Matrox MX02 capture Thunderbolt for Windows?
 

Hi , I am considering buying a Matrox MXO2 mini or maybe one of their other models?
Will it be possible to connect this to my Windows 10 lap top if i only have USB and Thunderbolt input? I will be getting a new computer and i don't think it will have an express card slot. Is it possible to add one externally and connect it via USB3 or Thunderbolt?

Will the Matrox work with Windows 10?

I see there is a Matrox MX02 that comes with Thunderbolt adaptor. Will this work with Windows system or is it only for Thunderbolt on MAC systems?

Thanks for your help

To capture what?
What is the source, the workflow?

If from VHS/analog, I'd prefer to opt for USB capture carsd, and go lossless.

To capture VHS
I was looking at the recommended devices here
http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...ti-wonder.html

Getting hard to find DVD recorders now, particularly with S-video input so i thought i should invest in a decent PC capturing device.

Specs are saying Windows 7 and 8 64 bit so i am thinking Windows 10 64bit should be ok too?

All the info i am seeing is that Thunderbolt is for Mac connection.

I have asked the laptop manufacturer is there is a PCIe express card slot in what i am looking at getting. I dont think there is. I do know it has a a USB3.0/Thunderbolt combo port so maybe that would work?

I/O ports
1 HDMI 2.0 output Port (with HDCP)
2 Mini DisplayPort 1.3 output Ports
4 USB 3.0 Ports (USB 3.1 Gen 1) (1 x powered USB port, AC/DC)
1 USB 3.1 Gen2 port (Type-C) 1 Thunderbolt 3 / USB 3.1 Gen 2 combo Port (Type-C)
1 Headphone Jack
1 Microphone Jack
1 Line-in Jack
1 S/PDIF output Jack
1 RJ-45 LAN (10/100/1000Mbps)

Slots
6-in-1 Card Reader (MMC/RSMMC/SD/Mini-SD/SDHC/SDXC)
Three M.2 Card Slots
- 1st for WLAN Combo M.2 2230 Card with PCIe and USB interface
- 2nd for SSD M.2 2280 Card with SATA / PCIe Gen3 x2/x4 interface
- 3rd for SSD M.2 2280 Card with SATA / PCIe Gen3 x2/x4 interface

Yes, it can be. I actually have a good LSI JVC that I'd part with for the right/fair price.

Maybe. With 8 supported ... maybe.

Pretty much, yep.

USB is all you need for lossless capturing.

So although the computer has Thunderbolt input, the Matrox Thunderbolt adapter may still not work?
Anybody using a Matrox with Win 10 64bit?
Might be a little risky to get one until i can get confirmation on Matrox +Windows 10 is Ok and if i am going to even have a way to be able to connect it to my computer.

What are the lossless USB capture devices you suggest?

I am not interested in a cheap $20-50 ebay/amazon dongle with a couple leads hanging out it. I tried one of those 'Easy cap' devices years ago and it did not work.

I was going to get a Canopus ADV device but then read they are not that great plus they are NLA anyway. My other thought was Black Magic Shuttle, but then i read they are crap too. So i am running out of options???

Thankyou

Unless something has changed since this forum post, it doesn't look like it is supported on windows.

There are external boxes that let you connect pci express cards via thunderbolt (expensive) or the m.2 slots (may be tricky or clunky depending on where the slots are and you will have cable hanging out of the computer), but I'm not sure if it's really a good option.
https://egpu.io/external-gpu-buyers-guide-2018/

Expresscard slots are not common on modern laptops.

The Canopus devices connect via firewire (which modern computers don't come with as standard), and use lossy compression that affects the image quality.

The main issue with the blackmagic device is that they are extremely sensitive to bad signals, which you will get with VHS recordings.

With one of these you could also capture lossless via the HDMI out if it has it with e.g a blackmagic card or something cheaper, an option I've been exploring lately. The LSI recorders have excellent analog decoders.

Well i had it confirmed that the computer does not have PCIe express card slot.
So what are the good options for PC capturing these days or more specifically 'USB lossless capturing'? I have nt hear that term used at all until yesterday.

I just read the Matrox forum thread link above. That is not good for me :( but at least i have not bought a Matrox yet so this at least has been helpful info and goes to show it pays to research first.

So should i start a new thread on lossless capture and what the best lossless capture devices are available for a modern windows 10 PC?

It's about drivers. And I don't think any Thunderbolt drivers for Windows exists for that card. Thunderbolt is mostly a Mac interface, and Windows mostly has it for cross platform hard drive usage. At least for now, from what I've seen.

I think the bigger is "is anybody using Win 10" for video. And that answer is almost always a resounding "no!" because of how bad the OS fights video hardware and software both. WinXP was the peak of analog>digital, Vista messed it up some, and then Win7 re-stabilized it some. Then came 8 and 10, which tried to murder most video workflows.

ATI 600 USB, or clones, or some specific Pinnacle cards.
Some at the site also like VC500, but I do not. I've seen too much weird stuff (AGC, levels).

Nor should you. Easycap is known as "easycrap" for a reason! :P

It seems you're up to speed then. That's the situation we all find ourselves in. The best hardware is all legacy (older OS often required), used/preowned, NOS (new old stock) at best if lucky, and nothing new/good exists. All the HD era hardware has SD as a poorly-functioning afterthought, Blackmagic especially. Quite a bit also requires a desktops for PCIe/AGP/PCI interface. For laptops, it's USB or bust.

You can. It may be best. If you do, drop a reply here referring to the new thread. :wink2:

"These days" insinuates "sold new in stores", but I must reiterate that this is not the case.

Well, the exact phrase "USB lossless capturing" isn't really a term of any kind. "Lossless capturing" is a term, and it just refers to USB cards that can do it. Yes, that does include crappy cards from the likes of Easycap, but also refers to respected cards like the ATI 600 USB and clones, certain Pinnacles, and some others. It's mostly about the capture chipsets in use.

Thanks. That answers a few things. I guess there may be the option of installing an older OS on a current hi tech computer. It is not looking like good news for me. Review on Amazon for the http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/produ..._usblive2.html seem ok for Win 10 users. I got some stuff to think about for a bit now.

If you want a quality captures you need quality hardware, I have no problems with the Intensity Shuttle, i have a Panasonic DVR/VHS combo, DMR ES35V and a JVC HR-S8960 both give rocksteady captures, and have 13" MacBookPro laptop early 2015 model, from the Panny i can capture component progressive with exellent picture quality.
The Intensity Shuttle USB you should avoid, because only a selective usb chipset will work with it, as stated on BMD's website.
The early 2015 macbookpro has Thunderbolt 2 which is a perfect match for the Intensity Shuttle with this interface,
Davinci Resolve runs also reasonable on my mac, Media Express is a great capture app. a good choice of codecs to capture with.
Video capture should be done with good hardware and a stable OS, Apple OS has a UNIX core.

I dont have a MAC and have no intentions of owning one, but if it works with USB or Thunderbolf and Windows 10 then maybe i can slot it back into my small list of possibilities.

I wouldn't worry about Mac for VHS work. Every VHS capture I've ever seen from Mac users, including Youtube extravaganzas, looks like defect-ridden, noisy, cooked-color VHS with poor signal level control and obvious compression artifacts ggenerated by unfiltered tape nosie. It never looks like a digital transfer, it just looks like average quality unrefined VHS playing thru a computer monitor. No wonder. Mac has zero means for improving VHS captures except for some expensive color correction software. There are rare exceptions, but those guys aren't using Macs and shop gear that you and I can't afford without taking out a second mortgage. Don't think you're missing anything.

You keep saying this, but as I've pointed out in another thread, you're getting blended deinterlace captures from this setup, based on the samples you've posted to Youtube. It's a serious quality defect.

(There's a slight chance your source NTSC>PAL TV broadcast was actually blended deinterlace, but it's less likely.)

That is not how captures should look.

There are some computer graphics in that scene too, you could be right there, i will look for some other VHS source material,
also with some fast movements in it, and will also use it in interlaced, and then compair with de-interlaced on the pc,
I like the progressive output from the VCR,(it also defeats Macrovision) because de-interlacing with Davinci is a paid option, in the Studio version,
the de-interlacing i have to do with Handbrake, or MacX Video Converter pro, Davinci has some easy to set resolution options.
Shotcut is also nice, but is a bit unpredictable, or i just "don't get it yet" i bought Movavi Video Editor plus online, which is easy to use, and has some nice effects, for transisions and texts, Hybrid is just too flakey.

But, if i hear people say, that the Intensity Shuttle isn't any good, i think that isn't fair to say, because for me it works, without external TBC, i think that says a lot for the Intensity Shuttle, maybe just luck, but it saves me from a lot of troubles.

btw. Cyclone82, the Thunderbolt "story" is....Thunderbolt 2 is used on old Mac's Thunderbolt 3 is used on the newer Mac's but is also known as USB-C.
using "normal" USB is sometimes tricky anyware, you need to watch out for if it is USB 2.0, 3.0 or 3.1 the difference might be that it just won't work, pay extra attention to this, or search for people's experience "cases"

edit> I just looked into the Matrox MX02, there are different versions, one that needs a PCI card in a pc, it really is a Pro device but mainly for MAC users, so using it differently would give problems, is my guess, i see this box/device has also component inputs, but being a pro device it is strange that it can't be hardware controlled externaly, if you want to go for this one, you should also go for a MAC system and be sure you can interface with the matrox, it is allready an old device what i found of it, looks like a quality device though, but not for use with Windows :(

The Matrox MXO2 mini has no composite or s-video input.
This feature you should have noticed at the 1st place :)

Matrox MXO2 Mini has got both composite and S-video inputs as shown in the attached picture.

I'm using a PCI-E version of the card in Windows 10 64 bit environment with no problems.

Cheers.

Sorry, yes, i saw this later, but could not correct my post anymore, the s-video and composite connections are shared RCA ones, i now uderstand, this Matrox MX02 looks like a good one, also because of the component input connection(s)
I just did some capture tests with s-video and component, s-video looks smeared compaired to component connection, when i capture from my vcr, component looks crisper, when captured with the Intensity Shuttle. Composite must be even worse i guess, so being able to capture over component connections is a big advantage, component,was added on these models for connecting the upcoming flatsscreens, so not just for devices/machines with an optical drive in it, which i first thought.
You can switch the component output to progressive, when you capture also in progressive, macroVision has no effect anymore on the AGC or sync, i discovered with my vhs/dvd combo machine.

Yes sir, even though I would prefer capturing in interlaced mode for a whole range of reasons. In conjuction with my Pana DMR-ES15 as TBC-like passthrough, it gives me great results with all analog sources (component in/out). I've just disabled the comb filter due to noisy coloured dots on video.

On my vcr/dvd combo i have comb on, but i will do also some tests without it,
What i now don't understand is, when i set it on PAL interlaced, and i set my capture device on interlaced 50fps
the frame rate of the file says 25 fps when i set all to 50 fps progressive the file is 50 fps, so... the capture setting in the capture software is allways 50fps, but the outcome in interlaced is 25fps.
i know interlaced is : one frame is two fields, why isn't it the other way round ? i can't wrap my mind around this..... what's the explanation for this ? i'm missing the point right now.
(i guess you're thinking of doing de-interlacing by software gives a better result, in realtime(hardware there's less refinement i guess)

Do you know anything about what A/D converter chip it uses?

ADV7181C maybe?

For now i think i ahve to rule this out as i dont have a Mac, donthave PC with PCIe slot or express card slot and in one of the posts above, it said that there is no driver for Thunderbolt through USB type port on Windows. Matrox say Thunderbolt only works for Macs.

I think i will be stuck with a hauppauge USB live-2 or a ATI TV Wonder HD 600 USB (if i can find one)

Most capture cards are tv cards, for use with build-in tuner, a tuner will always give a better signal then a VCR,
USB should be minimal USB 3.0, USB was never designed for video uses, Universal Serial Bus, even some of the better sound interfaces use Firewire, but, again not frequently used on windows pc's, UB40 used even Atari ST's for MIDI and effects in the early days, the advantage was with those systems and Apple, that they had all the same hardware, which is good for the software in turn...a pc can have many different hardware configurations.
BlackMagic Design's soft and Hardware performs better on the Mac, but you still have to watch out for which generation Mac hardware you choose, the new generation is Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C (3.0-3.1)
I'm very happy now with a MacBook Pro (early2015) and the Intensity Shuttle (Thunderbolt2),
So if you could buy a Mac second hand, ( my MacBook Pro was about 1700 euro new)
Advantage is, you will have good hardware, screen, and good performance , while cpu and gpu run at an easy speed, and have no hick-up's.
It's more of a art-form to get good results, with a minimal hardware setup pc.
Otherwise you should use a compressing codec to capture, the low data rate to your storage will give better capture results also smaller files, for capturing VHS you will notice no difference, also an other advantage will be that your rendering and filtering, will go faster in post, i notice rendering times, over 100fps for some of the easy edits, or slightly less than realtime which i think is fast for the hardware i have,
A good VCR or DVR helps also, (i don't use a external TBC at all) a TBC is a whole other story, and you should really know what it means, that's not easy, even when you can get hold of one in the 1st place......
After i've done some tests, i noticed also that composite or s-video is not a good way to capture from, s-video looks smeared, this is not the case with component video out put signal, component you can capture in progressive mode, which saves you de-interlacing, and the capture is free from artifacts you would have had, only a very faint "ghosting" next to sharp lines, which is a small "price" to pay, for the overall better(&sharp) picture you have.

No.
In fact, very few have tuners.
- pre-2005, you have some hit-or-miss quality analog tuners (mostly miss), coax only
- around 2005-2009, you had quite a few "PVR cards", but those had awful non-tuner capture quality
- since 2010, you mostly have capture again, tuners have fallen out of favor

You can't say that. There's too many variables. It can be as easily untrue as true.

Nonsense. USB was always intended to transfer video data. That was one of the earliest of uses, specifically for webcams.

The bandwidth of USB 1.1 was max 6mbps (MPEG), and I saw some nice discs around 1999-2000, when paired with JVC 9600 and DataVideo TBC. It was getting really close to viable, but I wasn't satisfied yet by the hardware and software constraints at the time. It wasn't until 2001 that those were lifted with ATI hardware/software.

USB2 is fully capable of streaming lossless data, adequate bandwidth. Only with uncompressed does it start to drop frames.

USB3 is not needed for SD video, nor is ever used for such.

WTF? Firewire/IEEE1394 has nothing to do with sound/audio.

It's been years since I hear something so ridiculous. (This scenario especially brings to mind a store employee at Fry's telling a customs that DVD+R had better audio than DVD-R. I could not stand for such idiotic BS, and told the clerk he was spouting nonsense, and proceeded to explain the actual differences between the discs. Which, for the record, is/was essentially nothing of importance, aside from making sure your drive supported it. The customer thanked me, the employee was unconvinced.)

No. Nonsense. You must have a bad players or something. There's no difference between component and s-video in terms of details. s-video is luma (Y) plus chroma (CrCb), while component is just separating the CrCb as well. All of the detail is carried on the luma/Y, and the separation of chroma is unneeded because VHS had CrCb carried together.

No, no true. The deinterlace must happen somewhere. It doesn't just magically transform into progressive. And as I've stated multiple times, your sample captures are showing blended deinterlace. That's not good. My captures are about as perfect as you can get, there's no degree of sacrifice required. Anybody can get excellent captures, and the "secret" (not secret) is simply having good hardware (capture card, VCR, TBC).

You can't spot "blended intrerlace" if you have not seen the source material first, this could have been already in the VHS recording itself, that's what i call BS ! and the difference is really a fact between component out and s-video ! i did some blind tests between the different recordings, and i was spot on with my tests, did you ever capture from a VHS VCR from the component video outputs ? with which equipment & capture device ?
you also twist around my words with your answers, i don't say it the way you explain it.
USB was made universal for in and output devices in general, Mouses, Keybords, it was there to replace the RS232 interface and also the paralel (printer) interface, it also replaced the scsi interface what was used mainly for the early optical scanners (hand & flatbed) scsi was still used by some optical and hard drives in servers.
For video cameras > SDI is used.
USB cams had a too low frame rate for good use, alsways used as minor gimick.
WTF? USB has nothing to do with video :)

That's why more sample clips are needed.

Yes, all that plus new peripherals like webcams, and larger-than-allowed-internally external hard drives (ie, GB in size). None of this is new to me, I was there.

Never. USB 1.1 could stream 29.97 at lower CIF and Half D1 resolutions, and then USB 2.0 can do full lossless at Full D1 max SD resolutions without a hiccup. It was never a gimmick. Cheap 90s webcams did have plastic lenses, 15fps frame rates, and low sub-CIF 320x240 type resolutions, but that was just a crappy camera. Not the spec, not what was available.

Video has been a planned usage for USB since the beginning. The "0Eh" and "10h" class is reserved for video devices.

I can switch the component output also to progressive, this output was meant for flatscreen that had that option only, so some form of de-interlacing is done in this VCR/DVD, my guess is also that trough the years technology has progressed, i am satisfied with it, there is allways room for improvement, even in the near future, you make it sound like USB is designed special for video,
it is a feature, as a part of it, same is also valid for every other computer interface, it will be allways improved to suit as many devices possible, not just one device special, if such a interface has reached it's limits, it will end just like for RS232, allthough RS232 is used sometimes in industrial use because of it's universal use and known protocol.
Yes, you now realize you can't judge from one clip, which you first asumed straightaway, this i have seen in more posts, sometimes even contradicting ones...to suit your purpose, i think that is even more confusing for the newbees with no experience at all, it comes down to: to do lots of tests and see the results, and to learn from that, The (external)TBC subject is even more confusing, first it will be painted as a "must have" that capturing can't be done without it, and then it comes down to: there isn't really a good one, or it's out of production, and hard to come by, that's not helping very much, my experiences,
are quiet good, with two vcr's i have, the 3rd an older one, is indeed not good as standalone, but there are still some good ones to find on the internet when i look out of curiosity. Still i find some users think too lightly about the hardware they think they can use, and will cause discouragement, when it "does not happen" for them.

@Eric-Jan

I presume your combo machine (the Panasonic DMR ES35V) has some sort of internal buffering similar to what standalone DVD-Recorders have, and thus it would already output a stable signal, and an external TBC may not do much on the output other than optionally strip macrovision when used with that machine in particular. The component input on the DVD-players were mostly for progressive-scan output which won't work over S-Video, and it may have been helpful with the increased resolution of DVDs. Don't see how it would make any difference in picture quality on VHS though, as as LS stated, the colour channels are mixed on the tape, like with the S-Video signal. (As opposed to Betacam tapes, where the colour channels are stored separately and as such component outputs make sense.)
Maybe it would be due to the internal processing adding enough detail or sharper lines for it to be noticeable.

As for TBCs not being available, my experience so far has been that using a capable DVD-Recorder as a frame sync/TBC can suffice most of the time. It's going to come down to how bad the tapes and recording are. You can certainly capture without one too, though you are going to lose more frames, and possibly get audio desync and varying amounts of jitter, depending on the VCR and the capture card.

If you are wondering about the quality of the deinterlacing, maybe it would be best to post a clip captured without progressive mode to run QTGMC on and see how it compares. I am a bit curious about how the raw output from it is compared to say the JVC you got.

This is getting a bit off-topic for this thread though.

Hm, interesting, the AJA Kona also seems to use a Analog Devices chip, though I haven't managed to find out which. The Blackmagic do as well, but they've done something strange with their driver setup or something it seems that cause issues with unstable signals.

The manual states the Matrox Mini can be genlocked, so maybe it even has some sort of frame sync capability.

The Matrox Mini looks indeed a good choice, it some weird interface options though but it is a better choice than the usual tv capture setup.
The ES35V has 2MB buffer, and Macrovision is canceled in the VCR when Progressive mode is on.
interlaced over s-video of the same recorder looks bad compaired to component progressive.
The Matrox Mini will give same result like i have, maybe even better, i don't know the chips used in the Intensity Shuttle,
I can adjust video capture levels in the "driver" seperately for composite and component, the Matrox should also have that option, only with the Intensity Shuttle you can monitor the outputs at the same time, The Matrox has "shared" connections, my guess the Matrox used with the PCI card would be best choice for data pass through.
The JVC Super VHS recorder shows some video artifacts over s-video which my Panasonic doesn't have, shame though that the Super-VHS has no component output.

This is the beauty of Eric-Jan. I have serious concerns about whether or not this user is a troll, or simply dense.

No, be nice. He's very obviously new to video, and is a bit overenthusiastic about his gear.

There is some slight stubbornness there (the denseness you're picking up on), with regard to learning/admitting the defects of his method. By comparison, very often, I'll use non-optimal methods. For example, a DVD recorder, using Yadif, ES10/15, MPEG capture, etc. But I've always been upfront about the defects. When you use this stuff professionally, or even serious hobby, you can't lie to yourself or others. He has said many times, it's good enough for him, and that's great. But it comes attached to some disinformation that I must correct.

I've also been around Mac users since the 80s. For whatever reason, they're a bit too enamored with Apple. I'm not. Nobody should be. I'm platform agnostic, these are just tools for tasks.
- For video, Windows is the best tool, often the required tool.
- For photo, I find my Mac to be best, personal preference.
- For web development, or even general desktop use, Linux is nice,
- For tablets, Windows again.
I equally like and dislike all the mainstream OS (Windows, OS X, CentOS/RHEL and Ubuntu/Debian)

I am not too serious ? Windows, or any system can't be the best "tool" for video, for Photo a MAC the best ? i see no valid statement in that for video, web development is also not valid for video, and yes, i am happy with my setup, because it works for me , but i've also seen responses, where something is just assumed, without prior knowledge of the source material, which i, in turn, think is BS, and not well thought over before giving a good answer. i had hoped to learn something here, but now it only confuses me, I have some good experiences with Davinci Resolve too, it's fully functional for my needs and free too, changes made, are also visible before rendering, and can be done by the GUI by mouse.
MAC and MacBooks or Linux are often used for a lot of video, stream, or broadcast purposes, because these systems have often a more steady "effect" in general, becase of the hardware or OS, which can be anything good or bad in a windows PC,
with all sorts of hardware combinations, and is where a "MAC" shines due to known hardware with optimal tuned OS to that.
I've used Windows for many years, where it started with Windows 3.10, 3.11, and always upgraded for better and worse where worse is Windows 10, which is where i stopped using Windows.
The results i have now with capturing, and the easy workflow to get there, i'm satisfied with, also "it" being VHS recordings from more than 33 years ago, i still got lots of tapes to go.... :)

I can see Eric-lan's point, because he just records, does some simple cut-and-join, and outputs an unrefined final delivery. Except for a little color work he's not into restoration or repair, has never done so, and basically just outputs what looks like unvanished VHS played directly to a TV. That's not good enough for many users who just don't want to watch VHS defects and debris and who don't see multiple stages of compression loss, artifacts, second-rate deinterlacing, and sloppy retail tape mastering as pleasant experiences, not to mention tape noise, rough gradients, macroblocks, fuzzy edges, dropouts, color bleed, chroma shift, and the usual analog tape detritus.

Fortunately for many capture gear manufacturers, a large percentage of the population is of the "good-enough" school and have a high threshold of visual tolerance that allows them to watch anything on a display panel. Anyone can capture a piece of tape to a computer. All they need are the user guides that came with their hardware and software. It also helps to have a level of somewhat blind faith in an OEM's advertising. But users with a lower tolerance for errors and defects generally use forums to learn how to bring up video to match higher expectations. The two groups of users live in different worlds: one group has little use for the restoration information in video tech forums, the other group looks for more information and uses different software. I don't see that anything is to be gained by one group preaching to the other. They're both looking for different results.

Never said that. You seem serious about video to me, simply that your skill level and expectations are more towards the novice spectrum. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that, either. :)

But you also must be aware of the limitations of your method (as I am with some of mine), especially when conversations skew in those directions where the person expects better.

Heck, there are times where sanlyn goes super in-depth for color correction, and the OP likes what he did. By contrast, my method often errs on the side of less restoration, specifically for color. I may mention that once, but I certainly never repeat myself over and over, trying to convince them to use/do something else. I still try to still participate in the thread, as well as read it.

We always want sample clips and stills. When those are lacking, I generally state outright that "assuming for now" or some such, until a requested sample is posted. (Noting that samples are just for video topics, not really others.)

I learn stuff here. :cool:
And I sometimes get confused here as well. :laugh:

I want to learn DaVinci. Perhaps start a new thread, maybe even create a guide, to share your tips with it.

No. Video systems, especially closed proprietary ones, were usually Amiga based in the 90s, Windows in the 00s, and Linux in the 10s. There's still many Windows holdovers, but Linux networking and the leaner OS is pushing it out hard. Mac has never had anything of mention/note in the video broadcaster or streaming space. It has great NLEs, mostly a DV-only SD workflow, formerly awesome DVD authoring, and a streaming HD workflow (biased against discs), but that's it.

Not really. Drivers are the real problem for Mac. What sucks, what's stupid, is that the Darwin-nased OS (aka Unix, Linux-like) overall has worse support that even Linux does for a great many things. The primary problem is a lack of developers. That hardware is expensive, proprietary, usually impossible to upgrade, and that just contradicts the core value of many devs. Even the simple task of reading a media IDs was never easy, and rudimentary compared to Windows/Linux.

I still have our Windows 1.0 install discs, 5.25" floppies, and I think those were 360k single-density discs. Back then, Windows was really just DOSShell. 3.1 and 3.11 WfW (pre-NT4) were neat. I did a lot of graphics and early video rendering (not encoding) back then, mostly just playing around. I was more into digital audio in those days.

Windows 10 is a nice tablet OS that really sucks for desktops/video.
8/8.1 was even worse, lousy for tablets and video both.
No disagreements here.

Same here. :pullhair:

Mostly people that watch video on a phone, or small TV. When you main display is 55"+, you take notice of flaws. It's hard not to.


.... but again, this thread is way, way off-topic now. :unsure:

Yes, okay, but it's just when i post, i get such agressive responses, also from other posters when i just answer an other poster. Davinci Resolve is mainly a pro color correcting/grading prog. (vector scope etc..) what has become a good and easy to use, with many detailed settings to set.
but i will start some other threads..
I must say i watch a lot of Youtube, where i find a lot of info, first you must also use some common sense with that :)
Sorry, OP ! for all this, The Matrox device looks like a good one, if you can setup a good system around it, you can have good use of it, the frame rates it can handle are also enough for you ?

Oh, I don't know. We try to keep this a friendly and professional environment around here. Misinformation is quashed quickly, as it should be, and I think you're run into that a few times, but I'd not look at it negatively or take it personally. The underlying intent is always knowledge and facts, not simply to be disagreeable.

Looking forward to it. :)

There was a point where Mac had some real time processing hardware, I think Avid made a few systems with custom enclosures and slots full of cards. Apple had a decent shot of ruling the NLE market in the early 00s. Final Cut Pro was a great product and managed to blow both Avid (still classic MacOS based) and Adobe (Premiere had a late/lousy OS X port) out of the water.... only to wholesale abandon the pro market with their FCP X release and killing off of other related products. Now everyone just has a Adobe Creative Cloud license.

Even the hardware is lagging now as the Mac Pro cylinder hasn't been updated in FOUR years. The most up to date machine they have is the iMac Pro. It also doesn't help that you have to rely on expensive Thunderbolt products to expand the machines. The PCIe card versions of the products are always cheaper and you can easily expand the RAM and storage on PCs.

For real time mixing/SEG (think NewTek TriCaster), Linux shines, mostly because the price is right and having the source available makes customizing the low level parts of the OS for your hardware easy. The vendor can control the entire software stack (OS, drivers, end-user software) similar to embedded systems.

This comment actually brings the thread back to topic. Because I'd probably credit Matrox with the G3/G4 era realtime NLE workflows. It was also DV based, and had the usual DV flaws, but the Matrox DV codecs were really nice.

But, even then, Matrox on Mac was weaker than the Windows counterpart.

In those early days, we didn't know who would rule to video roost. Thankfully, I went Windows, while a friend went Mac. I used his Matrox > Final Cut Pro > Cleaner 5 > DVD Studio Pro software workflow many times. He had a JVC S-VHS+TBC and DataVideo TBC for hardware, which I bought probably 10 years ago when he quit video/capturing. And part of the reason he quit was because the Mac went nowhere, not upgradable whatsoever. After his system crashed, it was either start over with Windows, or quit. He chose to just quit. He'd already finished the family home videos, and his favorite cartoons. (I also managed to inherit his undigitized stash of about 300 VHS tapes from Cartoon Network and Toon Disney recorded in the late 90s, a real treasure trove.)

Canopus, the other major player besides Matrox at the time, never really had anything for Mac, aside from the ADVC stuff.

I'd have to pull out some old catalogs to remember other NLEs, cards, and full systems of the era. I vaguely remember Henry, but not what OS was used.

That's exactly what I was thinking of. :P