Best Video Card ???

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Chim Bubba, Jun 26, 2003.

  1. Chim Bubba

    Chim Bubba Guest

    What would you guys consider the best video card for outputting
    windows to TV. In other words being a great capture card is not
    important at all. However the best or easiest video card to send you
    pc output to tv. For example watching dvd's vcd's and the many movie
    file formats on the net. I have a friend who gets tons of movies off
    the net and he would simply like to be able to send them to his big
    screen tv the easiest and simplest way. Remember outputting to TV is
    most important being a capture card in not!
    Thanks in advance
     
    Chim Bubba, Jun 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. If you have a component capable TV, then pick one which does that, but as to
    TV Out, I've been most satisfied with my GF4MX 440 (Msi) since it supported
    the TV out feature of enlarging the TV Picture and moving it about on the
    screen to fit the screen. All Ati cards have never allowed me to get rid of
    the annoying black border around the screen. Also nVidia cards seem to have
    a feature called digital vibrace control, which makes washed out video look
    better.

    Personally use S-Video, and sorry Ati, but I've prefered my GF 4 MX for TV
    Out to my Radeon and the GF 4 Ti did'nt support the re-sizing og the TV Out.
    BTW I'm in the Uk so I use Pal TV's.
     
    Alan Shepherd, Jun 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Chim Bubba

    Valerie Guest

    The 400 and 500 series are pretty old technology by now, and show their
    age as far as graphics cards go. Check out the Matrox Parhelia for what
    you describe as your needs. Either the 128 or 256mb versions are fine.
    You can even run two CRT's and still have out to a tv via Y/C or
    composite.


    Valerie
    --
    Creative Cow Forum Leader:
    -AVID
    -Adobe Premiere
    -Bay Area Video & Motion Graphics UGs
    http://www.creativecow.net
    [remove 999 to reply by email]
     
    Valerie, Jun 27, 2003
    #3
  4. Chim Bubba

    Chim Bubba Guest

    Thanks for all the responses!
     
    Chim Bubba, Jun 27, 2003
    #4
  5. Chim Bubba

    J.Clarke Guest

    I can see no visible difference between the TV output from my ATI and
    Matrox boards. That being the case, this would appear to be a
    nonproblem to anybody but a purist.
     
    J.Clarke, Jul 3, 2003
    #5
  6. Chim Bubba

    FLY135 Guest

    Although his "full screen" terminology isn't adequately descriptive, you
    shouldn't be so quick to insult him. The nVidia and ATI cards do not
    display a proper full screen TV signal. The pictures are underscaned and do
    not display an interlaced video in the same way as it would come from a VCR
    or DVD player. The Matrox G200 I used several years ago did display
    correctly. However, I use both an nVidia ti4200 and an ATI 8500 and I am
    happy with the TV out even with the shortcoming.
     
    FLY135, Jul 4, 2003
    #6
  7. Hardly. I just moved up to a new WinXP box. So I had to dump the Matrox G400
    TV, which is not supported on XP.

    The XP box has an AIW 9000 Pro. TV output is a poor second to the Matrox.
    The output CANNOT be adjusted to fill the TV screen. And the picture quality
    is distinctly less than the Matrox.
     
    Lester Horwinkle, Jul 5, 2003
    #7
  8. Chim Bubba

    J.Clarke Guest

    I have a TV. I have a PC with an All In Wonder Radeon. I cannot see a
    difference on the TV when I switch an NTSC or S-Video source so that it
    is going to the TV directly or through the Radeon.
     
    J.Clarke, Jul 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Chim Bubba

    FLY135 Guest

    Some people have trouble discerning the difference without a side by side
    comparison. There is a huge difference between a picture that is
    deinterlaced and one that is displayed without deinterlacing. Just because
    you cannot quantify the difference doesn't mean that it doesn't affect your
    general perception of how good it looks. Much in the same way a quality
    stereo enhances listening pleasure over a cheap one, although you cannot
    pinpoint how it is better. OTOH, if you are watching a lot of "made for
    computer" movies like Divx and MPEG-1, it probably doesn't make a difference
    which board you use.
     
    FLY135, Jul 7, 2003
    #9
  10. Chim Bubba

    Liam Gretton Guest

    I've recently done exactly the same thing, and I'm in complete agreement:
    the TV output from the AIW 9000 Pro doesn't come close to that of the
    G400.

    As an aside, I used my G400 with XP for about a year without any major
    problems. I had to run the drivers in compatibility mode, and MJPEG
    capture wasn't usable at all, but video capture with AVI_IO wasn't a
    problem.

    I replaced it though because the AIW 9000 does have noticeably better
    video capture and can go straight to MPEG which is often useful.

    --
    Liam Gretton
    Space Research Centre, http://www.src.le.ac.uk/
    Physics and Astronomy Dept, phone +44 (0) 116 223 1039
    University of Leicester, fax +44 (0) 116 252 2464
    Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
     
    Liam Gretton, Jul 8, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.