[AG-TECH] sorry, Osprey-200 instead
jbeavers at microsoft.com
Fri Jun 22 00:48:34 CDT 2001
I've used the Osprey-100, Osprey-200 (O-100 replacement), Osprey-220
(O-200 with audio), and Osprey-500 DV.
I've successfully run two Osprey-200s and two Osprey-500DVs in one
Windows XP box. I've also done 2x 320x240 and 2x 640x480
I would stick with the Osprey-220 to get A/V. The Osprey-500DV adds
1394 interfaces and deinterlacing. If you're going to capture 640x480,
the deinterlacing prevents the line tearing you see along moving object
edges caused by interlaced source signals However, 640x480 causes VIC
to crash in all my tests, so this is of limited value.
I'm moving away from Osprey capture cards and towards 1394 cameras. One
reason is the VfW drivers which perform 4x memory copies per frame,
quadrupling the impact of video capture on the PCI and memory buses.
VfW was obsoleted under Windows by Active Movie / WDM back in 1998.
The problem with 1394 is it sends YUV 4:2:2 pixel formats with the
default drivers in Windows XP which causes VIC to crash. I'm currently
investigating alternate drivers which may be able to return a different
pixel format, perhaps RGB24, which makes VIC happy. However, VIC will
still use a WDM to VfW mapping driver which will add the 4x overhead
back into the system...
1394 seems to be a good way to move forward because it gives you higher
quality video and is able to do cool things like transmit uncompressed
video, power, and controls such as zoom and focus all over one wire
which can be extended with repeaters up to 200+'.
From: lujian [mailto:lujian at nlsde.buaa.edu.cn]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 10:18 PM
To: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
Subject: [AG-TECH] sorry, Osprey-200 instead
Osprey-200 just have video input, Osprey-500DVpro have both A/V
capture ability which is too more for our VIC.
National Lab of Software Development Environment
Beijing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics
email:lujian at nlsde.buaa.edu.cn
More information about the ag-tech