The Best Primary Graphics Cards for DVD
Nick Colosimo
decoder card) that will support DVD with some form of assistance such as
motion compensation and scaling.
READ THIS FIRST:
The best cards in my experience of building systems, seeing the results,
and consensus from the net, is as follows.
The best cards first:
1. ATI Rage 128 (Rage Fury etc)
Incorporates motion compensation and iDCT. This is the dogs bollocks for
DVD. Quality with the ATI DVD player / Cinemaster software is
unbelievable and full frame rate at 1280x1024x24bit on a Pentium II
266MHz!!
Cost £65+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ATI Rage Pro Expert@Play 8MB AGP/PCI
Incorporates an excellent motion compensation feature and is far better
than any of the below by a long way. Not quite the above but nearly.
Full frame rate at 1280x1024x24bit colour at top quality!!! Yes and this
is with a Celeron 333MHz using just about any of the available DVD
softwares!!
and the cost - £20!! Yes believe it!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The rest in no particular order but all have hardware assist DVD
decoding:
Savage 2000 - probably the best of this bunch
Geforce256 - I get occasional dropped frames at 800x600 on a CeleronA
333MHz with Power DVD which supports the Geforce. Quality not fantastic
either. Although I have to do some tweaking yet. WinDVD 2000 may offer
better.
Cost £160 for boggo standard version.
Voodoo3 - Tried Celeron 466 and this was fine. Smooth with all players.
Cost for V3 3000 £80
TNT1 and 2 - Not tried personally but along the lines of the Geforce
In terms of 3D game performance - buy a Geforce or a Voodoo3 3000 it
really is the only way to go if this is mainly your thing. The drivers
are superb for games.
For sheer 2D productivity (graphics design etc.) then I rate the cheap
ATI cards and the support for mainstream 2D.
Bobby@work
3dFX are generic accelerators so the improvement isn't as great as with some
cards. But 3dFX is supported by Win2K unlike all the other cards you
mentioned.
"Nick Colosimo" <nic...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38C5B4FA...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk...
Chris Ashby
Nick Colosimo wrote in message <38C5B4FA...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk>...
GeForce has MC I believe. TNT only has the YUV overlay. Not great standalone
for DVD.
Kevin Forde
>
>
>
Nick, I realise you might be reticent to give anything away ever again, but
go on this once... tell us just a _little_ more than this -just this once.
:^)
Mark Charsley
nic...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk (Nick Colosimo) wrote:
You've got to be careful declaring a card to be better than another. There
are at least 3 main criteria:
1) hardware assistance.
2) Monitor picture quality.
3) TV picture quality
Different people will rate these differently in importance. Anyone with a
fast PIII or Athlon will only care about 1) if they're running another
program in the background. On the other hand, as you point out owners of
Celerons/PII's/K6's will be substantially better off with an ATi card.
Most people will only care about one of 2) and 3). Both will depend on the
quality of DAMDAC's and analogue filters on the card (which can vary
between cards of the same chipset: e.g. a Creative GeForce may well have a
different picture quality to an Asus GeForce). 3) also will depend on the
card->TV connection. AFAIAA only the Matrox G400 allows RGB connnection to
TV's: all other cards are limited to S-Video, or even composite.
Recent comments on www.dvdfile.com seem to indicate that a GeForce card
gives a better picture quality than the ATi cards - if (and it's a very
important if) the CPU is up to the task. Not having seen an ATi card in
action, I can't confirm this for myself, but there is definitely more to
choosing the "best" card for DVD playback than the level of hardware
decompression assitance
--
Mark (in a personal capacity)
John Willis
But
> 3dFX are generic accelerators so the improvement isn't as great as with
some
> cards. But 3dFX is supported by Win2K unlike all the other cards you
> mentioned.
You what?, 3DFX support under the release build of 2000 is poor to say the
least, The 3DFX drivers for 2000 are buggy betas and still have a long way
to go to be stable.
All the other cards have Win2000 drivers, and ALL of them work fine with the
various software players that support Win2K and the cards motion
compensation, I write that after having played with setup's based around all
the cards mentioned under Win2000.
--
Regards
John
Read the UK.MEDIA.DVD FAQ at
http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/umdvdfaq/
'Will Heaven be like Swansea?'
'Yes, but a lot bigger'
Richard Hopkins
"Nick Colosimo" wrote in message...
> So your thinking of buying a graphics card (not a specific hardware
> decoder card) that will support DVD with some form of assistance
> such as motion compensation and scaling.
If they are your requirements, the ATI cards are about the only contenders.
How many people do you really think buy graphics cards with these as their
*only* requirements Nick? Anyone *this* interested in DVD playback is more
likely than not to be after a dedicated card.
> READ THIS FIRST:
Why? With the best will in the world, it's hardly a proper review - in some
ways it's more like an advert, or one of those DVD Review articles that
glosses over/ignores the weakpoints of the product at hand.
> The best cards first:
>
> 1. ATI Rage 128 (Rage Fury etc)
> Incorporates motion compensation and iDCT. This is the dogs bollocks
> for DVD.
Debatable. Anyone wanting the true 'dogs bollocks for DVD' in a PC would
probably get a dedicated card like the 3DFusion. If your prospective buyer
wants an all-round card with good DVD support, the choice is nowhere near as
clear cut as you make out.
While the hardware DVD acceleration on the Rage128 is handy for owners of
slower PC's, the card's limitations in other areas pose a big questionmark
to anyone considering it for all-round use in a PC that would in any case be
quick enough to perform 'unassisted' MPEG2 decompression (which is most of
them nowadays).
You are also unequivocally recommending a card that has *very* poor TV
output quality and utililisation (as well as a monitor output that only
ranks as mediocre nowadays). How on earth can you recommend this as being
the 'dogs bollocks' for DVD when it has a problem like that?
> Quality with the ATI DVD player / Cinemaster software is
> unbelievable
Rather depends on what else you've seen.
> and full frame rate at 1280x1024x24bit on a Pentium II
> 266MHz!!
That's a complete red herring. The DVD playback is working in an overlay,
it's not upscaling the window to 1280 pixels wide, as you appear to be
suggesting. The DVD playback should be no different at 1280 x 1024 than it
is at 800 by 600.
> In terms of 3D game performance - buy a Geforce or a Voodoo3 3000 it
> really is the only way to go if this is mainly your thing. The drivers
> are superb for games.
>
> For sheer 2D productivity (graphics design etc.) then I rate the cheap
> ATI cards and the support for mainstream 2D.
Yeuch. You obviously don't do much in the way of graphics or design. The
output quality of the current ATI cards (to a monitor) is dreadful at the
resolutions typically employed for this sort of work - fuzz city.
The ATI drivers may have been upgraded since the last time I saw any (around
last November), but at that time, they weren't very good. These cards may be
cheap, but they're not very good all-rounders nowadays. For around £65 (plus
or including VAT?) there are certainly a number of alternatives with a
better all-round combination of strengths.
--
Richard Hopkins,
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Send all my spam to: duise...@reichstag.de
Nick Colosimo
Nick Colosimo
I cant comment on Win 2000 since I dont wanna touch it with Daley Thompson's
pole vaulting thing. 63,000 "known" bugs and issues (official memo from MS
corp).
Not yet!
Nick Colosimo
My apologies for not mentioning one important things (or 3):
Picture Quality is as on a Monitor and NOT thru the TV-Out. All TV-Outs I've seen are pretty crap. The best I have
seen is in fact the ATI TV Out which is S-vid but still quite poor. V3 TV-out is pretty pants.
No mention of Gfx performance in other areas is mentioned that is true (well almost - it's mentioned at the end).
Going to higher resolutions doesn't necessarily mean better picture quality but it defines how well the card does
the scaling (interpolation between pixels).
Hope this helps
Nick
Kevin Forde
Nick Colosimo <nic...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38C6B40E...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk...
John Willis
Made me laugh, mind you MS's admited to testers when Win95 shipped of over
200,000 'issues'. ;-)
Chris Vila
AMD k62 300 (not the best for dvd decoding) with the UT2 full frames no
problems, i would reccoment one of these over a ATI any day, besides ATI
suck for hard core games.
Nick Colosimo <nic...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38C5B4FA...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk...
> So your thinking of buying a graphics card (not a specific hardware
> decoder card) that will support DVD with some form of assistance such as
> motion compensation and scaling.
>
> READ THIS FIRST:
>
> The best cards in my experience of building systems, seeing the results,
> and consensus from the net, is as follows.
>
> The best cards first:
>
> 1. ATI Rage 128 (Rage Fury etc)
> Incorporates motion compensation and iDCT. This is the dogs bollocks for
> DVD. Quality with the ATI DVD player / Cinemaster software is
> unbelievable and full frame rate at 1280x1024x24bit on a Pentium II
> 266MHz!!
>
> Cost £65+
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
>
> 2. ATI Rage Pro Expert@Play 8MB AGP/PCI
> Incorporates an excellent motion compensation feature and is far better
> than any of the below by a long way. Not quite the above but nearly.
> Full frame rate at 1280x1024x24bit colour at top quality!!! Yes and this
> is with a Celeron 333MHz using just about any of the available DVD
> softwares!!
>
> and the cost - £20!! Yes believe it!!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
>
> 3. The rest in no particular order but all have hardware assist DVD
> decoding:
>
> Savage 2000 - probably the best of this bunch
>
> Geforce256 - I get occasional dropped frames at 800x600 on a CeleronA
> 333MHz with Power DVD which supports the Geforce. Quality not fantastic
> either. Although I have to do some tweaking yet. WinDVD 2000 may offer
> better.
> Cost £160 for boggo standard version.
>
> Voodoo3 - Tried Celeron 466 and this was fine. Smooth with all players.
> Cost for V3 3000 £80
>
> TNT1 and 2 - Not tried personally but along the lines of the Geforce
>
>
>
>
mkent99
Pro is the best available for doing DVD, as for gamers the
Geforce DDR card is the one to have, but for certain games the
Voodoo based cards are the best, i.e for games with Glide
support, not many I agree but they are the best. For a good
allround solution, buy a Geforce and also get a Hardware decoder
card such as the Hollywood +.
If you are after a DVD playing P.C with little or no interest in
Games then get the ATI card. Have a read of this review of DVD
playing graphic cards...
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/dvd_benchmarking/
Here is something from that article:
snip....
Its no surprise that ATi has some of the best video acceleration
available and the proof is in the pudding. With the mid-range
Rage Fury Pro taking first and the high-end Rage Fury MAXX taking
a close second, it's apparent that for the best in DVD playback,
ATi is the way to go.
unsnip.....
The next generation of Graphics cards are just around the corner,
the new Voodoo cards will be out in the next 2-3 months and the
next generation of cards based on the new Nvidia chipset will be
available in 3-4 months so whatever you buy now it will be out of
date pretty soon, but isn't that always the case :(
Ultimatly the best solution for DVD is a standalone player and as
you can get an Awesome player that has been chipped for the price
of an average P.C then thats the best way. Even if you have an
existing P.C and want to add DVD capabilities you will still pay
more than a standalone DVD player. i.e
DVD Drive £50 (at least)
Graphics card (Geforce of ATi Rage Fury) £150ish
From a personal point of view I have for the last 6-9 months been
using a P.C for DVD and have been more than pleased with the
quality. For decoding I use the H+ connected to my T.V via a SVhs
lead with the audio connected to my Pro Logic amp and the whole
thing controlled by the Real Magic Remote control as the TV is
downstairs and the P.C Upstairs, it is now a pleasure to use it.
The picture quality is superb as is the sound, all I need now is
a 5.1 amp. I have been persuaded by my girlfriend to get a
standalone player as she doesn't like to have to turn the P.C
on to watch a film so I have ordered the Sammy 709. From what I
have read the picture quality should be better than my P.C
outputs so I can't wait to see that, as I cannot believe that it
could get any better.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chris Ashby
that as pretty unwatchable. I don't know how you managed "no problems".
It can barely manage 16fps.
Chris Vila wrote in message ...
Nick Colosimo
Christ - software is just pants!
Nick
Nick Colosimo
Kevin Forde wrote:
> Is... BW r d i TSS? :)
>
> Nick Colosimo <nic...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:38C6B40E...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk...
> > LOL! What do u need to know? :-)
> >
> > Kevin Forde wrote:
> >
> > > Nick Colosimo <nic...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:38C6182A...@nickgrc.demon.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > >
Nick Colosimo
I'm finally just getting out of the dog-house on that one. Jesus! (Yes, yes,
Ok, Ok, it WAS my fault I admit - Doh)
Nick Colosimo
Nick Colosimo
Smart move. The hardware solutions are still the best but against say an ATi
Rage card they isn't a whole lot in it. Still I have both - 709 and PC solution.
I dont watch that many on the PC - only when I really like a film and I want to
see a crisp unblurred picture. TVs tend to do this things due to the large point
spread function of the display.
Richard Hopkins
"Nick Colosimo" wrote in message...
Don't apologise to us, apologise to anyone who went out and bought a card
based on your advert, sorry, post.
> Picture Quality is as on a Monitor and NOT thru the TV-Out.
In which case the point remains that the output quality of the ATI cards
isn't very good anyway. Saying these cards are usable for graphics/design
work is a joke!
> All TV-Outs I've seen are pretty crap.
No they're not. The ones you've seen obviously are, but that only proves
that your experience is limited.
> The best I have seen is in fact the ATI TV Out which is S-vid but
> still quite poor.
The Matrox G400 TV output is excellent. Via both composite and S-Video it is
comparable to a decent standalone DVD player. It also does RGB output to
SCART, which puts it ahead of virtually any other TV outputting graphics
card you could name. The implementation of the TV output is also streets
ahead of practically anything else - to the extent that it allows the use of
a TV as a supplement to a 'proper' monitor in ways other cards don't even
attempt.
It is more processor dependent (for DVD playback) than the ATI cards, but is
a far better all-round performer than the Rage128. Then again, you didn't
mention either issue in your first post, so I can only assume you don't care
about them. Other buyers may be a little more concerned however...
> TV-out is pretty pants.
Not when it's properly implemented.
> No mention of Gfx performance in other areas is mentioned that is true
(well
> almost - it's mentioned at the end).
...Which is a bit of a glaring omission for an article that claims to review
*all-round* graphics cards. If you were attempting to review hardware MPEG
cards, this almost total concentration on DVD performancec may be justified.
You weren't and it isn't.
> Going to higher resolutions doesn't necessarily mean better picture
> quality but it defines how well the card does the scaling
> (interpolation between pixels).
No it doesn't. Under DirectX, the cards aren't interpolating at all Nick,
no matter what the desktop resolution. The DVD display is an overlay,
working at its native resolution.
> Hope this helps
Not really. At the end of the day, if someone's looking to buy a graphics
card, there are large numbers of websites that review such hardware more
objectively than you have, or are likely to.
Steve Ives
I have just purchased a G400 MAX and was wondering if you had any more
information about the TV-out to RGB SCART. Is this via a Matrox adapter, or
an OEM or home made cable?
Thanks in advance for any information.
Steve
Richard Hopkins <ri...@dial.pipex.nospam> wrote in message
news:8a9uuq$6jp$4...@lure.pipex.net...
>
<snip>
> The Matrox G400 TV output is excellent. Via both composite and S-Video it
is
> comparable to a decent standalone DVD player. It also does RGB output to
> SCART, which puts it ahead of virtually any other TV outputting graphics
> card you could name. The implementation of the TV output is also streets
> ahead of practically anything else - to the extent that it allows the use
of
> a TV as a supplement to a 'proper' monitor in ways other cards don't even
> attempt.
<snip>
Nick Colosimo
Richard Hopkins wrote:
> "Nick Colosimo" wrote in message...
> > My apologies for not mentioning one important things (or 3):
>
> Don't apologise to us, apologise to anyone who went out and bought a card
> based on your advert, sorry, post.
Anyone that goes out and buys a video card on the advice of one guy on an
anonymous NG wants his head testing? Did you buy one?
>
>
> > Picture Quality is as on a Monitor and NOT thru the TV-Out.
>
> In which case the point remains that the output quality of the ATI cards
> isn't very good anyway. Saying these cards are usable for graphics/design
> work is a joke!
This is complete twoddle. Fast 2D and a fast RAMDAC is all that is required for
graphic design and these card offfer it for a competive price.
>
>
> > All TV-Outs I've seen are pretty crap.
>
> No they're not. The ones you've seen obviously are, but that only proves
> that your experience is limited.
Hmmmm. Name one that you've seen that rivals a dedicated hardware card? IMHO ATI
ones are the best I've seen. And I've seen all of em.
>
>
> > The best I have seen is in fact the ATI TV Out which is S-vid but
> > still quite poor.
>
> The Matrox G400 TV output is excellent. Via both composite and S-Video it is
> comparable to a decent standalone DVD player. It also does RGB output to
> SCART, which puts it ahead of virtually any other TV outputting graphics
> card you could name.
True.
> The implementation of the TV output is also streets
> ahead of practically anything else - to the extent that it allows the use of
> a TV as a supplement to a 'proper' monitor in ways other cards don't even
> attempt.
>
> It is more processor dependent (for DVD playback) than the ATI cards, but is
> a far better all-round performer than the Rage128. Then again, you didn't
> mention either issue in your first post, so I can only assume you don't care
> about them. Other buyers may be a little more concerned however...
Mentioned it at the end if you care to read it.
>
>
> > TV-out is pretty pants.
>
> Not when it's properly implemented.
>
> > No mention of Gfx performance in other areas is mentioned that is true
> (well
> > almost - it's mentioned at the end).
>
> ...Which is a bit of a glaring omission for an article that claims to review
> *all-round* graphics cards.
Err no. It was the Use of an All Round Gfx card for DVD. Not selection of an ALL
Round Gfx card!
> If you were attempting to review hardware MPEG
> cards, this almost total concentration on DVD performancec may be justified.
> You weren't and it isn't.
eh. Have u been drinking?
>
>
> > Going to higher resolutions doesn't necessarily mean better picture
> > quality but it defines how well the card does the scaling
> > (interpolation between pixels).
>
> No it doesn't. Under DirectX, the cards aren't interpolating at all Nick,
> no matter what the desktop resolution. The DVD display is an overlay,
> working at its native resolution.
Which is an interpolation. What the hell do you think an overlay is - the scotch
mist.
>
>
> > Hope this helps
>
> Not really. At the end of the day, if someone's looking to buy a graphics
> card, there are large numbers of websites that review such hardware more
> objectively than you have, or are likely to.
It was just a quickie to let them know that there are 2 very cost effective
cards out there that do great 2D and excellent DVD on the monitor (and not too
bad thru S-vid on the TV out).
>
> --
>
> Richard Hopkins,
> (replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>
> Send all my spam to: duise...@reichstag.de
Chill out man.
Nick
Richard Hopkins
"Steve Ives" wrote in message...
> I have just purchased a G400 MAX and was wondering if you had
> any more information about the TV-out to RGB SCART. Is this via
> a Matrox adapter, or an OEM or home made cable?
While it's eminently possible that Matrox or an OEM may at some point market
a ready made G400 to (RGB) SCART cable, AFAIK there isn't one available as
yet. You'll have to do a bit of DIY at some point. The only question is
exactly the approach you adopt.
You can (if you want) use the existing phono/mini-DIN adapter as the basis
for an RGB cable. Once the DualHead property sheet is configured correctly,
the mini-DIN contains outputs for R, G, B and ground, and the phono line
socket obviously carries composite.
The best option though would be to fabricate your own cable from scratch.
I've already posted instructions on the construction of such a cable here,
so in the first instance I'd suggest searching on Déja using the search
words G400 and RGB. If that doesn't find the post, let me know and I'll
repeat it.
Richard Hopkins
"Nick Colosimo" wrote in message...
> guy on an anonymous NG wants his head testing?
Of course. So what on earth was the point?
> Did you buy one?
As if. I've read your posts before...
> This is complete twoddle.
Er, nope. It's reality.
> Fast 2D and a fast RAMDAC is all that is required for
> graphic design
<g> Go and post that sentence in a graphics/CAD group and see how long it
takes for you to get laughed at.
Fast 2D performance and a fast RAMDAC are two of the attributes necessary
for a good CAD card, but they're not the only ones by any stretch of the
imagination. A *good* RAMDAC and equally competent analog stage are equally
important. Without these, the output quality will be poor, and if you've
ever actually tried to work with a Rage based card at 1600 by 1200 on a
really good monitor (and compared the output with other cards), you'd
quickly see where the shortcomings are.
> and these card offfer it for a competive price.
They don't offer anything approaching real modern CAD/graphics capability,
and
don't claim to either.
> Hmmmm. Name one that you've seen that rivals a dedicated hardware
> card?
On a quick system, I've already named one.
> IMHO ATI ones are the best I've seen. And I've seen all of em.
Really? Doesn't look like it from your post. You didn't mention the Elsa
cards (positively or negatively) for starters.
> Mentioned it <all-round performance> at the end if you care to read it.
I did read it. The 'mention' was totally cursory. Even you admitted as such
in another response.
> It was the Use of an All Round Gfx card for DVD. Not selection of
> an ALL Round Gfx card!
Quite, and as I mentioned previously, anyone interested in DVD performance
(to the exclusion of everything else) would have a dedicated MPEG decoder
card in addition to a standard graphics card.
> > If you were attempting to review hardware MPEG cards, this almost
> > total concentration on DVD performancec may be justified.
> > You weren't and it isn't.
>
> eh. Have u been drinking?
No, and aside from the typo at the end of 'performance', that passage makes
perfect sense. Can't *you* read?
> > No it doesn't. Under DirectX, the cards aren't interpolating at all
> > Nick, no matter what the desktop resolution. The DVD display is
> > an overlay, working at its native resolution.
>
> Which is an interpolation.
No it isn't.
> What the hell do you think an overlay is - the scotch mist.
<g> No. Overlays are hardware specific surfaces that exist *independently*
of and *on top of* the primary surface. The overlay exists at its native
resolution and colour configuration. The YUV video frames from the DVD and
the RGB primary surface video frames are keyed and then merged in the DAC.
This is why the DVD performance is identical no matter what the desktop
resolution (within the constraints imposed by the card's memory), and also
why you can have Windows running on an 8 bit palette and still be able to
watch DVD's in full colour without the posterisation that affects true
colour images outside the overlay.
> It was just a quickie to let them know that there are 2 very cost
> effective cards out there that do great 2D
<g> In *your* opinion.
> (and not too bad thru S-vid on the TV out).
'Not too bad'. That's odd, as earlier you wrote...
> TV-out is pretty pants.
Please define the terms 'not too bad' and 'pretty pants', as you appear to
be using them interchangeably...
> Chill out man.
I'm perfectly 'chilled' ta.
Nick Colosimo
I forgive you my son. Please let me re-iterate to clarify your confusion:
This post is for people with not a lot of cash. It is for the average home-user
that would like to do a bit good quality DVD on the side without splashing out
a fortune on a Pentium III 600MHz CPU or a flashy graphics card.
My point is that this can be achieved with the 2 ATI cards mentioned. Very
little CPU usage is taken up when performing DVD decoding using these cards -
less than any other. This is a fact.
The output quality to a monitor with the Cinemaster / ATI DVD player is
probably one of the best their is from a combined solution card. I accept that
the MAtrox G400 is a decent card also but it places a heavy burden on the CPU,
is relatively expensive, 3D performance is below par, although image "quality"
IS exceptional. Dont talk to me about benchmarking programs either because they
mean relatively nothing.
The ATI Rage Pro is a poor 3D card in terms of raw horsepower/performance
although it can display at 1600x1200 in 16 bit at 70Hz ish due to 8MB of
combined video memory and reasonable RAMDAC. The Rage 128 is much better at 3D
in terms of increased image quality and significantly faster performance. Not
quite a Voodoo 3 3000 beater but almost.
When I mentioned the use of the cards for graphic design etc. you failed to
appreciate the context of this whole discussion. That is to say we are talking
about which combined "home-user"cards do the best DVD decoding. NO PROFESSIONAL
ON EARTH WOULD CONSIDER DOING CAD/full blown DTP etc ON ANY OF THESE CARDS. We
are talking about the home user doing things on the cheap dabbling in graphic
design and DTP as I do.
Now in response to your specific questions:
Richard Hopkins wrote:
> "Nick Colosimo" wrote in message...
> > Anyone that goes out and buys a video card on the advice of one
> > guy on an anonymous NG wants his head testing?
>
> Of course. So what on earth was the point?
It's a little starter for 10 for the unitiated.
>
>
> > Did you buy one?
>
> As if. I've read your posts before...
LOL. Well I may not have the best NG etiquette (albeit much better now) or be
able to explain the full advantages of Widescreen TV but I do know image
processing since it represented 2 of my major modules of my degree (1st class
BSc joint Hons Electronics / Applied Physics). +10 years in the aerospace
industry much of it working on simulation.
What was your degree in?
>
>
> > This is complete twoddle.
>
> Er, nope. It's reality.
Cant remember the Q.
>
>
> > Fast 2D and a fast RAMDAC is all that is required for
> > graphic design
>
> <g> Go and post that sentence in a graphics/CAD group and see how long it
> takes for you to get laughed at.
In the context of this thread (HOMEUSER on a budget - e.g. whilst this was not
stated explicity in the original post anyone with a brain cell could work it
out - e.g. if you want to do quality DVD and you have some money to spend then
buy a standalone player / a hardware card therefore the thread was clearly not
for you).
>
>
> Fast 2D performance and a fast RAMDAC are two of the attributes necessary
> for a good CAD card, but they're not the only ones by any stretch of the
> imagination. A *good* RAMDAC and equally competent analog stage are equally
> important.
Define good. Now, I could have gone into SNRs and impedence aspects but since
this thread was for the home user there aint much point confusing them anymore
than you have done already.
Define "equally competent analogue stage" - you clearly have no clue what your
talking about. Do you work in Tescos?
> Without these, the output quality will be poor, and if you've
> ever actually tried to work with a Rage based card at 1600 by 1200 on a
> really good monitor (and compared the output with other cards), you'd
> quickly see where the shortcomings are.
The homeuser doesnt use 1600x1200 res on a £500+ monitor. Why the hell would
they buy a combined card to do DVD with money like this. Get a grid of the
situation here.
>
>
> > and these card offfer it for a competive price.
>
> They don't offer anything approaching real modern CAD/graphics capability,
> and
> don't claim to either.
Never mentioned CAD. But they'll deliver it for Autosketch and even Autocad (in
2D). I should know I've used them. My other degree (equivalent that is) is in
Mechatronics (electro-mechanical design) which includes CAD!
>
>
> > Hmmmm. Name one that you've seen that rivals a dedicated hardware
> > card?
>
> On a quick system, I've already named one.
Magic word "Quick". You've already seen my comments on the Matrox.
>
>
> > IMHO ATI ones are the best I've seen. And I've seen all of em.
>
> Really? Doesn't look like it from your post. You didn't mention the Elsa
> cards (positively or negatively) for starters.
It was never a comprehensive review. Which Elsa's are you referring to since
there are many?
>
>
> > Mentioned it <all-round performance> at the end if you care to read it.
>
> I did read it. The 'mention' was totally cursory. Even you admitted as such
> in another response.
True. No need to go that deep or people (the intended audience) will just fall
asleep.
The problem is that a lot of people want to get a PC / upgrade so that they can
do DVD.
My point is you can do this well and cheap without spending £1200 at PC World /
Tiny.
>
>
> > It was the Use of an All Round Gfx card for DVD. Not selection of
> > an ALL Round Gfx card!
>
> Quite, and as I mentioned previously, anyone interested in DVD performance
> (to the exclusion of everything else) would have a dedicated MPEG decoder
> card in addition to a standard graphics card.
Agreed.
>
>
> > > If you were attempting to review hardware MPEG cards, this almost
> > > total concentration on DVD performancec may be justified.
> > > You weren't and it isn't.
> >
> > eh. Have u been drinking?
>
> No, and aside from the typo at the end of 'performance', that passage makes
> perfect sense. Can't *you* read?
LOL
>
>
> > > No it doesn't. Under DirectX, the cards aren't interpolating at all
> > > Nick, no matter what the desktop resolution. The DVD display is
> > > an overlay, working at its native resolution.
> >
> > Which is an interpolation.
>
> No it isn't.
Oh yes it is.
Quick lesson for you. The frame buffer - region of a video card's memory (which
tends to be combined for use with textures these days) dedicated to providing
the digital values used top feed the RAMDAC. These digital values represent the
picture.
The picture is made up of dots (pixels - picture elements) at a predefined
resolution. This resolution may be higher than the resolution of the DVD being
played in which case YUV *MAY* come into play. This overlay technique works by
stretching the image pixels to fit the screen resolution which is an
interpolation. It it did not "stretch" the image to fit the bigger screen
resolution then the DVD movie would appear as a shrunken box on the screen.
I can get more technical if I could really be arsed with your pointless
twoddle.
>
>
> > What the hell do you think an overlay is - the scotch mist.
>
> <g> No. Overlays are hardware specific surfaces that exist *independently*
> of and *on top of* the primary surface. The overlay exists at its native
> resolution and colour configuration. The YUV video frames from the DVD and
> the RGB primary surface video frames are keyed and then merged in the DAC.
The bottom line is that the image appears on the monitor at the graphics card
resolution. Try it. Check the bandwidth of the monitor-gfx card connection and
you will find it to be the same.
>
>
> This is why the DVD performance is identical no matter what the desktop
> resolution (within the constraints imposed by the card's memory), and also
> why you can have Windows running on an 8 bit palette and still be able to
> watch DVD's in full colour without the posterisation that affects true
> colour images outside the overlay.
Sort of true. But try it out and you will notice a difference. Ask anyone!
>
>
> > It was just a quickie to let them know that there are 2 very cost
> > effective cards out there that do great 2D
>
> <g> In *your* opinion.
Ofcourse its my opinion. Its obvious.
>
>
> > (and not too bad thru S-vid on the TV out).
>
> 'Not too bad'. That's odd, as earlier you wrote...
>
> > TV-out is pretty pants.
>
> Please define the terms 'not too bad' and 'pretty pants', as you appear to
> be using them interchangeably...
They mean the same. I am not going to start talking about RAMDAC signal to
noise ratios, rejection ratios, etc. etc. in this sort of post. It is based
entirely on my own *qualitative* observations which IS what I stated already in
the original post.
Nick Colosimo
si...@my-deja.com
"Richard Hopkins" <ri...@dial.pipex.nospam> wrote:
>
> While it's eminently possible that Matrox or an OEM may at some point
market a ready made G400 to (RGB) SCART cable, AFAIK there isn't one
available as yet. You'll have to do a bit of DIY at some point. The
only question is exactly the approach you adopt.
>
> You can (if you want) use the existing phono/mini-DIN adapter as the
basis for an RGB cable. Once the DualHead property sheet is configured
correctly, the mini-DIN contains outputs for R, G, B and ground, and
the phono line socket obviously carries composite.
>
> The best option though would be to fabricate your own cable from
scratch. I've already posted instructions on the construction of such a
cable here, so in the first instance I'd suggest searching on Déja
using the search words G400 and RGB. If that doesn't find the post, let
me know and I'll repeat it.
> Richard Hopkins,
> (replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
>
> Send all my spam to: duise...@reichstag.de
I'm going to have a bash at making my own, using:
SCART signal VGA 15pin
male connector male connector
pin pin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
15 Red 1
13 Red Ground 6
11 Green 2
9 Green Ground 7
7 Blue 3
5 Blue Ground 8
20 Video 4
17 Video Ground 5
- - 12 shorted with 15 !!!
Steve
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.