reno-

I've just installed a LFG4 MM card into a MacPro 2.66 4 core machine running 10.5.6.

I can grab 4 cameras at time, it's wonderfull but I cannot get rid of the interlacing.

• I've tried with "field" but it don't want to change of -1.

• "singlefield" doesn't change anything.

• I've tried with vade's shader 'v001.deinterlace.jxs' but no changes ....

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated..

I can grab 4 cameras at time, it's wonderfull but I cannot get rid of the interlacing. 

• I've tried with "field" but it don't want to change of -1.
• "singlefield" doesn't change anything.
• I've tried with vade's shader 'v001.deinterlace.jxs' but no changes ....

Would Anyone have an idea?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated..

interlacing-problem-with-lfg4-card

wow, this is the first i have heard of this series. what was the cost 

On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:59 AM, Renaud RUBIANO wrote:

> I've just installed a LFG4 MM card into a MacPro 2.66 4 core machine 

> I can grab 4 cameras at time, it's wonderfull but I cannot get rid 

> • I've tried with "field" but it don't want to change of -1.

> • "singlefield" doesn't change anything.

> • I've tried with vade's shader 'v001.deinterlace.jxs' but no 

> Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated..

wow, this is the first i have heard of this series.  what was the cost  
of the card?

>
> Hello,
>
> I've just installed a LFG4 MM card into a MacPro 2.66 4 core machine  
> running 10.5.6.
>
> I can grab 4 cameras at time, it's wonderfull but I cannot get rid  
> of the interlacing.
>
> • I've tried with "field" but it don't want to change of -1.
> • "singlefield" doesn't change anything.
> • I've tried with vade's shader 'v001.deinterlace.jxs' but no  
> changes ....
>
> Ireally don't know what to do ...
>
> Would Anyone have an idea?
> Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated..
>
> All the best,
>
> Renaud Rubiano


This card comes from active silicon and it coast 660 Euros.

Connectrs are in BNC, but you could buy an extension card for S-video inputs.

The four inputs at a time works great, and there is no latency ...

It seems to be THE CARD, if we could de-interlacing ....

This card comes from active silicon and it coast 660 Euros.
Connectrs are in BNC, but you could buy an extension card for S-video inputs.
The four inputs at a time works great, and there is no latency ...

There is a simple deinterlacing shader included with Max 5 (jitter-shaders->convolution->cf.deinterlace.jxs). If you are using OpenGL for display anyways, dropping that into the patch is pretty straightforward.

Hello,
There is a simple deinterlacing shader included with Max 5 (jitter-shaders->convolution->cf.deinterlace.jxs).  If you are using OpenGL for display anyways, dropping that into the patch is pretty straightforward.  

Thanks for the point, it could be a solution but I hav to process the signal through matrix so it's not very optimal ... am I right?

Grab (VideoSignal) -> deinterlace shader (Bus to the graphic card) -> matrix processing (back to RAM) -> videoplane (back to the graphic card)

Hum Hum ... But I doesn't see another solution ....

I'm using the Decklink SP card for composite capture and I have to use the de-interlacing shader, same problem with fields. Jit.qt.grab settings have no effect. Another solution if possible is set all cameras to progressive? Good Luck!

Hello,
I'm using the Decklink SP card for composite capture and I have to use the de-interlacing shader, same problem with fields.  Jit.qt.grab settings have no effect. Another solution if possible is set all cameras to progressive? Good Luck!
Stuart


Thank you for your answer, so if it's the same problem of field, I will buy the LFG4 board.

It's more expansive but have 4 inputs at time . (and you could have 4 boards, but it introduce some latency)

I will make a comparative with all cards I hav access next week if it could be useful for someone. (DFG1394, LFG4, MatroxMX02)

Thank you for your answer, so if it's the same problem of field, I will buy the LFG4 board.
It's more expansive but have 4 inputs at time . (and you could have 4 boards, but it introduce some latency)

On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Renaud RUBIANO wrote:

> Thank you for your answer, so if it's the same problem of field, I 

> It's more expansive but have 4 inputs at time . (and you could have 

> 4 boards, but it introduce some latency)

> I will make a comparative with all cards I hav access next week if 

> it could be useful for someone. (DFG1394, LFG4, MatroxMX02)

>
> Stuart,
>
> Thank you for your answer, so if it's the same problem of field, I  
> will buy the LFG4 board.
> It's more expansive but have 4 inputs at time . (and you could have  
> 4 boards, but it introduce some latency)
>
> I will make a comparative with all cards I hav access next week if  
> it could be useful for someone. (DFG1394, LFG4, MatroxMX02)
>
> best,
>
> reno-
>
> --
> Renaud Rubiano
> http://www.didascalie.net
> www.renaudrubiano.com
> www.tapemovie.org
>


Interlacing problem with LFG4 card