Full HD HDMI output from Jitter
Dear all
I am about to buy a Matrox MXO2 Mini, not only for its input capacities (thanks vade for the detailed blog) but mainly to feed a full HD projector (for the ICMC and the GEMdays)
I will mainly feed it from Final Cut, which I know works, but for more experimental stuff, can I get jitter windows to output on it? It might seem a dumb questions, but as I don't have the card yet, it is quite crucial!
thanks for the help
pa
Thanks efe, but I've read that thread before posting, and it does not answer my simple question (which is also asked by Robert but not replied explicitely)
Will Jitter output proper full HD 1080p and 1080i though the Matrox MXO2 Mini?
thanks for the help
pa
My impression is that this will not work. I am getting a MX02 Mini and will confirm this, but as far as I know the MX02 will only output via supported applications (i.e. FCP). Jitter is not supported.
that would be a shame as I was told its quality if far superior (in that price range) to the Blackmagic one. Vade, you have used both, would you agree that they are in the same quality category? I need something that will integrate to FCP to high level (for playback in concerts for instance) and also supports jitter...
Jesse, what is your timeframe for your purchase? Days, weeks, months? In any case, thanks so much for your help.
pa
jit.gl.syphon???:-)
FWIW, I don't think the Blackmagic Internsity card supports *output* from Jitter either, only capture. But I don't have the card so can't confirm that.
You can, of course, output to a HD projector from Jitter using your computer's graphics card via a secondary monitor output... but that means you don't get the advantage of the MX02's LUT on its HDMI output, which is what I gather you're looking for?
My MX02 Mini is on order, should be arriving next week.
I can't speak to the ability of the MXO2 mini to output from Jitter, as I haven't tested it. Even if it could, you would not get any of the typical benefits you get from outputting via your computer's graphics card (similar to USB monitor outs). No OpenGL, no hardware acceleration. For most purposes, you will have best results simply by connecting via the video out on your graphics card. If there is some functionality on the MXO2 that you would miss using this method, I'd be willing to bet we can find a way to replicate it somehow.
Dear Jesse and Andrew
The LUT is one of the many things my video (FCP and Avid users) are raving about. I'm the only one who kind of does jitter/opengl stuff (and I certainly encourage that in the gigs I promote) so I want to buy something that would allow both output streams (jitter and FCP output) to be used...
Also, the projector I use is native 1920 x 1080 but its UXGA input supports (1600 x 1200) which is not wide enough...
So I just hope there was a simple way to use one video out card with full hd with the support of OpenGL... is there such a thing?
p
Andrew may be able to comment more fully, but my understanding is that Jitter can only use outputs that are visible to the OS as monitors, i.e. something that shows up in the "Displays" System Pref. From what I've read the MX02 does not do this, and only shows up as a monitor output in supported apps like FCP or Avid.
Most recent graphics cards support 1920 x 1080 resolution, and those with non-HDMI digital outputs (i.e. mini-Displayport, DVI, etc) can be adapted to HDMI without a problem.
So if you're just looking for an output system and aren't doing capture I agree with Andrew that your best best is to use a good OpenGL accelerated graphics card. If you have a recent computer you should already have one.
I'd personally only buy an MX02 if you're looking to capture at HD resolution - the LUT is nice but for output you could probably do the same thing in Jitter, as Andrew implied. The only real advantage is for outputting directly from FCP.
If there is a QT output component, jit.qt.videoout can send data to a device, however, it can't use OpenGL. This device supposedly supports working with jit.qt.videoout in this way, however, it might not be the optimal path to use jit.qt.movie->jit.qt.videoout.
Secondly, jit.qt.movie has a "voc" (video output component) attribute which may be used to output directly to video output components, and can send the compressed codec data to the device in a way which is more efficient than jit.qt.movie->jit.qt.videoout (but does not support additional processing in Jitter along the way). Please see the "direct_to_voc" subpatch in the jit.qt.movie helpfile. I know this works with DV footage as sent to DV cameras, but I don't know about the matrox MX02 (and if so, which codecs it wants to see for optimal playback).
Finally, some devices support vendor specific codecs which by default are rendered directly by a device rather than to the screen. I don't know if matrox provides such a codec.
Personally, I would most likely use a second monitor output and a DVI to HDMI converter for output instead of this card, like Andrew and Jesse mention. I assume that FCP can do the same. In Jitter, you can use a shader for hardware accelerated color correction or LUT (cc.colormap.jxs). In FCP, you may be able to use their RT effects to accomplish similar in real time. I am not certain.
Good luck.
Dear all
Thanks for all this help. I happen to have a couple of converters at the uni so I will try straight from the card, from FCP and from Jitter. For the latter, OpenGL is a significant feature, so missing it would make it virtually unusable.
What I gather from my FCP specialist is that there was an interlacing/de-interlacing problem with FCP rendering to full HD 1080p so the only way to get proper out was to get the Matrox or the Blackmagic. As I said earlier, I am a newbie on FCP so I have to trust someone ;-) But I still sent a quick message to my favourite list !
Thanks again for the help, I'll pursue my tests
pa
ok, more developments on this, and it is not looking good! I have received the fullHD projector and installed the latest FCP on my machine...
I have 2 problematic movies that play well with the Matrox and looks badly interlaced/blurred/garage/ugly with a straight DVI to HDMI (or DVI to UXGA) when played from Quicktime or FCP, and that looks very smooth on the Matrox.
So my question is now: would it look as smooth on the Blackmagic (which would be my preferred option as it is Quicktime and Jitter compatible) than the Matrox? I know it is not really a jitter based question, but this is the place where I trust video people with real street/stage/life experience!
I am ready to provide the problematic films to anyone who wants to try them.
also, if no one has both cards handy (or at least experience on both) I might have to buy the Blackmagic and do the A/B...
any help welcome
pa
Sounds like your source footage is interlaced instead of progressive. I'd recommend avoiding interlaced footage whenever possible. However if you do have interlaced footage, your card is probably sending as an interlaced stream over HDMI, and your projector has some settings to make interlaced signals look good (e.g. scanline persistence or something more advanced). DVI->HDMI will always be interpreted as progressive, I believe.
So you have a few options for using DVI with such footage:
- Avoid the interlaced footage--i.e. shoot new footage using progressive scan, or convert the existing footage with high quality interlaced->progressive conversion, or simply scale the interlaced footage half vertically (often this looks pretty good, and will offer you significant bandwidth improvements for additional processing/compositing)
- Add some filtering to your Jitter patch (uses CPU/GPU, and possibly tricky to get right--e.g. jit.slide or a GPU equivalent)
Sorry I don't have time to make any examples of this, but in general, if you want to do any processing in JItter, you'll want progressive footage as well, so it's generally an important thing to handle with the source material.
-Joshua
Dear Joshua
Thanks for this info. My problem is that I am a concert organiser as well (in general with the GEMdays festival and most specifically for next summer's ICMC as music chair) and therefore I don't see myself imposing a codec/format/interleave-progressive, or even worse converting and getting the angst of an anxious performer...
I therefore try to find a clean, simple, versatile, sharp looking, idiot-proof way of playing the tracks in concert, but also to make it jitter-compatible for the more experimental stuff. This might sound like a demanding agenda, but I think you will understand my goal.
Thank you very, very much for you help on this, I am learning by giant steps!
p
Yes, I've been working with the MXO2 Mini quite a bit and the 1080i footage does not look great. Kind of disappointing because the device works so easily with jit.qt.grab, but I've just resigned myself to using 720p instead.
The only card in this price range that supports 1080p signals is the Kona IO Express, but its lack of analog video inputs was enough to drive me away. A pity, I'd like to be able to work at 1080 resolution.
forgot to update this:
we had in the same machine on the same projector a Matrox 02 Mini and a Blackmagic. The former has a slightly better quality, and the little player that comes with it supports more formats. It also offers colour correction so I decided to go with it in the end.
Despite both now being supported by the jit.qt.output, I will use the computer's graphic card for anything else than playback from FCP, mainly because of opengl.
p
Hi,
I'm not sure if I missed this in the thread but we use a BlackMagic intensity card with a macpro quadcore and it has the lowest input latency that I have found.
We can also use the output but it does take a bit of wrangling.
Cheers,
Carey
We just used a bunch of Blackmagic Intensity Pro cards and were happy with the results, although the setup options are a bit confusing and take some trial and error to get right.
Are you getting capture and output on one card at the same time? I found that, when opening a card for capture, it echoed incoming video to its outputs. We just spent a bit more money and put two cards into each of our Mac Pros: one for capture, one for output.