clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) (11/28/90)
In article <2377@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> woolard@uns-helios.nevada.edu (MIKE WOOLARD) writes: >I went to Comdex this year and was amazed at the "next generation" >of multimedia tech that will be coming and some that IS as I type. > >The company that most impressed me with their wares was VideoLogic, >Inc. They had a device driver for Windows 3.0 that had a window >(scaleable just like any normal Windows window) that had *real time* >output on the screen...like a mini TV screen...dictated by the card. >... Heh... when video multimedia solutions were first appearing on the Mac platform, Apple endorsed a "two-screen" solution--your control stuff, graphic overlays and so on showed up on one screen (typically the little one :-) and your video went on another. A kludgey solution but I guess it saved the trouble of making a true overlay card or something. Trouble is, it became obvious that the two-screen solution was a flop with users-- something about having to swivel back and forth, no cues that "now it's time to look at the OTHER screen," and so on... So anyway, the NEXT solution was to implement video on the same screen, but in a teeny tiny window. At last winter's San Francisco MacWorld Expo, there were any number of vendors showing products that would let you see video on a screen 2 x 3", or 3 x 4.5" or whatever... some of them even did neat effects realtime in those windows, like flipping the picture, or doing irises, or whatever. But the fact of the matter is, there was only ONE exhibitor at that show (at least, only one I could find) who was able to show a full screen of video with graphics overlays. (Whoops, I take it back, there were two, but the second one required two boards plus software.) I had to laugh to see all these people cooing over the "cute little video window," when to me it was a bug, not a feature. Oh well. I work for a video production company, so I'm prejudiced towards being able to see the video in all its glory, not having it squeezed into a teensy window. :-) Advantages of video-inna-window: it's cheap! The Mac cards sell in the $400-$999 range, whereas the full-video-with-overlay card (NuVista+) is gonna set you back a couple thou at least. it's cute. Uhh... that's about it. Disadvantages: Most of the ones I saw were 256-color cards, which doesn't quite cut it. Notice that the demos they show on these puppies are mostly very colorful--actually the right approach for a 256-color board, because then you notice the riot of color. But try this: watch any scene you please from, say, "Lawrence of Arabia"--what you'll see is that in pictures where there are subtle gradations of tone, like the umptey-ump shades of "sand" in Lawrence, there is a lot of posterization (sharp breaks in color rather than blends). Also, many of the less expensive cards ran at 15fps rather than 30. NOBODY at a booth showing one of these cards volunteered this information, though they would state it when asked. Does anyone reading this group have a DigiTV or DigiColor card, the one for the Mac that does vid-inna-window for something like $395 B&W or $695 color? Even though they're sorta limited, I CAN think of a couple of really neat things one could do with them, and the price is certainly right! --K -- ........................................................................... : Kathy Strong : "Try our Hubble-Rita: just one shot, : : (Clouds moving slowly) : and everything's blurry" : : clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu : --El Arroyo : :..........................................................................:
sac@Apple.COM (Steve Cisler) (11/28/90)
I've been very happy with the RasterOps Color 364 board. 24 bit color, real time video windows (quarter screen and full screen) and ability to use it as a single or multiple frame grabber with various tools to manipulate the image. There is also a Desk Accessory so you can use it with a graphics program like Adobe PhotoShop. Price is about $1295 retail. It also serves as your graphics card.
wilcox@hydra.unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) (11/30/90)
In article <46896@apple.Apple.COM> sac@Apple.COM (Steve Cisler) writes: >I've been very happy with the RasterOps Color 364 board. 24 bit color, >real time video windows (quarter screen and full screen) and ability >to use it as a single or multiple frame grabber with various tools >to manipulate the image. There is also a Desk Accessory so you can >use it with a graphics program like Adobe PhotoShop. Price is about >$1295 retail. It also serves as your graphics card. Not only that, but RasterOps supplies an XCMD which lets you control every aspect of the card from Hypercard, or any other program that can execute an XCMD (FoxBase, MicroPhone, etc etc).
taylorj@yvax.byu.edu (11/30/90)
In <40244@ut-emx.uucp>, clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) writes: >Heh... when video multimedia solutions were first appearing on the Mac >platform, Apple endorsed a "two-screen" solution--your control stuff, >graphic overlays and so on showed up on one screen (typically the little >one :-) and your video went on another. A kludgey solution but I guess it >saved the trouble of making a true overlay card or something. Trouble is, >it became obvious that the two-screen solution was a flop with users-- >something about having to swivel back and forth, no cues that "now it's >time to look at the OTHER screen," and so on... I disagree (ok, so I'm not always so agreeable ;-). In many cases having video and computer graphics in the same window is very nice. It lets you use the computer graphics to emphasize or manipulate the video image, it lets the user interact directly with the video (i.e. pointing to things), and it looks terribly snazzy. But there are a number of arguments for the "low tech" solution of a separate video monitor. I have conducted informal studies that indicate students often prefer 2 separate monitors. It let's them distinguish between the computer and the video (which can be important when teaching about a video, such as in a cinematography program using Citizen Kane as an example). It also give you twice the screen real estate so you can use the computer screen for a videodisc controller, a transcript of the audio track, a synchronized explanation, etc. And perhaps most importantly, a $200 television monitor is a lot cheaper than a $1500 full-screen overlay card (not to mention that you tie yourself to complex hardware that may go bad from a vendor that may not be around forever.) I admit that video overlay is a lot funner, and is indispensable in many situations, but you'd be surprised at the number of projects I've worked on where we've decided to use two monitors instead of one, even when cost was not an object. Jim Taylor Microcomputer Support for Curriculum | Brigham Young University | Bitnet: taylorj@byuvax.bitnet 101 HRCB, Provo, UT 84602 | Internet: taylorj@yvax.byu.edu
clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) (12/02/90)
In article <1853taylorj@yvax.byu.edu> taylorj@yvax.byu.edu writes: >In <40244@ut-emx.uucp>, clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (I) wrote: > >>Heh... when video multimedia solutions were first appearing on the Mac >>platform, Apple endorsed a "two-screen" solution--your control stuff, >>graphic overlays and so on showed up on one screen (typically the little >>one :-) and your video went on another. A kludgey solution but I guess it >>saved the trouble of making a true overlay card or something. Trouble is, >>it became obvious that the two-screen solution was a flop with users-- >>something about having to swivel back and forth, no cues that "now it's >>time to look at the OTHER screen," and so on... > >I disagree (ok, so I'm not always so agreeable ;-). Why, you disagreeable thing, you! >... But there are a number of arguments for the "low tech" >solution of a separate video monitor. I have conducted informal studies that >indicate students often prefer 2 separate monitors. It let's them distinguish >between the computer and the video (which can be important when teaching about >a video, such as in a cinematography program using Citizen Kane as an example). Hmm, I don't quite follow your argument here. What exactly would be on the computer (the overlay) that a student might confuse with the video? typically we use overlays for things like <<Rewind} <Step Back} {Step Fwd> {Fast Fwd>> buttons, or a Help button... surely no one would confuse those items or mistake them for something Orson Welles put in..? >It also give you twice the screen real estate so you can use the computer >screen for a videodisc controller, a transcript of the audio track, a >synchronized explanation, etc. True, but in all those cases you'd be moving your eyes (and your attention) from the video to the other thing--why did you spend all that money on that luscious beautiful video if they're not going to watch it? :-) >And perhaps most importantly, a $200 television >monitor is a lot cheaper than a $1500 full-screen overlay card (not to mention >that you tie yourself to complex hardware that may go bad from a vendor that >may not be around forever.) > Now, that argument I'll buy. At our company we get around the real-estate problem the old-fashioned way: we throw money at it. :-) Using 19" and 21" monitors gives you a huge picture, lots of space for even the fattest fingers to do accurate touch-screen coordinates--and all for only mumble megabux. >I admit that video overlay is a lot funner, and is indispensable in many >situations, but you'd be surprised at the number of projects I've worked on >where we've decided to use two monitors instead of one, even when cost was not >an object. > Actually, neither you nor I addressed a case where two screens REALLY makes sense: control-panel simulations. I saw a tape of a system where the video screen was at eye level to a seated user, and the second "computer" screen was mounted underneath it, more or less at hand level, tilted to the same angle as a keyboard. I forget what industrial process it simulated, but you get the idea... Flight simulator is as good an example as any. So I admit, you're right, a lot of my preference for a single-screen solution is due to the fact that (a) it's more fun, and (b) I'm not the one paying for it. But I still think my objections--particularly the "should I be looking at screen A or screen B now?"--still hold. Agreeably disagreeably yours, --K -- ........................................................................... : Kathy Strong : "Try our Hubble-Rita: just one shot, : : (Clouds moving slowly) : and everything's blurry" : : clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu : --El Arroyo : :..........................................................................:
taylorj@yvax.byu.edu (12/04/90)
In <40474@ut-emx.uucp>, clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) writes: >>... But there are a number of arguments for the "low tech" >>solution of a separate video monitor. I have conducted informal studies that >>indicate students often prefer 2 separate monitors. It let's them >>distinguish >>between the computer and the video (which can be important when teaching >>about >>a video, such as in a cinematography program using Citizen Kane as an >>example). > >Hmm, I don't quite follow your argument here. What exactly would be on the >computer (the overlay) that a student might confuse with the video? typically >we use overlays for things like <<Rewind} <Step Back} {Step Fwd> {Fast Fwd>> >buttons, or a Help button... surely no one would confuse those items >or mistake them for something Orson Welles put in..? What I meant was conceptual distinction. That is, the student can say "this is the computer over here" and "this is the movie over here", "I look at this screen for information about the movie and the other screen to just watch the movie." Admittedly, this is a minor point, but it's one that's been pointed out to me by students actually using the system. The students appreciate having the transcript and other other information on one screen and the video on the other so they can choose which one to pay attention to at any time. As far as the "which screen should I be looking at now" question goes, our natural assumption is that this would be a problem, but my experience (contrary to my expectations) has shown that it's not. Proper design of the interface probably makes a difference. If anyone has any emprical evidence to counter this, I would very much like to hear it. (So I can use it as an argument to get fancier hardware!) Jim Taylor Microcomputer Support for Curriculum | Brigham Young University | Bitnet: taylorj@byuvax.bitnet 101 HRCB, Provo, UT 84602 | Internet: taylorj@yvax.byu.edu