Matrox MXO User Forum Forum Index

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch         RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Capture start/stop blackouts, SDI TC, SDK, and etc...

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matrox MXO User Forum Forum Index -> Product Feature Enhancements
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Witch
(MXO2 LE)




Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:49 am    Post subject: Capture start/stop blackouts, SDI TC, SDK, and etc... Reply with quote

1. I wonder what is the reason of blackouts on the SDI outputs (possible on the all outputs) when I starting or stopping the capture in the FCP? If it will be eliminated in the future? I'm doing a video assist and these blackouts are a little bit annoying thing for the director/clients.
2. If it is in the hardware capability list - when you are going to implement to get the SDI embedded time code?
3. When i'm doing playback - the signal presist on the SD analog composite out. But, when i'm doing the recording - it is black. As i understand, the MXO2 LE doesn't make a downscaling in the capture but doing this in the playback mode. Is it possible to get this downscaling during recording or it is completely impossible?
4. Now i have both MXO2 LE and MXO2 LE Max. It is a differences in the software (at least in the size 11 versus 21 megabytes) for these two almost identical unit. I don't using max option in the final cut, but it will very very good if I don't need to uninstal non-max-software, install max software, makes an initial setting in the FCP when i changing the hardware.
5. I'm already asked this in the another post - is it in the plans - if it so - when - the SDK for Mac will be released?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andy Mees
(MXO)




Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1016

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Witch

Bit of guess work on my part, but if you're interested, here's my take ...

1. The MXO2 doesn't offer standalone functionality for passthrough or up/down/cross conversion ... it's only possible if / when it's both connected to a host computer and when the NLE's capture mode is active ie the output from the MXO2 that you see is the signal coming from the app not the source. My guess then is that the loss of monitoring you see when starting and stopping capture is a direct reflection of a temporary loss of signal coming from the app. If that's right then it would seem that in order for that signal loss not to happen then either the NLE's capture code would need rewriting, or the MXO2 would have to be hardwired and/or programmed differently so that the monitored signal is direct from source rather than showing you what is actually being captured.

2. It's likely we will have to wait until Matrox develop and release their own standalone capture app for this (a la AJA VTR Xchange). It's definitely on their list of things to do but who knows how these things are prioritised ... it would be insanely cool if they added an option in the driver/control software to extract SDI embedded timecode and pass that back to FCP or other NLE as if it were coming via RS422. Even better, if they offered full RP188 device control (again virtualized so as to appear to FCP, or other NLE that doesn't support it directly as typical Sony RS422 or similar). Go on guys, you know you want to.

3. The MXO2 is an I/O device that operates actively either in Input mode or Output mode but not actively in both simultaneously ? to get SD downconvert (for monitoring) during HD capture you are asking the machine to be active in both modes simultaneously. That said, I would agree that the inherent capacity to pass an HD signal whilst simultaneously downconverting to SD is obviously there ? bus as in point 1, revealing such functionality to the user may require aching to the hardware and/or non-trivial reprogramming.

4. As far as I know you don't need both. I have an MXO2 and MXO2 MAX and operate both just fine with the MXO2 MAX drivers (the non MAX unit obviously doesn't miraculously start offering MAX functionality). And when I installed the MXO2 (non MAX) drivers, again both units operated just fine (but without MAX drivers the MAX equipped unit obviously can't access and use its MAX hardware). Similarly I would expect your MXO2 LE should work just fine with the MXO2 LE MAX drivers and visa versa. No need to download install/uninstall both, just get the MAX version and use that for both, then you will get full functionality of both devices.

5. Not got a clue on this one. Is there any intention to do this at all? Don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere.

Just my 2c
Andy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Witch
(MXO2 LE)




Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andy Mees wrote:
Hey Witch

Bit of guess work on my part, but if you're interested, here's my take ...


First of all, i shall ask you - what is your position? User like all of us, employe of the Matrox, developer of the Matrox, support of the matrox? It is interesting to me only to understand what can be a feed back from you - some chages or only discussion:-)

Quote:

1. The MXO2 doesn't offer standalone functionality for passthrough or up/down/cross conversion ... it's only possible if / when it's both connected to a host computer and when the NLE's capture mode is active ie the output from the MXO2 that you see is the signal coming from the app not the source. My guess then is that the loss of monitoring you see when starting and stopping capture is a direct reflection of a temporary loss of signal coming from the app. If that's right then it would seem that in order for that signal loss not to happen then either the NLE's capture code would need rewriting, or the MXO2 would have to be hardwired and/or programmed differently so that the monitored signal is direct from source rather than showing you what is actually being captured.

Agree with you, almost for 100%. But from the position of video assist - i would like to ask the matrox try to make something with these dropouts - it is annoying.... Actually, when i'm doing the video assist job, on my computer i'm continuously doing a lot of the another jobs - checking the lenght of the take, changing the speed, changing A LOT inside FCP. Usually - I'm doing it between the takes, when another part of the crew - ie director clients make up DOP stunts - and everybody wants to see the live picture coming THRU the MATROX to the monitors. And i would be greatly appreciated if Matrox MAKES - if the digitizing window OPEN in the final cut - matrox will stay in the passthru mode. I'm doing another amount of jobs OUT of the FCP - and it is also - out of the signal, but the digitizing window is still OPEN inside OPENED FCP. At this moment i have to put the system in the rec mode - it means that i CANNOT do anything inside the FCP, only outside. Please, guys, chage something

Quote:

2. It's likely we will have to wait until Matrox develop and release their own standalone capture app for this (a la AJA VTR Xchange). It's definitely on their list of things to do but who knows how these things are prioritised ... it would be insanely cool if they added an option in the driver/control software to extract SDI embedded timecode and pass that back to FCP or other NLE as if it were coming via RS422. Even better, if they offered full RP188 device control (again virtualized so as to appear to FCP, or other NLE that doesn't support it directly as typical Sony RS422 or similar). Go on guys, you know you want to.

If they WILL NOT make this one - they will cut a lot of people from using their hardware....

Quote:

3. The MXO2 is an I/O device that operates actively either in Input mode or Output mode but not actively in both simultaneously ? to get SD downconvert (for monitoring) during HD capture you are asking the machine to be active in both modes simultaneously. That said, I would agree that the inherent capacity to pass an HD signal whilst simultaneously downconverting to SD is obviously there ? bus as in point 1, revealing such functionality to the user may require aching to the hardware and/or non-trivial reprogramming.


But at the same time - the HD COMPONENT OUT IS STILL ACTIVE during the digitize/active capture window, and it is analog! A understand that it is not downscaling but formats converting - but on my opinion - converting signal AS DIFFICULT process AS downscaling. Thats why i prefer to understand the block diagram of the matrox - to understand WHIC function is serving by dediceted processors and which function are and will be processor/machine depended. Actually, I can open my MXO2 by myself, and try to find the circuits infos in the google, but firstly i prefer to ask the OFFICIAL matrox support....

Quote:

4. As far as I know you don't need both. I have an MXO2 and MXO2 MAX and operate both just fine with the MXO2 MAX drivers (the non MAX unit obviously doesn't miraculously start offering MAX functionality). And when I installed the MXO2 (non MAX) drivers, again both units operated just fine (but without MAX drivers the MAX equipped unit obviously can't access and use its MAX hardware). Similarly I would expect your MXO2 LE should work just fine with the MXO2 LE MAX drivers and visa versa. No need to download install/uninstall both, just get the MAX version and use that for both, then you will get full functionality of both devices.


I'll try and report this in the next 2-3 days.

Quote:

5. Not got a clue on this one. Is there any intention to do this at all? Don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere.

Any software/hardware has some development kit. And closing this tools from the, for example, software developers - a little bit stupid things - matrox is limiting using their products in such way. As a manufacturer - i would be interested making the area of software which are compatible with my product as much as possible.....
Just my 2c
Andy[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andy Mees
(MXO)




Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1016

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm just another Matrox owner/user W., and unashamedly a very big fan ever since the release of the original MXO ... that said, I do help to host the Matrox support forum over on the Creative Cow website and genuinely enjoy the tech support aspect of it all (plus its part of my day job to be on top of these things). Changes or only discussion? Why not both ... I think a well reasoned discussion thats being monitored by the development team can always lead to changes. It's user feedback like ours that drives future development.

So...

1. Yep I agree, and have also made this same request for more actively supported passthrough/standalone functionality.

2. No worries, from what I understand a capture app is certainly on the cards, but Matrox are a big company with a lot of stuff going on so patience is a virtue in this regard. As ever, one should never buy a tool based on what you would like it to do, only on what it does ... if the tool you but develops new functionality then you're winning Smile

3. Well as noted, my input is entirely unofficial if relatively well informed, and as also noted, it is my belief is that the monitoring during capture function is a fortuitous byproduct of the NLE output during capture, not direct Matrox design. What you are seeing is a "passive conversion" due to the intended product hardware design (such that all outputs are active) rather than an "active conversion" which is what is required of a downconvert. Regarding proprietary circuit design, heck, thats way outside my sphere of knowledge, but I suspect that it's not something the engineers would be open to discussing ... certainly seems unlikely that they would do so on the forums.

5. Agreed, a public SDK would certainly be no bad thing.

Cheers W., I hope you don't mind that I continued the discussion like this.
I wish you luck on the set.

Best
Andy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Witch
(MXO2 LE)




Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andy Mees wrote:
I'm just another Matrox owner/user W., and unashamedly a very big fan ever since the release of the original MXO ... that said, I do help to host the Matrox support forum over on the Creative Cow website and genuinely enjoy the tech support aspect of it all (plus its part of my day job to be on top of these things). Changes or only discussion? Why not both ... I think a well reasoned discussion thats being monitored by the development team can always lead to changes. It's user feedback like ours that drives future development.

Just to be sure if you understand me correctly - i didn't try and didn't want to offend you - my english not so good to explain emotional paint of discussion:-)


Quote:

So...

1. Yep I agree, and have also made this same request for more actively supported passthrough/standalone functionality.

Once again - i've asked you a first question about your position - to understand if it is only a discussion with another advanced user or i have a discussion with some people which can really change something in the way of functionality of this product.

Quote:

2. No worries, from what I understand a capture app is certainly on the cards, but Matrox are a big company with a lot of stuff going on so patience is a virtue in this regard. As ever, one should never buy a tool based on what you would like it to do, only on what it does ... if the tool you but develops new functionality then you're winning Smile


Again - I've agree with you from one side - but on the another side - here is a some thing which are default for some kind of the product - and TC capability is one from this list. It was really stupid surprise when i get understanding that aja io hd does not have completely understanding and extracting time code from any source, and this misunderstanding was increased when i get motu v4hd with perfect time code function.

Quote:

3. Well as noted, my input is entirely unofficial if relatively well informed, and as also noted, it is my belief is that the monitoring during capture function is a fortuitous byproduct of the NLE output during capture, not direct Matrox design. What you are seeing is a "passive conversion" due to the intended product hardware design (such that all outputs are active) rather than an "active conversion" which is what is required of a downconvert. Regarding proprietary circuit design, heck, thats way outside my sphere of knowledge, but I suspect that it's not something the engineers would be open to discussing ... certainly seems unlikely that they would do so on the forums.


Lets go step by step in this part.
a) i dont understand the term passive conversion. If this conversion serving by some of the block or circuit - i agree with you. But if there is a special block or circuit which i making ANALOG from SDI (without resolution conversion) - i think it is a mistake of the designer of the algorithm of the MXO2 family - to support SDI to ANALOG conversion DURING the capture but do not support to HD to SD conversion.
b) about circuit design. May be here is little misunderstanding - i don't need a CIRCUIT desing - i don't want to change something, or develop a copy of the MXO2 under my name:-). I just need to understand what is the DIAGRAM of the structure of the device, to understand the algorithm and logic of the device, ie to avoid stupid question like "why this device is not make a coffee for me and director"Smile. It is a normal situation which are continue for a years for the complicated PROFESSIONAL device like camera base unit, big and complicated sound mixers and etc.

Quote:

5. Agreed, a public SDK would certainly be no bad thing.

Once again - me and i think a lot of users on this forum actually really wait of the answer from official support/developers since this forum are OFFICIAL matrox support forum.

Quote:

Cheers W., I hope you don't mind that I continued the discussion like this.
I wish you luck on the set.


Once again - sorry for my english, and i'm really happy to have a good and productive discussion with you, but i'm really hope that some of the developers will involve to this process:-).

Cheers:-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matrox MXO User Forum Forum Index -> Product Feature Enhancements All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This board is protected by Phpbbantispam
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group