab some images from moving sources, and do a lot of still work, or if you want to do some real time video image processing, LIVE! is for you. If you do a lot of image grabbing from videotape, etc ..., and require high quality images, you should consider the extra $300 for a true frame grabber. Finally, if you just can't live without "broadcast quality" images grabbed in real time with some live video processing, throw out your A500 or A1000, and consider investing in a $8000 top-o-the-line TARGA system to plug into your A2000 with 68030 board 8 meg of memory and a bridgeboard (if it can deal with a TARGA). btw - sorry about the massive net bw I used to spew out my own opinion which has nothing to do with the opinions of Caltech ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Ludtke stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu ..!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!stevel stevel@citiago (Bitnet) OBS949 (Amer PPl lnk) 72335,1537 (Compuserve) XJM16487 (Genie)