rickfor@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Rick Forrest) (07/30/89)
I've got a 500 and a camcorder. I'm looking for a digitizer to hook up to both of them. The frame grabber from Progressive Peripherals looks real nice, but 600 bucks is too much to spend right now. I was wondering if the LIVE! digitizer would do the same (or similar) thing for me. If you've got one, or you can suggest an alternative, drop me some email. Or post if you think it's of general interest. Thanks in advance. Rick Forrest.
charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) (08/01/89)
> The frame grabber from Progressive Peripherals looks real nice, > but 600 bucks is too much to spend right now. I was wondering if the > LIVE! digitizer would do the same (or similar) thing for me. > Rick Forrest. I had a LIVE. In my opinion it is worthless. It never produced a stable image. HAM did not work at all. The colors were exceptionally bad in all modes. The software FREQUENTLY caused gurus. Save your money. -- Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!" Definitely not representing my employer. "The guy sure looks like plant food to me." Little Shop of Horrors
hgm@ccvr1.uucp (Hal G. Meeks) (08/01/89)
In article <5660048@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: >> The frame grabber from Progressive Peripherals looks real nice, >> but 600 bucks is too much to spend right now. I was wondering if the >> LIVE! digitizer would do the same (or similar) thing for me. >> Rick Forrest. > >I had a LIVE. In my opinion it is worthless. It never produced a >stable image. HAM did not work at all. The colors were exceptionally >bad in all modes. The software FREQUENTLY caused gurus. Save your money. >-- > Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com > or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!" I've had a Live!2000 for about 6 months. It was stable until I added my autoboot roms and KS1.3 (I have the "old" GVP scsi card). I suspect it's the autoboot roms, and lately have been tempted to go back to a non-autobooting state. I like mine a lot. It's possible to get reasonably clean 32 color and grayscale images out of it. You have to supply a clean video signal. It also helps to buy a "TV-VCR signal attenuator" from Radio Shack (about $5.00). The live! is very picky about input levels. It the video is too hot, green streaks (signal overload) appear. The software only will do a general guess at the input video's "pallette". I have to tweak it a fair amount to get something that looks good. I bought it to capture video for special effects and to aid in animation. It does a great job at this. I didn't buy it to primarily grab still images. If I had wanted to do that, I would have bought Progressive Peripheral's Framegrabber. I showed my amiga once to a confirmed PC'er. He was mildly impressed at the Amiga's windowing enviroment. Then I fired up Live!. I spent the next hour convincing him that my Amiga was really digitising motion in real time. He couldn't believe it. --hal --------------- hgm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu "Things have changed, things will change, netoprhm@ncsuvm.bitnet and it breaks down." The Past Revisited 4/88
jgary@ms.uky.edu (James E. Gary) (08/01/89)
In article <5660048@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: > >I had a LIVE. In my opinion it is worthless. It never produced a >stable image. HAM did not work at all. The colors were exceptionally >bad in all modes. The software FREQUENTLY caused gurus. Save your money. >-- > Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com > or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!" > Definitely not representing my employer. > "The guy sure looks like plant food to me." Little Shop of Horrors It largely depends on what you want it to do and what version of the software you have. HAM captures did not work with the first release of the software, but they do now. Given a stable image and good lighting they produce pictures almost as good as the very early digi-view stuff. I have very little problem with guruing, but keep in mind that the live! software is a process control program and must disable intuition interrupts, etc. When I considered that I could grab video from any source (camera, vcr, cable tv, etc.) and do interactive video special effects with it, I figured it was worth my money. If you want to digitize high quality color photographs, then no, the live! isn't the best tool for it. Get a Digi-view, but be prepared to spend lots of effort on proper lighting, etc. The library that comes with live! is very good also. I have done a couple of special effects programs with it. And don't forget that you can capture multiple sequential frames to make an animation and are given tools for splitting and rebuilding the animation for touch ups. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | James Gary jgary@ms.uky.edu | Yeah, I have a light, | | University of Kentucky | my face and your butt! | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) (08/04/89)
>> I had a LIVE. In my opinion it is worthless. >> Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com > > It largely depends on what you want it to do and what version of the > software you have. When it worked extremely poorly I called the company. They quickly sent me a new release of the software. It also worked very poorly. > Given a stable image and good lighting they > produce pictures almost as good as the very early digi-view stuff. I was using a camera designed for broadcast. It has very high resolution and is used by TV stations. The image was completely still. I also used it with a professional VCR. The LIVE was incapable of syncing. > I have > very little problem with guruing, but keep in mind that the live! software > is a process control program and must disable intuition interrupts, etc. > | James Gary jgary@ms.uky.edu I was not running any other software. I stand by my criticism of LIVE. It failed more often than it succeeded. -- Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!" Not representing my employer. "The guy sure looks like plant food to me." Little Shop of Horrors
stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Ludtke) (08/06/89)
I hate to keep this arguement going, but I feel an excellent product may be getting an unfair reputation. In article <5660050@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: >When it worked extremely poorly I called the company. They quickly >sent me a new release of the software. It also worked very poorly. What do you mean by "worked very poorly" ? Do you mean you didn't get broadcast quality results, or you couldn't get a picture at all ? I've had my Live! for about 2 years, and have gotten excellent results with it from video tape and directly with a camera. I also think the company deserves some credit for their support efforts. I reported bug (a minor one) in ver .9 of the software, and I had an upgrade in my hands at no charge in less than a week. >I was using a camera designed for broadcast. It has very high >resolution and is used by TV stations. The image was completely >still. I also used it with a professional VCR. The LIVE was >incapable of syncing. Does this "broadcast quality" camera put out a NTSC standard video signal. A lot of professional equipment doesn't. If not, it doesn't suprise me that Live! couldn't sync. It warns of this on the first page of the manual. If it does provide a good NTSC signal, did you consider that the hardware might have been defective ? >I was not running any other software. I stand by my criticism of >LIVE. It failed more often than it succeeded. As I said, I couldn't disagree more ! Live did guru occasionally with ver .9 of the software, but ver 1.02 has never gurued on me. As far as image quality goes, when I used a 3 year old JVC home video camera I could get HAM images that easily rivaled early digi-view pictures. I could also get reasonably good quality images from a video tape, something that digi-view couldn't do at all. If Live!'s HAM conversion (which is does in ~1/6 th of a sec.) doesn't satisfy you, you have the option of saving a full 12 bit color map to convert to HAM by some longer method. I'm not saying Live! is the equivalent of an $800 frame grabber, but for a couple of hundered dollars, I feel it was well worth the money. Oh, and just for the record, I'm not associated with A^2 in any way, other than having purchased a fine product from them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Ludtke stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu ..!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!stevel stevel@citiago (Bitnet) OBS949 (Amer PPl lnk) 72335,1537 (Compuserve) XJM16487 (Genie)
donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) (08/08/89)
In article <5660048@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: >I had a LIVE. In my opinion it is worthless. It never produced a >stable image. HAM did not work at all. The colors were exceptionally >bad in all modes. The software FREQUENTLY caused gurus. Save your money. > Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com I NEVER had a GURU from LIVE! I used to have unstable picture quality. Then I found 75 Ohm video cable. I had been using phono cables. They LOOK the same. Whoops! Greytone pictures look AWESOME. Especially in interlace. I agree that HAM is generally not useable, but that may be due to my interest in digitizing images with poor tone quality. Oh well. Anyway, it IS a worthwhile product! Don White PO 271177 Concord, CA. 94527-1177 zehntel!donw
victori@pnet02.gryphon.com (Victor Issa) (08/08/89)
(This is my first time on the net, and it looks great)
Well, I bought the Live! Digitizer a few weeks ago, and I have had some
SERIOUS problems with it. For one, my Amiga 500 will GURU or FREEZE randomly
when I have it connected to my expansion bus.. This happens even when I am not
using. I have to resort to plugging/unplugging it every time I want to use
it--and doing that to my expansion bus isn't a pleasing thought.
Furthermore, the quality of HAM is despicable. B&W is decent, but for the $$
I expected the quality to be better. My advice to people wanting a real time
color digitizer is to save the extra money and get the frame grabber.
-VI
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!victori
INET: victori@pnet02.gryphon.combartle@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Aron Bartle) (08/08/89)
In article <18592@gryphon.COM> victori@pnet02.gryphon.com (Victor Issa) writes: [deleted problems with LIVE!] >I expected the quality to be better. My advice to people wanting a real time >color digitizer is to save the extra money and get the frame grabber. Is the frame grabber compatible with all amiga models? (I know LIVE! comes in three flavours) I want a real time digitizer I can use now, and if I ever expand (I currently have a 1000). What exactly can it do? >-VI >UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!victori >INET: victori@pnet02.gryphon.com Aron bartle@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu 'they were blasted by the SilverCloud - they were blasted to the walls alive... "this place aint big enough for Stars&Stripes"...'-ABWH
victori@pnet02.gryphon.com (Victor Issa) (08/09/89)
I just checked a hardware review, and the FrameGrabber can be used with
all Amigas. It's about $200 more than Live!, but it is surely well worth it.
You will not be satisfied with Live! if you want color images... Believe me
on this.
-Victor Issa
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!victori
INET: victori@pnet02.gryphon.comhgm@ccvr1.uucp (Hal G. Meeks) (08/09/89)
Amiga Wierd doesn't help matters in it's latest overview of digitisers. The reviewer breezes past the fact that the LIVE! is the only unit on the market that can process video in close to real time. Judged by it's single pictures, it is honestly, average, but the price is right. But begin playing with .riff files and stuff like Innovision, and amazing things begin to happen. It's a amazing product, equal to the machine it's made for. --hal --------------- hgm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu "Things have changed, things will change, netoprhm@ncsuvm.bitnet and it breaks down." The Past Revisited 4/88
hrlaser@sactoh0 (Harv R. Laser) (08/10/89)
In article <1989Aug8.164559.578@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> bartle@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Aron Bartle) writes: >In article <18592@gryphon.COM> victori@pnet02.gryphon.com (Victor Issa) writes: > >[deleted problems with LIVE!] >>I expected the quality to be better. My advice to people wanting a real time >>color digitizer is to save the extra money and get the frame grabber. > >Is the frame grabber compatible with all amiga models? (I know LIVE! comes in >three flavours) I want a real time digitizer I can use now, and if I ever expand >(I currently have a 1000). What exactly can it do? > The same model FrameGrabber (made by Progressive Peripherals & Software) will work with any model Amiga. It doesn't attach to the bus. The FG is a freestanding black box that takes monitor output from your Amiga and feeds it back into your monitor. Then with another cable it attaches to your parallel port. It sits in the monitor "loop" so you can toggle between real-time live incoming imagery and your normal Amiga display instaneously with the tap of one key. It talks to the parallel port so it can "download" captured imagery from the FG's own RAM (96K in the box I think) to your Amiga for processing by the FG's software. On the front of the FG is an NTSC input jack, standard RCA female type plug. Into this you can cable any device which outputs good ol color NTSC signal - like a VCR. Like a TV-tuner. Like a color camcorder. Like a Canon Xap Shot camera. Like a security-type b&w camera used with DigiView. Like a laserdisc player. etc. etc. You run the FG's software. you watch the imagery on your Amiga monitor coming from your NTSC source via the FG. You see something you want to grab you hit ONE KEY. Whammo. FG grabs that frame of imagery (1/30th sec for color, 1/60th sec for B&W) and downloads it to the Amiga via the parallel port. The FG software then massages it into whatver resolution/color/size you had previously selected, and displays it on your screen. You can then save it to disk as an IFF file for import into any dozens of graphic-oriented programs - paint programs, ray-tracers, desktop publishing, word processors, animation, whatever you have. FG's software can also create animations in standard .ANIM format by capturing consecutive frames either manually or via a built in variable timer in the FG software. Due to the amount of RAM in the FG box itself the only mode in which you can capture overscan is low-resolution. But the FG software works in low/med/interlace/high res and from 2 color to 4096 HAM or 16 shades of gray. Besides IFF it can also save files as 24 bit RGB which will make life rather interesting when Rhett Anderson of Compute's Amiga Resource gets his SHAMview program reading 24 bit files. :-) I just finished testing the new FG-II software for PP&S which will be a separate optional purchase above and beyond the cost of the FG (which will continue to ship with the original software). FG-II does so many nifty things I wouldn't even know where to start describing it. Justin McCormick (the author) is a genius. His software is incredibly solid. And fast. So if you've got NTSC sources to tap into and you want to grab them in the most realistic possible way in the most econimically-viable way (with an Amiga) then the FrameGrabber is what you want. (IMHO :) Have fun. -- | Harv Laser | SAC-UNIX, Sacramento, Ca. | | Plink: CBM*HARV | UUCP=...pacbell!sactoh0 | | "The human brain is the only computer made of meat" |
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (08/12/89)
>I just checked a hardware review, and the FrameGrabber can be used with >all Amigas. It's about $200 more than Live!, but it is surely well worth it . >You will not be satisfied with Live! if you want color images... Believe me >on this. > >-Victor Issa This is true , as I mentioned elsewhere on the Net , the Progressive Peripherials frameGrabber is (IMHO) the best one on the market. While a bit more expensive , the quality is well worth it! **************************************************************************** * " Salad isn't food, salad is what food eats. " The Zen Monk ALF * * "My thoughts claim no responsibility for my body" * * * * UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP uunet!mimsy!oddjob!clout!ddsw1!tronsbox!tron1 * * * * Sysop, the Penthouse ]I[ BBS * * (201)759-8450 (201)759-8568 * ****************************************************************************
root@crash.cts.com (Super user) (08/16/89)
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.
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. Almost EVERY manufacturer was
touting either a VHS or 8mm camcorder. Now tell me THEY output broadcast
quality video. I can tell you right now..they don't, and that's a fact!
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.
Granted, maybe the images from the LIVE! look ok to the guy who wants to
capture some images of his family picnic, but don't even thing about using
these things in real world video. 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 believe that the LIVE! has it's problems and I believe what the other
gentleman had to say because I could tell from his post that he at least knew
a bit about the world of video and lame capture boards for the Amiga.
-- Bob Lindabury
_________________________ Pro-Graphics 201/469-0049 __________________________
UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!bobl | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics
InterNet: crash!bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CServe: 70347,2344
ARPA/DDN: crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | AppleLink: Graphics3D
___________ ____________
Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) (08/16/89)
+-- tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) writes: | [...] the Progressive | Peripherials frameGrabber is (IMHO) the best one on the market. While a bit | more expensive , the quality is well worth it! Question: Can it be controlled from user software like Live! can? A^2 provided a shared library for getting at the Live! board. Does PP do something similar with FG or can it only be accessed through the shrink-wrap software? If it can't be controlled then it's almost useless for IP and video effects work. -- Stuart Ferguson (shf@well.UUCP) Action by HAVOC (ferguson@metaphor.com)
rusty@fe2o3.UUCP (Rusty Haddock) (08/17/89)
In article <13156@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: >+-- tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) writes: >| [...] the Progressive >| Peripherials frameGrabber is (IMHO) the best one on the market. While a bit >| more expensive , the quality is well worth it! AGREED! And from what I hear the new software coming out (RSN) for the FG is EXCELLENT!!!!!! >Question: Can it be controlled from user software like Live! can? A^2 >provided a shared library for getting at the Live! board. PP supplies sample C code, fgtutorial.c, as well as specifying the Port Control bits (uses the parallel port). Admittedly, all you can do is select resolutions, which color to download, switch where the display connects to (Amiga or FG), kill the color, trigger the FG to digitize, and reset the FG h/w. Also, the samples show you how to upload the captured image and download the control commands. I believe there's more but it's not that much more. If you need more than you've probably got the wrong application for the FG. For you fellow FG owners: One thing that's helped me with the FG is a video amp to boost the output of my TV/monitor, an old RCA ColorTrak 2000 (c. 1982). A $20 adjustable video amplifier from Rip Shack worked pretty good. Results from a studio quality color camera we had at Bell Labs worked pretty good too! Flesh tones were great! -Rusty- -- Rusty Haddock o {uunet,att,rutgers}!mimsy.umd.edu!fe2o3!rusty Laurel, Maryland o "IBM sucks silicon!" -- PC Banana Jr, "Bloom County"
stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Ludtke) (08/17/89)
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)
jdm@gryphon.COM (John Mesiavech) (08/17/89)
In article <13156@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: >+-- tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) writes: >| [...] the Progressive >| Peripherials frameGrabber is (IMHO) the best one on the market. While a bit >| more expensive , the quality is well worth it! > >Question: Can it be controlled from user software like Live! can? A^2 >provided a shared library for getting at the Live! board. Does PP do >something similar with FG or can it only be accessed through the shrink-wrap >software? If it can't be controlled then it's almost useless for IP and >video effects work. >-- > Stuart Ferguson (shf@well.UUCP) > Action by HAVOC (ferguson@metaphor.com) Stuart; THe answer to your question about the PP&S FrameGrabber is an unqualified yes. The way to do it and what codes to send are in the FrameGrabber manual. An excerpt: (retyped without permission...so sue me!) Lines used by the Parallel Port: D0-D7, paper out, strobe. D7 = Reset (0=reset,1=operate) D6 = Digitize (transition from 0 to 1 triggers digitization) D5 = Horiz. Lines Resolution (0=320,1=640) D4 = Color Select (0=color, 1=B&W) D3 = Overscan (0=normal,1=overscan) D2 = Switch (0=Amiga,1=FrameGrabber) (this controls video output) D1, D0 = Color Select for download (00=Off,01=Red,02=Green,03=Blue) When Paper Out is high, commands are sent from the Amiga to the FG. When paper Out is low, data is downloaded. This automagically generates a STROBE from the FG software, preparing the FG for the next command. Also in the manual are troubleshooting, information on the file formats that the FG software currently understands (IFF,IMG8, IP, RAW). All this is copyright PP&S, for the legal types. John ) -- 0-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-> All disclaimers apply; I didn't write this <-=-=-=-=-=-0 | ----------------------|------------------- | | "I want a New Duck | John Mesiavech | | One that won't try to bite | net.soldier.of.fortune | | One that won't chew a hole in my socks | {backbone}!gryphon!jdm | | One that won't Quack all night" | Go Purdue! (by req) | | Weird Al Yankovic, "I Want a New Duck" | | 0-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-0
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (K.J.Jamieson) (08/18/89)
>Question: Can it be controlled from user software like Live! can? A^2 >provided a shared library for getting at the Live! board. Does PP do >something similar with FG or can it only be accessed through the shrink-wrap Yes, in fact , they provide source for the shrink wrapped software (minus 3 or 4 features) !!! There is no "shared library". Remember that the PP FrameGrabber is PARRALEL - there is already C libraries to talk to it! **************************************************************************** "Lord, you gave us feet to waddle. A tux for tails and bods like bottles.. but 'scuse us if we find no levity, since you also gave us gravity. But to adversity, we say NUTS! And when it's time to fly the coop, we flap and beat to lift our buts, and we're left as walking nincompoops. So Lord, I'd think you more than wise, (and me much less a jerk) if only once you might supply..... SOME PENGUIN WINGS THAT WORK!" Opus '83 - 89 R.I.P. UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP uunet!mimsy!oddjob!clout!ddsw1!tronsbox!tron1 Sysop, The Penthouse ]I[ BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (08/18/89)
In article <206@crash.cts.com> root@crash.cts.com (Super user) writes: >Granted, maybe the images from the LIVE! look ok to the guy who wants to >capture some images of his family picnic, but don't even thing about using >these things in real world video. There was an episode of 'Amazing Stories' called 'The Eternal Mind' directed by Richard Lewis. It was basically about a scientist that got trapped in his computer. The computer was an Amiga. The special effects were produced using just one Hitachi video camera, Amiga-Live, two Amiga 1000's, a Fairlight CVI board, and a GE Talaria light valve projection system. See the Feb '87 issue of Computer Graphics World for more details. It was a pretty decent show and the special effects looked great. Personally I would rather have the FrameGrabber by PP&S. It does a much better job than Live does.-- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 The future isn't what it used to be.
hgm@ccvr1.uucp (Hal G. Meeks) (08/19/89)
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
hull@hao.ucar.edu (Howard Hull) (08/21/89)
Just last week I was discussing the matter of desk-top video with the guy in the next office who has a Mac II. He wanted to know what I'd recommend for him. I told him that, to my knowledge anyway, the Amiga was the first home computer that was able to do NTSC video. I told him that I had heard that some designers over the last two years had come out with some NTSC video boards for the IBM, and that there were rumors that some were out as well for the Mac. I thus find it interesting that you infer that video products for the IBM and the Mac are superior to those available for the Amiga. I find this rather strange, given how long the built-in Amiga NTSC capability has been available for such designers to work with, compared with how long any such capability has been available for the IBM or the Mac. Are not the scan rates for the IBM and the Mac preclusive to NTSC, thus forcing the designers to incorporate on-board bit map storage in NTSC video board designs for either of these two computers? Or do they have some kind of synchronous samplers that work their way through an image in the mother board ram? It seems like it would create a tremendous amount of bus contention to do that. Also, NTSC is NTSC. It's really lousy (especially once it's committed to a modulated RF carrier), even at its best - and never mind where it came from. So why try so hard to pretty it up? If you're going with Super VHS, stay with RGB as long as you can, and then hit the deck with it, I say. Anybody seen any equipment for doing this? I do have a Pacific Peripherals frame grabber, and I must say, though it may (as others have said on the net) be much better than the LIVE board, it still wreaks considerable malice on whatever image it grabs. In fact, its clutches are really gross: it looks to me like the "pixels" it gloms onto are easily a large fraction of a microsecond wide, and this really destroys the content of usual-scale images of people and things. The capture software I got with it will not work with CBM's A2620 '020 accelerator board; that implies a rather unsophisticated timing method was incorporated by the PP&S designers (i.e., a *software* *loop*?!!!). Given that the Amiga medium resolution pixels (320 of 'em) are each 150 nanoseconds wide, it does seem as though the PP&S unit needs to have much better performance. One cannot tell an eye from a nose, and a paisley tie comes out looking like Garfield's Lasagna. It does however do a fairly decent job of mapping out the NTSC color wheel (such as it is). As the PP&S Frame Grabber goes onto your heap for the handy sum of nearly 550 Yankee Imperialist Dollars, do I therefore need to expect that a board for the Mac II which puts up high-res pixels (say, 768 of 'em in one horizontal line) would cost a cool $6600, and thus what we are really talking about is an Amiga owner's budget compared to a Mac owner's budget? As well, what's the deal? Are the designers going to the IBM and the Mac just because, as was said in 1987, "Rounded to the nearest million, zero Amigas have been sold", and if so, are they putting more power (through VLSI, PALs and/or Macro-Cell logic) onto the IBM and Mac boards, which, after all, must conform to roughly the same real-estate as is available in an Amiga 2000, but must do the job without the benefit of native NTSC video timing being available right there on the mother board? And, last but not least, can you name an example of an NTSC board that's to your liking, and that's currently available for an IBM, and another currently available for a Mac II - along with a typical price and (possibly) the name of a distributor who stocks them? I just wondered... Howard Hull hull@hao.ucar.edu "How many Mac programmers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just one, but you have to wait while the world revolves around the Mac programmer..."
root@crash.cts.com (Super user) (08/24/89)
Network Comment: to #2976 by stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu Steve L writes: > 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. I agree that the top of the line TARGA boards are expensive and most normal Amiga users wouldn't be able to afford them but you can get a very good TARGA board (TARGA 16) for under $2000 right now! That certainly is in the range you are talking about and it still blows away any of the $1000-$1500 Amiga frame capture boards I've seen. I realize the the TARGA 16 is only a 16 bit board but it's still quite impressive since the board is both a capture AND display device. If you or anyone else is interested, I happen to have a TrueVision ICB (Image Capture Board) here that I am selling. It is a real-time frame capture board (captures full color images in 1/30th of a second) and it captures and displays 32,768 colors. It has a pixel resolution of 256x256 but the images look fantastic because of it's color capabilities and shading. This board may not be quite as good as a TARGE because it is lower resolution but it is basically the exact same beast in lower res. You could take this board, plug it into your Amiga 2000 with a BridgeBoard and be in business. I even have an associate who has put together a great TARGA (and others) converter program called RGBExchange that does a fantastic job of converting these images to HAM. This board would be ideal for those of you looking for a low cost frame capture system as I am selling it complete for only $400.00. I am also including the Powerful TIPS (TrueVision Image Processing Software) with the package. The next message will give specifics about the board. So Steve, as you can see, there are low-cost alternatives to going with such items as the LIVE!. -- Bob > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Steve Ludtke > stevel@tybalt.caltech.edu ..!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!stevel > stevel@citiago (Bitnet) OBS949 (Amer PPl lnk) > 72335,1537 (Compuserve) XJM16487 (Genie) _________________________ Pro-Graphics 201/469-0049 __________________________ UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!bobl | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics InterNet: crash!bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | AppleLink: Graphics3D ___________ ____________ Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854
root@crash.cts.com (Super user) (08/24/89)
Network Comment: to #3072 by hgm@ccvr1.uucp
I'm commenting to Hal and didn't have the head to do all the fancy quoting.
I can honestly tell you that I've never used the LIVE! myself. I've seen it
demonstrated and seen output and others use it and I found it to be almost
useless for any of my purposes. I have a Digi-View which does everything you
would ever need in a still object capture and is even good for some line art.
If you are really into line art captures, you MUST get a scanner. There are
no alternatives in the video world as video does not have sufficient res for
line art or charaters..but then, I'm getting off track.
You mention the JVC BY110. Sorry, BUZZZZZZ...you lose. That is NOT a
broadcast camera and I imagine that many cameras that you may use are not
actually broadcast. There are several video cameras out there in the video
world that are "industrial" cameras. Of which, the JVC you mentioned is..as
well as a bunch of other $2000-$15000 cameras. Just to stress the point.
I imagine that it wouldn't make a whole heck of alot of difference if you used
one or the others (industrial/broadcast) in the Amiga capture applications as
the final result (currently) is a 320x400 HAM image (or the larger overscan
image of which I forget the exact pixel size). So the final output on the
Amiga is currently the limiting factor.
I think that it would behove (sp) Commodore to seriously look at the Amiga
output before long as the lead we Amiga owners have all been sharing is
quickly being erodded away by low cost graphics workstations and image boards.
If something isn't done soon, we will find our Amiga's no longer on the
cutting edge of PC graphics.
If you are seriously into animation for video, you have to take a step back
and seriously consider your abilities on the Amiga. I have been over this and
over this with some associates of mine. We supply graphics to several people
as well as for our own clients. A few things we have encountered were almost
insurmountable problems. If you have alot of money, you can overcome these
problems on the Amiga but I feel the problems should be addressed by Commodore
themselves.
Seems that any type of animation that gets any bigger than half the screen
size will not blit fast enought to produce smooth animation. This is a
serious drawback to producing animations that *WE* find useful. We currently
use (mostly) hi-res 16 color screens and it's just not possible to do Anims in
this mode for video. Even the 68020 cards don't address this problem.
Solution? Get a frame controller to hook up to your VTR. Yeah, you thought
those capture boards were expensive..try finding a good frame
controller...figure about $5000 for a Lyon-Lamb. No drop in the bucket.
As for 3D, try doing something *REAL* like a sequence. Most I've seen are
looping demos. For a real animation, scene with shots of 4 seconds are not
uncommon. Unless you get *ALL* the goodies (accellerator w/math; frame
controller; "large" Hard drive; Oodles of RAM; not to mention the VTR's etc.)
you just can't do anything that comes close to a broadcast animation and I
think that's where the Amiga is lacking. The Mac is starting to fly now that
several third party companies are starting to support it. Heavy hitters such
as TrueVision has a whole line of their new NUVISTA products available for it
and Digital Arts is porting the software over. Where does that leave us? In
the dust. In fact, I asked the guys at TrueVision about supporting the Amiga
at this years NCGA show in Philadelphia, PA and they didn't even know hardly
anything about it.
I'm just saying that Commodore has to seriously look at the Amiga product line
and has to make some major decisions in the next half year about where they
want to be and where the Amiga fits in. If we don't see an Amiga based on the
(now old) 68030 archetecture or even the 68040 (maybe a RISC) then I think we
are going to lose our advantage and I, for one, don't want to give up that
foothold. I am very glad that I can work in the same type of medium as
people with graphics mainframes for a fraction of the cost, but I would also
like to see some major improvement in the capabilites. Something that hasn't
really happened since the A1000 was introduced.
-- Bob
_________________________ Pro-Graphics 201/469-0049 __________________________
UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!bobl | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics
InterNet: crash!bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CServe: 70347,2344
ARPA/DDN: crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | AppleLink: Graphics3D
___________ ____________
Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854