Matrox versus Canopus

[walllh]

1st - I know I can look at the ratings for each card on this site but is there an actual comparison as to which people think are the best.

It was suggested to me to buy a Matrox RTX.100 Pro Collection edition. I went to the site and signed up for the demo DVD. This DVD looked really impressive but then again being that it is their demo I am sure it will be hiped up a little.

What are the pros and cons of each?

I found a comparis on on Canopus' web site and they made some good points saying that their card can also capture the audio to make sure the video and audio are sync'ed together properly. They also said that the software takes full advantage of the cpu to help speed things up and that Matrox was not capable of doing this. But on the Matrox site it said that their card can use the cpu to help speed things up. I am wondering if the comparis on on the Canopus website might have been an old one.

I am having troubles now decideing on which one I should buy. Can anyone give me some good arguments as to which one is better to help me decide?

These are the cards I am looking at:
Matrox RTX .100
Canopus DVRex RT
Canopus DVStorm2 Pro

Thank you all in advance.

[RimmeR]

Hi There,
Check this out http://forum.matrox.com/cgi-bin/rtx100/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000629#000000

I have both The RTX100 and REXrt. Imho I'd go for the RTX unless you need component.
Just my thoughts

[lordsmurf]

Those companies shit-talk each a lot. It reminds me of the more-personal Nikon vs Canon arguments.

In all seriousness, they are equally as good, with minor strongpoints here and there the other does not have.

Just like I tended to lean towards Nikon, I tend to lean towards Matrox (seen one in action that pleased me, plan to get one in the future myself when I expand my business and learn more about editing).

I am a stickler for interlace errors and stairstepping on straight lines, and the Matrox does better with this than the Canopus. I've watched demos before at photo fairs where video was also present.

[walllh]

I am just wondering then, is it not as important then for the Matrox card to not have audio to be able to sync these together better.

Also, Canopus claims that if you edit over and over again the video on Matrox gets more distorted than the Canopus cards. Canopus also shows this with an O-scope and signal generator of how the Matrox card is not as good.

One of my biggest concerns with the Matrox card is that I have seen people say is that if the card can not do the render because the effect was done with an Adobe effect and not the Matrox effect that you have to take the card out. I really do not want to be removing hardware everytime I run into this situation. This may not be true now but can someone verify this.

I understand that these two companies are competitors and that one will say it is better than the other. This is why I am asking here.

So far I have recieved the demo from Matrox RTX.100 and it looks real impressive. Matrox seems to be more supportive because they had a salesman contact me and they sent me the demo. I haven't heard anything back from Canopus yet. And because of people's responses so far I am leaning towards RTX.100 over the Canopus cards.

Thanks so far for the responses.

[RimmeR]

Why don't you put your queries to the Matrox RTX100 forum and just see what they say. It can do no harm.

[studawg66]

I own a Matrox RT.X10, not the X100, but my comments may help.

I am just wondering then, is it not as important then for the Matrox card to not have audio to be able to sync these together better.

I primarily use 1394 (miniDV camcorder) for capturing, but from my limited experience in capping analog sources, there has been absolutely no problems with sync. Of course, that is just with my PC...others may have problems.

One of my biggest concerns with the Matrox card is that I have seen people say is that if the card can not do the render because the effect was done with an Adobe effect and not the Matrox effect that you have to take the card out. I really do not want to be removing hardware everytime I run into this situation. This may not be true now but can someone verify this.

I use Premiere 6.5 and have noticed this phenomenon, although I think the problem is not quite as you described it. The Adobe effects will still render, you just can't see them in real time. All of the Matrox effects work in realtime with no problems, but NONE of the Adobe effects are visible IN THE PREVIEW PANE without rendering. However, I believe that all of the effects should be visible in real time on a separate preview monitor (TV) connected to your TV-Out on the Matrox card. I say "should" because I have not actually tried it, but that's the way I understand it from reading the literature. Not sure if the Matrox cards work any differently with Premiere Pro or not, but I suspect not.

I also use a Canopus StormRT occasionally at work and it has a similar problem. If I use the Canopus project settings, the realtime effects work, but the sound is missing. By switching to the Adobe project settings, it all works together just fine, but no Canopus RT effects.

There is bound to be a way around these problems, but I have not found them yet.