This content has been marked as final. Show 50 replies
You're better off without Matrox anyway. Just run CS3.
Hmmm. Ok... just how brainwashed have I been? I never thought of Premiere as a stand alone software solution. So in heat of battle editing, what's the difference between Premiere on it's own vs. integrated with a capture card? I'm sure Matrox will tell me all about their real time this and that. But what is the reality when in front of the keyboard tweaking things on the timeline?
Jim, thanks for saying it that way. You got me out of a real thinking rut.
The reality is that for me (and apparently for many others in these forums), editing with Matrox produces much more grief than it speeds up editing with real time abilities. Matrox just never got the driver right once Premiere went from 6.5 to Premiere Pro. Ditching the Matrox, my editing just became a lot more responsive and fast, and Premiere just started to work again. I do miss certain effects and such, but I sure don't miss the Matrox problems.
Stay away from Matrox--please, please, please. I just pulled and (fortunately) sold an RT.X2 card from my editing box, and miraculously, all (well, *most*) of the sluggishness and crashiness just went away! I'd cut on Avid for so long with various hardware configs that I was expecting that I need a card or something in order to edit. In this day and age, all the horsepower you need is in the computer itself instead of an add-on card--and that's a good thing because a computer can be upgraded, vs. a card which is a purchase-install-and-cross-your-fingers-kind-of-deal. To me, the RT.X2 was kind of like one of those beer-soaked "hey, I want a tattoo" moments--seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was kind of hard to live with. Thankfully, getting rid of the Max-Rot [sic] card was a lot easier than eliminating that inked Maggie heart...
Premiere Pro has a little way to go before it's completely rock-solid, but I think much due credit must be given to the power of the software and a properly-spec'ed computer. It's a good time to be in Video Land.
Just an FYI... I am extremely satisfied RT.X2 user. I have two of them housed in HP XW 8200 machines. I'm using CS3 Production Premium with PPro 3.1.1 and Matrox x.tools version 3.1. Despite what these critics say, the Matrox RT.X2 works as advertised, with many real time enhancements that greatly speed up my work flow. I formerly owned two RT.X100's using PPro 2.0 and still have the PPro software I'll send you for free. Send me a PM with your address.
Don't listen to the Matrox haters. From reading the Matrox forums, it seems like some people just can't make it work and like to blame Matrox for it. I've been a satisfied customer ever since the RT.2000.
That we "can't make it work" is very much related to Matrox's inability to just "make it work". Their hardware restrictions are so limited that being off by one driver version of something can easily cause issues.
You buy a graphics card, it'll work in most any appropriate environment. Same for a sound card, network adapter, RAID controller, etc. Most any PCI hardware you add in will work in most any modern PC. That should apply to Matrox, but it doesn't. If you don't start off with a FULLY approved Matrox system with the same exact configuration, BIOS and driver versions...well, you could have problems.
Not saying you definitely will, but you could. I did. And it seems so did a lot of other folks. That's why we've become "Matrox haters". Their hardware just does not work AS IT SHOULD, as most any other add in hardware does. And so we recommend against it.
I agree with many of the comments. A mere 2.4 GHZ Core 2 Dual makes the Matrox Card obsolete for DV-25. I imagine a Quad Core would allow for HD editing with out the need for hardware. I admit hardware is true realtime but the RT previews with OHCI work good enough for me. In the end I must render with OHCI so there is a slight advantage to using hardware.
The matrox cards can be made to work as advertised, but with some effort getting drivers right, HW right, etc... Then just when its workin, Adobe will release an upgrade; start all over again.
I prefer investing in the workstation and ppro natively; just works.
I am playing with a Matrox system configured to work by Matrox itself. Works fine. No crashes yet. I have a tutorial DVD coming that I will work through to help me judge the efficiency and stability of the system.
With a Matrox approved system, it may be that the RT.X2 is pretty darn handy. I would, however, be careful about upgrading before Matrox is ready.
>configured to work by Matrox itself.
No offense, Steven, but that negates much of the validity your review might have had. Kind of like if Sony had tweaked an EX1 rather than just giving a reviewer a stock model.
A very big complaint with Matrox is that their cards don't play nice with many, many configurations, as they should. As most hardware does.
Steven. Don't even try to convince Jim.
Jim is right in one respect. You must use "approved" systems to make it work right. I would have stuck in in my own system but I would have had to move everything over to a bigger case, and I didn't feel like spending the money. I may eventually do that if they decide to let me keep the card for future beta testing.
I wanted to see how it would work with a properly configured system. Like one you would buy preconfigured. (Probably the only way I would recommend anyone buy one.)
Stanley, what a great offer. Sadly, I already committed to a purchase. I would not feel right about bailing on the guy at this point. But thanks again.
To the rest, for or against, you helped me put a lot in perspective.
FYI, this computer has never been on line. So in bringing it back to life, I connected it and boy did windows have a lot of catching up to do. So with ram bumped from 1 to 3gig, bios's, drivers, and SP2 (home addition) updates, plus 2 striped 400gig drives for a video drive, the matrox card and all the old adobe software are rock solid and fast!
Now with a new graphics card, upped power supply, xp pro, and PPro 2 on their way in, I don't even want to install that extra stuff now:-0
I just want to get to making some product! I was fearing the worst in getting this old beast running again. I never expected it to just come together and run. Who-da-thunk....
Back to your help... Chances are I'll be putting together another suite. If I do, you've opened my mind to this newly evolving software only option. I'll come here first when that happens. Thanks.
> With a Matrox approved system, it may be that the RT.X2 is pretty darn handy.
I would agree. Can be made to work with all the right HW and drivers, and be useful.
My biggest problem is it breaks with every release. Then you wait though driver updates till they get it workin again; or not.
So the equation becomes; are the benefits worth the work involved to get it to work every year?
cwrig... my answer has been to wait on the new releases until matrox is able to catch up. If I already have a great working system, I'm not in a hurry to upgrade until I know it works. Right now? Everything involving CS3 works beautifully on both my machines :)
Curt and I are both the type to want to upgrade right away. And unless you are a beta tester for Matrox, that could be a problem.
I suggest that there are people who just need everything to work and they can wait for an upgrade if they have to. I am not one of them, but I believe such people exist. That is probably the best target market for the RT.X2
Stanley - my 15 yr. old son has just become insanely interested in video editing but the two of us cannot work on the same computer at the same time (obviously). His computer does not have a licensed copy. Any interet in sending that free copy our way so he can do it all legal and such on his box?
Thanks! Not sure how to send a PM via adobe forum though...
Read your EULA again. You may install your license on two computers, but not use them at the same time. Any other suggestion reeks of illegal actions or intents.
>Read your EULA again. You may install your license on two computers, but not use them at the same time. Any other suggestion reeks of illegal actions or intents.
How about while I read my EULA again, you can read my post again...
"the two of us are not able to work on the same computer at the same time..."
With just a little thought before the hands hit the keyboard, you could probably have inferred that this means we WANT to work at the same time, so I need another copy! Would it make sense to post this if it was NOT our intent to do it in accordance with the EULA? (duh...)
Then acquire a second license, but I guess it will not be free.
Yes, Jackie, I can do that. You can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Will do - thanks so much!
Keep in mind that students get a HUGE discount on Adobe products.
>The reality is that for me (and apparently for many others in these forums), editing with Matrox produces much more grief than it speeds up editing with real time abilities. Matrox just never got the driver right once Premiere went from 6.5 to Premiere Pro. Ditching the Matrox, my editing just became a lot more responsive and fast, and Premiere just started to work again. I do miss certain effects and such, but I sure don't miss the Matrox problems.
I couldn't agree more.
>Premiere Pro has a little way to go before it's completely rock-solid, but I think much due credit must be given to the power of the software and a properly-spec'ed computer. It's a good time to be in Video Land.
Yes. As mentioned earlier, all I miss from my capture card days (Pinnacle DV-500 and Matrox RTX10) is the ability to have a global Input/Output (I/O) solution built into the Adobe NLE app. The downside, as several posters have mentioned, is that the Matrox capture cards cause all sorts of problems and crashes. My problems stopped when I removed my Matrox card. That said, I never had any problems with my Pinnacle capture card when running with Premiere 6.5 so it IS possible for a capture card to ACTUALLY work.
I wish Adobe could either team with a better capture card manufacturer, or get serious about I/O in their next edition. As mentioned, one no longer needs to process on a capture card as the computer's CPU now has enough power -- especially the Quad processor which seems to work well with CS3. I am very happy with the power and rendering time quad provides.
Getting back to I/O -- all Adobe would have to do is sell a compact simple card that had just the following I/O ports on it:
A. Firewire I/O port (1)
B. S-video I/O port (2)
C. 2-channel Audio I/O (4)
Forget the usual composite ports, they take up too much room and S-video is better anyway. A - C would total only 7 ports and these 7 ports would be compact enough to put on a card -- thus no "break out box" would be necessary to add expense to the device. This would give all the necessary ports to handle digital and analog I/O and again, no processing (or processor fan) would be needed, thus reducing cost of manufacturing.
I don't know about you, but I still have a LOT of analog footage to digitize as I have been shooting video since about 1978. I really need analog I/O and I would imagine any professional, who has been in the business for quite a while, like me, has lots of analog footage in their library. With the price of STOCK footage these days, I'm not about to forgo my library just because it analog. In many cases, my analog footage actually looks better than my digital footage as the analog footage often acquires a "film look" as it ages.
So I BEG Adobe (or one of their reliable partners) to put out a cost-effective I/O card (less than $300) that has seven (7) lousy ports; does NO processing and WORKS internally with CS3 with NO conflicts. That would really be the ticket!
And yet somehow I am a very happy Matrox camper with two RT.X2s constantly working to near perfection, making me an extremely productive video producer. My projects would take a heck of a lot longer without the real-time aspects, unique effects and accelerated rendering. How many of you Matrox haters can put color correction and soft focus on a 720p HDV clip and not get a red line? Hmmm? If you can, then tell me what OS and configuration you're running. I'll set the same thing up here and compare the two. After all, all I'm really concerned with is machines that are reliable and will allow me to work faster. If your machine is faster and more reliable than my Matrox RT.X2s inside HP XW8200s, then I want em! Tell me what you're using that could possibly work better than what I've got! I wanna know! Change my mind if you can!
Speaking for myself; Im not a matrox hater. If it didnt have the benefits you mentioned there would be no reason to make the card. Its just the avg user has a heck of a time getting it work smoothly as you have. And just about the time they do, adobe releases an upgrade and it breaks.
>And yet somehow I am a very happy Matrox camper with two RT.X2s constantly working to near perfection, making me an extremely productive video producer. My projects would take a heck of a lot longer without the real-time aspects, unique effects and accelerated rendering. How many of you Matrox haters can put color correction and soft focus on a 720p HDV clip and not get a red line? Hmmm? If you can, then tell me what OS and configuration you're running. I'll set the same thing up here and compare the two. After all, all I'm really concerned with is machines that are reliable and will allow me to work faster. If your machine is faster and more reliable than my Matrox RT.X2s inside HP XW8200s, then I want em! Tell me what you're using that could possibly work better than what I've got! I wanna know! Change my mind if you can!
I know what you mean about those red lines and that's great if your machine works, but unfortunately most of us have not been as lucky as you seem to be. I assume you are running CS3.
>Speaking for myself; Im not a matrox hater. If it didnt have the benefits you mentioned there would be no reason to make the card. Its just the avg user has a heck of a time getting it work smoothly as you have. And just about the time they do, adobe releases an upgrade and it breaks. -- Curt
Curt said it, right on the money.
The point isn't that Matrox cards have no value. The point is more that the systems they work with perfectly are very, very, very, very, very few. They SHOULD work perfectly with pretty much ALL modern systems, as most any other hardware will. That they don't is why we complain.
All the general statements made about Matrox cards are without validity. Until somebody have numbers it is best to avoid words like "most", "all". "ä few" and so on. Reading user forum, people may conclude that all products are worthless and none are useable or acceptable. This is true of this Premiere PRO forum. It is especially annoying when people makes statements about products and softwares they don't have.
Look at the Matrox approved hardware list. You'll see for yourself how small it is compared to what's out there.
I am currently testing a Matrox RT.X2 that has been totally stable and I think I am beginning to really like it.
If the hardware list is short, then perhaps the card is really only for people who intend on buying a system to support it. Or, better yet, get a system with it already built in. If that is unacceptable, then don't buy one. If it makes sense to you and your business, then perhaps it will save many man hours.
But to say that it is bad because the compatibility list is short is, in my opinion, quite wrong.
>All the general statements made about Matrox cards are without validity.
Which is why Matrox sent me a system. They feel the same way. Matrox wanted someone who had said negative things to change their mind and I seemed like a likely candidate. We'll see how I feel when I am done.
In the meantime, I was also offered a free training DVD from a third party that is making my testing go a lot smoother. I just follow the DVD and the card does amazing things very quickly.
>But to say that it is bad because the compatibility list is short is, in my opinion, quite wrong.
I guess here we disagree. I feel the Matrox engineers should make their card work perfectly with ALL systems, not just a very, very few where even being off a BIOS or driver version causes issues.
Because the bottom line with their current limited support is this - for most people Matrox cards won't work right. If they want to handle that by selling turnkey solutions only, as they do with Axio, then so be it. But if they want to sell an add in card to anyone with a computer, then they should make it work for anyone with a computer.
(Here I am not talking about trying to add a Matrox card to a Pentium II with 128 MB of memory. I'm talking about a set of minimum specifications, and their card working on ALL systems that meet those specs or better, as is the case with just about any other add in hardware you can buy.)
I'll side with Steven. If Matrox provides a list of compatible hardware, then why not buy from that list? I've bought two Matrox systems over the years (pre X2) and they worked great--but I had enough sense to buy 100% approved hardware as a turnkey system.
Making a board like this that would be compatible with any hardware must be a bit hard to do--or someone (Matrox or someone else) would have done it by now.
Whether or not I decide to buy an X2 system for next fall is pretty much riding on Steven's review. I'm glad to see he seems to be reasonably impressed so far.
There could be many reasons not to buy from that list, the first of which is that you already have the computer you want. A second one is that you may want better parts than those approved, or cheaper parts. In my case I bought a motherboard that actually was on the list to correct some problems that cropped up after moving to Premiere Pro 1.5. But it was the next newest version of the mobo tested, and I had issues.
I also don't buy that it's hard to make the board work with any system. My RT.X100 worked beautifully with Premiere 6.5 on a system that was put together long before I bought the card and in complete ignorance of approved parts. Damn thing just worked, and I loved it.
Then I got Premiere Pro 1.5, and nothing but headaches. Then I got rid of Matrox, and nothing but editing.
Jim and I will have to agree to disagree on that subject.
It has also often been stated that owners of the Matrox RT.X2 or earlier cards should work with newer Adobe software when it comes out. Again I disagree. It would be great if it did, but once again, if you buy something that works, keep using it. Upgrading should wait for Matrox approval.
There are many people who don't want to be on the bleeding edge. They just want a functioning system. Those are the correct Matrox customers.
Now that may very well limit their customer base, but so be it. They are a big enough company to know what they want to achieve. If the product suits you, buy it. If not, then don't buy it. Simple.
But then again, even though I tend toward the bleeding edge, I am still using Windows XP because it works.
Wow...if only I'd appreciated what I was letting myself in for when I bought my Matrox RT.X100extreme/PPro1.5 system 3 years ago.
With a major system HD crash a couple of months ago, I decided to take the opportunity to upgrade to dual/quad core system to be told that the RT.100 wouldn't support it and would need to upgrade to RT.X2, which would then need an upgrade of my Asus P5AD2 motherboard to support that...!! All in all, I decided against it as Matrox seemed to be limiting me and although I understand that systems change, I can't bring myself to 're-spend' on an upgraded Matrox system. When the costs started adding up to more than £1000, I thought I might as well invest in a completely new system.
Reading all your comments has certainly opened my eyes to the other possibilities, although I'm in no way knowlegeable enough about this to make an informed decision as yet. Any links to articles/forums/reviews of other systems would be greatly appreciated.
I have been through all you explain. I am much happier how that my divorce with Matrox is final.