Best Video Card ???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chim Bubba
  • Start date Start date
C

Chim Bubba

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
 
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.
 
I'd recommend a Matrox 400 or 500 series with dual-head and TV out.
Click to expand...

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]
 
I have an ATI AIW8500DV, an Nvidia Ti4200 and a Matrox G450 all with TV out.
I have measured the performance of TV resolution, able to play full screen,
ease of use. The best by far is the Matrox G450, almost perfect TV out and
will actually play full screen, the others will not. Matrox knows how to
make correct TV out.

Mike T
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the responses!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
That may be so, but I've had no problem getting the 8500 DV to "play
full screen" on either a standard definition or a high definition TV so
I'm forced to conclude that if you cannot the problem is between chair
and keyboard.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 (e-mail address removed)
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
 
Back
Top