Video Card For Handling/Editing A Large Video Stream

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Does anyone have video card recommendations for a project involving
rendering in a large video stream of a landscape that when run full
screen at a normal frame rate will be large enough to cover three
monitors?

The real-time rendering will mostly involve changes in
shadow/lighting.(ie: Moving clouds over a landscape). Since these
changes will be either minimal or take place progressively(slowly) in
the scene I'm editing, what may be more important is that the card
should to be able to handle a video stream that is large enough to
display across at least three monitors while I'm editing. So I guess
this is mostly about bandwidth to work with.

Also, can anyone elaborate on the importance the onboard memory is and
the display buffer as they may relate to a project like this?

And since this will be a real life scene that is recorded before hand,
would a 128 bit card suffice?

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On a sunny day (13 Feb 2005 07:30:29 -0800) it happened
Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
<1108308629.808151.137040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:

>Does anyone have video card recommendations for a project involving
>rendering in a large video stream of a landscape that when run full
>screen at a normal frame rate will be large enough to cover three
>monitors?
>
>The real-time rendering will mostly involve changes in
>shadow/lighting.(ie: Moving clouds over a landscape). Since these
>changes will be either minimal or take place progressively(slowly) in
>the scene I'm editing, what may be more important is that the card
>should to be able to handle a video stream that is large enough to
>display across at least three monitors while I'm editing. So I guess
>this is mostly about bandwidth to work with.
>
>Also, can anyone elaborate on the importance the onboard memory is and
>the display buffer as they may relate to a project like this?
>
>And since this will be a real life scene that is recorded before hand,
>would a 128 bit card suffice?
>
>Thanks a lot.
>
>Darren Harris
>Staten Island, New York.
Looka here dude, you do not know s*i* about video it seems.
You have pissed of some people too it seems...
You claim that the software still needs to be written.
Lemme formulate it this way, 'Get in touch with the one who will write it',
and if that is you, then I say you dunno enough to do it.
I DUNNO what a 128 bit card is, and you better explain that.
In the most simple way you could use 3 PCI cards, and 3 monitors.
Write to the display buffer.
You will need to specify size, but for a graphic card RGB buffer at say
800x600 normally 4 bytes are used (R,G,B and one unused) per pixel.
800x600x4 = 1,920,000 bytes x 2 for flip buffer = 4MB OK?
32 MB is bigger then that, so the cheapest cards.
Other way would be 3 very cheap Duron PCs with 3 monitors networked with
ethernet.
You can program that no problem too I am sure (or have it done).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (13 Feb 2005 10:52:47 -0800) it happened
> Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
> <1108320767.792874.132960@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> >This thread's intent was to get recommendations concerning what
*video
> >card* I'd need to accomplish what I want.
> Well, honestly, I am reading from rec.video.desktop and there is this
other thread
> with same sort of question.
> So I deduced it was same person or same project.
> ormaybe there is a request out for somethingt like that.
> And amateurs want to do it.

I see no other thread with the same sort of question.

> >I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
> Good, so I will refrain from helping you.

Not that you could...

> >It is of no consequence who will write the software for this
project.
> This is a very relative thing, especially if it does not work.

***Let me reiterate. It is of no consequence TO YOU who will write the
software for this project.

> >The idea was to make sure the video card would not be a *hardware*
> >limitation.
> That depned on the software solution!

Totally incorrect.

> >The software and specifics as far as numbers crunching will
> >have to be finalized when I get the source material that I have to
> >edit.
> have fun.

I intend to...

> >And 128bit refers to the memory configuration of the card.(I assume
you
> >know what bandwidth means).
> And waisting it...
> If you knew about bandwidth and graphics cards and how to program
these
> you would likely not have addressed this this way, high bandwidth on
> card would only make a lot of sense with fast rendering.

I am well aware of that. Hence the reason for me mentioning it. Now
what's your point?

> But then again, lots of people need a pentium -4 3 GHz for
wordprocessing.
>
> Personally I think it is stupedo to design systems like that if you
do
> not have a good graps of 1) the electronics 2) the software.

Well thinking obviously isn't your strong suit.

> Dunno why I wind up negative on this again.
> Probably because something does not work out here.

Perhaps it is your bad spelling or failure to understand the simplicity
involved in my question.

> Well I will read about it if it works I suppose.
> Flight simulation? Art? Surrond fishtank? whatdoyouknow.
> LOL

Neither, but don't hold your breath waiting.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (13 Feb 2005 10:52:47 -0800) it happened
> > Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
> > <1108320767.792874.132960@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> >>This thread's intent was to get recommendations concerning what
*video
> >>card* I'd need to accomplish what I want.
> > Well, honestly, I am reading from rec.video.desktop and there is
this
> > other thread with same sort of question.
> > So I deduced it was same person or same project.
> > ormaybe there is a request out for somethingt like that.
> > And amateurs want to do it.
> >
> >>I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
> > Good, so I will refrain from helping you.
> >
> >>It is of no consequence who will write the software for this
project.
> > This is a very relative thing, especially if it does not work.
> >
> >
> >>The idea was to make sure the video card would not be a *hardware*
> >>limitation.
> > That depned on the software solution!
> >
> >>The software and specifics as far as numbers crunching will
> >>have to be finalized when I get the source material that I have to
> >>edit.
> > have fun.
> >
> >
> >>And 128bit refers to the memory configuration of the card.(I assume
you
> >>know what bandwidth means).
> > And waisting it...
> > If you knew about bandwidth and graphics cards and how to program
these
> > you would likely not have addressed this this way, high bandwidth
on
> > card would only make a lot of sense with fast rendering.
> >
> > But then again, lots of people need a pentium -4 3 GHz for
wordprocessing.
> >
> > Personally I think it is stupedo to design systems like that if you
do
> > not have a good graps of 1) the electronics 2) the software.
> >
> > Dunno why I wind up negative on this again.
> > Probably because something does not work out here.
> >
> > Well I will read about it if it works I suppose.
> > Flight simulation? Art? Surrond fishtank? whatdoyouknow.
> > LOL
>
> Maybe it's just to pry money out of the venture capitalists. I
remember
> going to a meeting 20 years or so back where some yahoo was going to
> produce a new franchised laser-tag system based on the scoring
technology
> the military was using for training at the time. VR hadn't been
discovered
> so this kid they had in charge of the engineering was going to gen
all
> kinds of sfx using an array of 8-bit machines. After I talked to him
for a
> while it became clear that he (a) didn't have a clue how do what he
was
> promising and (b) wouldn't listen to advice and (c) was mainly in it
for a
> free machine. Well, I found better things to do with my time and the
laser
> game never happened and I noticed the other day that somebody's after
one
> of the principals for fraud.
>
> Well, this discussion reminds me of my discussion with that kid.
Some
> grandiose project in which the wheel is going to be reinvented to the
> amazement of the world.

I have no idea what any of that has to do with this thread.
Neverthelss, interesting story.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (13 Feb 2005 10:52:47 -0800) it happened
> > Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
> > <1108320767.792874.132960@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> >>This thread's intent was to get recommendations concerning what
*video
> >>card* I'd need to accomplish what I want.
> > Well, honestly, I am reading from rec.video.desktop and there is
this
> > other thread with same sort of question.
> > So I deduced it was same person or same project.
> > ormaybe there is a request out for somethingt like that.
> > And amateurs want to do it.
> >
> >>I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
> > Good, so I will refrain from helping you.
> >
> >>It is of no consequence who will write the software for this
project.
> > This is a very relative thing, especially if it does not work.
> >
> >
> >>The idea was to make sure the video card would not be a *hardware*
> >>limitation.
> > That depned on the software solution!
> >
> >>The software and specifics as far as numbers crunching will
> >>have to be finalized when I get the source material that I have to
> >>edit.
> > have fun.
> >
> >
> >>And 128bit refers to the memory configuration of the card.(I assume
you
> >>know what bandwidth means).
> > And waisting it...
> > If you knew about bandwidth and graphics cards and how to program
these
> > you would likely not have addressed this this way, high bandwidth
on
> > card would only make a lot of sense with fast rendering.
> >
> > But then again, lots of people need a pentium -4 3 GHz for
wordprocessing.
> >
> > Personally I think it is stupedo to design systems like that if you
do
> > not have a good graps of 1) the electronics 2) the software.
> >
> > Dunno why I wind up negative on this again.
> > Probably because something does not work out here.
> >
> > Well I will read about it if it works I suppose.
> > Flight simulation? Art? Surrond fishtank? whatdoyouknow.
> > LOL
>
> Maybe it's just to pry money out of the venture capitalists. I
remember
> going to a meeting 20 years or so back where some yahoo was going to
> produce a new franchised laser-tag system based on the scoring
technology
> the military was using for training at the time. VR hadn't been
discovered
> so this kid they had in charge of the engineering was going to gen
all
> kinds of sfx using an array of 8-bit machines. After I talked to him
for a
> while it became clear that he (a) didn't have a clue how do what he
was
> promising and (b) wouldn't listen to advice and (c) was mainly in it
for a
> free machine. Well, I found better things to do with my time and the
laser
> game never happened and I noticed the other day that somebody's after
one
> of the principals for fraud.
>
> Well, this discussion reminds me of my discussion with that kid.
Some
> grandiose project in which the wheel is going to be reinvented to the
> amazement of the world.

I have no idea what any of that has to do with this thread.
Nevertheless, interesting story.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On a sunny day (13 Feb 2005 10:52:47 -0800) it happened
Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
<1108320767.792874.132960@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>This thread's intent was to get recommendations concerning what *video
>card* I'd need to accomplish what I want.
Well, honestly, I am reading from rec.video.desktop and there is this other thread
with same sort of question.
So I deduced it was same person or same project.
ormaybe there is a request out for somethingt like that.
And amateurs want to do it.

>I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
Good, so I will refrain from helping you.

>It is of no consequence who will write the software for this project.
This is a very relative thing, especially if it does not work.


>The idea was to make sure the video card would not be a *hardware*
>limitation.
That depned on the software solution!

>The software and specifics as far as numbers crunching will
>have to be finalized when I get the source material that I have to
>edit.
have fun.


>And 128bit refers to the memory configuration of the card.(I assume you
>know what bandwidth means).
And waisting it...
If you knew about bandwidth and graphics cards and how to program these
you would likely not have addressed this this way, high bandwidth on
card would only make a lot of sense with fast rendering.

But then again, lots of people need a pentium -4 3 GHz for wordprocessing.

Personally I think it is stupedo to design systems like that if you do
not have a good graps of 1) the electronics 2) the software.

Dunno why I wind up negative on this again.
Probably because something does not work out here.

Well I will read about it if it works I suppose.
Flight simulation? Art? Surrond fishtank? whatdoyouknow.
LOL

>Darren Harris
>Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (13 Feb 2005 10:52:47 -0800) it happened
> Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
> <1108320767.792874.132960@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>>This thread's intent was to get recommendations concerning what *video
>>card* I'd need to accomplish what I want.
> Well, honestly, I am reading from rec.video.desktop and there is this
> other thread with same sort of question.
> So I deduced it was same person or same project.
> ormaybe there is a request out for somethingt like that.
> And amateurs want to do it.
>
>>I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
> Good, so I will refrain from helping you.
>
>>It is of no consequence who will write the software for this project.
> This is a very relative thing, especially if it does not work.
>
>
>>The idea was to make sure the video card would not be a *hardware*
>>limitation.
> That depned on the software solution!
>
>>The software and specifics as far as numbers crunching will
>>have to be finalized when I get the source material that I have to
>>edit.
> have fun.
>
>
>>And 128bit refers to the memory configuration of the card.(I assume you
>>know what bandwidth means).
> And waisting it...
> If you knew about bandwidth and graphics cards and how to program these
> you would likely not have addressed this this way, high bandwidth on
> card would only make a lot of sense with fast rendering.
>
> But then again, lots of people need a pentium -4 3 GHz for wordprocessing.
>
> Personally I think it is stupedo to design systems like that if you do
> not have a good graps of 1) the electronics 2) the software.
>
> Dunno why I wind up negative on this again.
> Probably because something does not work out here.
>
> Well I will read about it if it works I suppose.
> Flight simulation? Art? Surrond fishtank? whatdoyouknow.
> LOL

Maybe it's just to pry money out of the venture capitalists. I remember
going to a meeting 20 years or so back where some yahoo was going to
produce a new franchised laser-tag system based on the scoring technology
the military was using for training at the time. VR hadn't been discovered
so this kid they had in charge of the engineering was going to gen all
kinds of sfx using an array of 8-bit machines. After I talked to him for a
while it became clear that he (a) didn't have a clue how do what he was
promising and (b) wouldn't listen to advice and (c) was mainly in it for a
free machine. Well, I found better things to do with my time and the laser
game never happened and I noticed the other day that somebody's after one
of the principals for fraud.

Well, this discussion reminds me of my discussion with that kid. Some
grandiose project in which the wheel is going to be reinvented to the
amazement of the world.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[rs]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

The video card is mostly irrelevant to the rendering process. Rendering is
processor intensive. Your just wanting to display 2D pictures on your
monitors so horsepower of the video cards(s) is not your primary concern.

Across three monitors however? Getting a three monitor setup to work is not
really the province of desktop editing, so your query's would probably meet
with people more knowledgeable on other foums in that regard.


<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:1108308629.808151.137040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone have video card recommendations for a project involving
> rendering in a large video stream of a landscape that when run full
> screen at a normal frame rate will be large enough to cover three
> monitors?
>
> The real-time rendering will mostly involve changes in
> shadow/lighting.(ie: Moving clouds over a landscape). Since these
> changes will be either minimal or take place progressively(slowly) in
> the scene I'm editing, what may be more important is that the card
> should to be able to handle a video stream that is large enough to
> display across at least three monitors while I'm editing. So I guess
> this is mostly about bandwidth to work with.
>
> Also, can anyone elaborate on the importance the onboard memory is and
> the display buffer as they may relate to a project like this?
>
> And since this will be a real life scene that is recorded before hand,
> would a 128 bit card suffice?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On a sunny day (13 Feb 2005 17:22:41 -0800) it happened
Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
<1108344161.633079.63290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

>> And amateurs want to do it.
>
>I see no other thread with the same sort of question.
135 degrees mean anything to you?


>> >I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
>> Good, so I will refrain from helping you.
>
>Not that you could...
That could be true, technically speaking you'd need a shrink.



>> >It is of no consequence who will write the software for this
>project.
>> This is a very relative thing, especially if it does not work.
>
>***Let me reiterate. It is of no consequence TO YOU who will write the
>software for this project.
Also perhaps true, it won't bother me a bit if it does not work, trust me.


>> >The idea was to make sure the video card would not be a *hardware*
>> >limitation.
>> That depned on the software solution!
>
>Totally incorrect.
Here you show yourself again to be totally clueless about the whole
process of image - lens - sensor - scanning - encoding - storing -
vice versa - decoding - graphics card - display device(s).


>> >The software and specifics as far as numbers crunching will
>> >have to be finalized when I get the source material that I have to
>> >edit.
>> have fun.
>
>I intend to...
Good.
Be detached, I hope you financers are too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> >I see no other thread with the same sort of question.
> 135 degrees mean anything to you?

Duh. Two different questions began two different threads.

> >> >I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
> >> Good, so I will refrain from helping you.
> >
> >Not that you could...
> That could be true, technically speaking you'd need a shrink.

Give me the number to yours...

> >> >It is of no consequence who will write the software for this
> >project.
> >> This is a very relative thing, especially if it does not work.
> >
> >***Let me reiterate. It is of no consequence TO YOU who will write
the
> >software for this project.
> Also perhaps true, it won't bother me a bit if it does not work,
trust me.

What seems to bother you is my project(which you couldn't understand
anyway).

> >> >The idea was to make sure the video card would not be a
*hardware*
> >> >limitation.
> >> That depned on the software solution!
> >
> >Totally incorrect.
> Here you show yourself again to be totally clueless about the whole
> process of image - lens - sensor - scanning - encoding - storing -
> vice versa - decoding - graphics card - display device(s).

Actually, I'm showing that I know more than you, since you cannot
understand that when I said I don't want the video card to be a
hardware limitation. And there is no "software solution" yet. Just an
idea of how much data will have to be worked with. So I reiterate that
you are incorrect.

> >> >The software and specifics as far as numbers crunching will
> >> >have to be finalized when I get the source material that I have
to
> >> >edit.
> >> have fun.
> >
> >I intend to...
> Good.
> Be detached, I hope you financers are too.

Like everything else you said, that made no sense at all.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

RS wrote:
> The video card is mostly irrelevant to the rendering process.
Rendering is
> processor intensive. Your just wanting to display 2D pictures on your
> monitors so horsepower of the video cards(s) is not your primary
concern.

I've been attempting to keep this simple by not going into all the
details, but that doesn't seem to be working. Especially since this
is a unique project that doesn't involve existing software that
everyone identifies with and is use to.

I never said I wanted to display 2D pictures. I mentioned a *video
stream*. A stream large enough to cover three monitors(at a good
resolution). But that doesn't mean I'll need to use three monitors.
This is mostly about bandwidth. And I was wondering how important the
memory configuration(ie: 256 bit), and the on-card memory(ie:256mb) was
on a card as far as handling the vast amount of data I want to work
with.

I don't know whether the rendering ability of the cards(when playing
3-D games) would or can come into play when rendering light and shadows
on a video stream that is three times as big(data-wise) as the average
video stream needed to get a full-screen(good resolution) picture.

> Across three monitors however? Getting a three monitor setup to work
is not
> really the province of desktop editing, so your query's would
probably meet
> with people more knowledgeable on other foums in that regard.

Forget the three monitor set-up. I need to work with a video stream
that is would require a three monitor set-up *if* I wanted to see it
being rendered on three monitors at the same time. And this is about
findng out if the cards available to me can handle that.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Saten Island, New York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Is the recorded scene compressed (MPEG format) or raw?
Is it being played back from disk or network (limits of disk throughput or
PCI bus is relatively low),
or fed directly to the display adapter then output (avoiding buses)?
Is the stream to be acted upon by the computer?(you mention changes in
shadow/lighting, or is that may be external to the computer)
Mainstream video cards go up to 2048x1536. Is that fine enough resolution
for your needs?
In theory, most modern video cards have memory bandwidth measured in GB/s
and RAMDACs in the hundreds of MB/s.
You haven't specified the resolution/bandwidth of your stream. Does it
approach/exceed these numbers?

<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:1108308629.808151.137040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone have video card recommendations for a project involving
> rendering in a large video stream of a landscape that when run full
> screen at a normal frame rate will be large enough to cover three
> monitors?
>
> The real-time rendering will mostly involve changes in
> shadow/lighting.(ie: Moving clouds over a landscape). Since these
> changes will be either minimal or take place progressively(slowly) in
> the scene I'm editing, what may be more important is that the card
> should to be able to handle a video stream that is large enough to
> display across at least three monitors while I'm editing. So I guess
> this is mostly about bandwidth to work with.
>
> Also, can anyone elaborate on the importance the onboard memory is and
> the display buffer as they may relate to a project like this?
>
> And since this will be a real life scene that is recorded before hand,
> would a 128 bit card suffice?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> The video card is mostly irrelevant to the rendering process. Rendering is
> processor intensive. Your just wanting to display 2D pictures on your
> monitors so horsepower of the video cards(s) is not your primary concern.

A point I don't think the OP understands.

> Across three monitors however? Getting a three monitor setup to work is
not
> really the province of desktop editing, so your query's would probably
meet
> with people more knowledgeable on other foums in that regard.

I don't understand the 3 monitor thing either or the use of the term
"rendering in a large video stream". The video card I recommended to him in
the ATI forum can span two monitors but I have never heard of using 3
desktop monitors to display streaming video.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On a sunny day (14 Feb 2005 18:08:44 -0800) it happened
Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
<1108433324.310323.308210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>
>RS wrote:
>> The video card is mostly irrelevant to the rendering process.
>Rendering is
>> processor intensive. Your just wanting to display 2D pictures on your
>> monitors so horsepower of the video cards(s) is not your primary
>concern.
>
>I've been attempting to keep this simple by not going into all the
>details, but that doesn't seem to be working.
Yo ucould not specify a detail in a

Especially since this
>is a unique project that doesn't involve existing software that
>everyone identifies with and is use to.
>
>I never said I wanted to display 2D pictures. I mentioned a *video
>stream*. A stream large enough to cover three monitors(at a good
>resolution). But that doesn't mean I'll need to use three monitors.
>This is mostly about bandwidth. And I was wondering how important the
>memory configuration(ie: 256 bit), and the on-card memory(ie:256mb) was
>on a card as far as handling the vast amount of data I want to work
>with.
Moron, specify datarate !
What for you may be 'vast' may be peanuts (as in brain capacity for example).
Note I am not arguing, merely evaluating + observing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On a sunny day (14 Feb 2005 17:48:20 -0800) it happened
Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
<1108432100.776341.278740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

>> >I see no other thread with the same sort of question.
>> 135 degrees mean anything to you?
>
>Duh. Two different questions began two different threads.
>
>> >> >I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
>> >> Good, so I will refrain from helping you.
>> >
>> >Not that you could...
>> That could be true, technically speaking you'd need a shrink.
>
>Give me the number to yours...
You want the ones from the team that are still ALIVE? (wiping blood
from 10 inch knife).



>What seems to bother you is my project(which you couldn't understand
>anyway).
Yes, it is a mystic project, or misty..


>Actually, I'm showing that I know more than you, since you cannot
>understand that when I said I don't want the video card to be a
>hardware limitation. And there is no "software solution" yet. Just an
>idea of how much data will have to be worked with. So I reiterate that
>you are incorrect.
Just mention input format and fps, and with those numbers save us all
a lot of time.

>Like everything else you said, that made no sense at all.
I will stop arguing with you as there is nothing I can learn from it.
But I will keep pointing out wierdnesses in your reasoning.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (14 Feb 2005 17:48:20 -0800) it happened
> Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote in
> <1108432100.776341.278740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >I see no other thread with the same sort of question.
> >> 135 degrees mean anything to you?
> >
> >Duh. Two different questions began two different threads.
> >
> >> >> >I wanted no other "ideas" at this time.
> >> >> Good, so I will refrain from helping you.
> >> >
> >> >Not that you could...
> >> That could be true, technically speaking you'd need a shrink.
> >
> >Give me the number to yours...
> You want the ones from the team that are still ALIVE? (wiping blood
> from 10 inch knife).
>
>
>
> >What seems to bother you is my project(which you couldn't understand
> >anyway).
> Yes, it is a mystic project, or misty..
>
>
> >Actually, I'm showing that I know more than you, since you cannot
> >understand that when I said I don't want the video card to be a
> >hardware limitation. And there is no "software solution" yet. Just
an
> >idea of how much data will have to be worked with. So I reiterate
that
> >you are incorrect.
> Just mention input format and fps, and with those numbers save us all
> a lot of time.
>
> >Like everything else you said, that made no sense at all.
> I will stop arguing with you as there is nothing I can learn from it.
> But I will keep pointing out wierdnesses in your reasoning.

There is nothing weird about my reasoning.

On second thought, perhaps you should sue your shrink for not having
you committed.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, new York.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

News wrote:
> Is the recorded scene compressed (MPEG format) or raw?
> Is it being played back from disk or network (limits of disk
throughput or
> PCI bus is relatively low),
> or fed directly to the display adapter then output (avoiding buses)?
> Is the stream to be acted upon by the computer?(you mention changes
in
> shadow/lighting, or is that may be external to the computer)
> Mainstream video cards go up to 2048x1536. Is that fine enough
resolution
> for your needs?
> In theory, most modern video cards have memory bandwidth measured in
GB/s
> and RAMDACs in the hundreds of MB/s.
> You haven't specified the resolution/bandwidth of your stream. Does
it
> approach/exceed these numbers?

Those questions were answered in my last response to "RS".

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.