🚀 go-pugleaf

>Has anyone out there used the IBM AVC software with the Motion video
>Apdater A card, or the 750 motion media card?

We've been working with  the AVC boards, but not with the M-Motion 
adapter.  We love the boards, but the software interface is a real
pain, especially the graphics.  U. of Delaware (302) 451-8164
(talk to Janet Harbauh or Sherry, they can fill you in)
puts out a product called "Podium" which uses the boards and has
an easier to deal with interface.  We're also investigating using
Plus with external commands.

>I also cannot
>seem to find any software that can handle live motion video other than
>the IBM motion video.  They also said the card  only works on the PS/2
>series because of the Multi-Channnel Arch.

There is also a version of the AVC which runs on non-Micro-channel
machines, but I am not sure if it can handle live motion video.  There's
a new verison of Podium which runs on plain vanilla MS Dos coming
out any day now.  Perhaps the U. of Delaware can help you on that one.

Also, there is a new Intel chip set due out early 1992 (so they say)
which will handle  live motion video, but of course these chips won't
help you at the moment.

Unless you're married to IBM equipment, you might also invesitgate
both the Amiga and Macintosh multimedia systems.  You might be
especially interested in taking a look at Macromind's Media-Maker
for the Macs.  It's a joy to work with.

Good Luck!
 

Marti Atkinson
University of Calif. at Santa Cruz  
marti@saturn.ucsc.edu
marti@uccrls.BITNET
..!ucbvax!ucscc!saturn!marti

In <1991Apr29.200448.14543@isc.rit.edu> rhm5684@isc.rit.edu (R.H. Mowery ) writes:

>	My only reason for questioning the IBM system is that it seems 
>that the run-time (at least from what I read) will only work on PS/2
>systems.  If this is true, that means luggin our system with us and also
>limits us from sending out a disk to let the clients view our machines.

    I know, having argued the same thing within our own group, that 
    MicroChannel machines (what people usually mean when they refer
    to the PS/2's) are having limited acceptance, but is it really as bad
    as that?

>Has anyone out there used the IBM AVC software with the Motion video
>Apdater A card, or the 750 motion media card?  IS there anything out
>there that will allow me to do this kind of quality?  We do have true
>blues at work, but of course at home I don't, so no taking work home.

    A PS/2 is not totally out of the reach of the home market,
    though IBM's prices may make it seem as if they'd like that.
    A model 55x will do fine for using M-Motion/A.

>I also cannot
>seem to find any software that can handle live motion video other than
>the IBM motion video.  

    I'm not quite sure what software you mean, but it's true that 
    running the M-Motion video/A card requires loading 3 TSR's (MMEDIA,
    MMOTION, and drivers for the players you want to use).

    However, your application can be in anything you like as long as
    it can allocate the variable blocks M-Control wants, raise M-Control's
    software interrupt, and ideally, be able to create and link in
    a WakeUp routine.  I've been doing it with Turbo Pascal 5.0 and 6.0 .
    Once I'd got some communications problems sorted out, it worked
    very nicely.  This is giving me a Turbo Pascal unit which any 
    application can use to obtain simple, straightforward calls to
    use video.

>They also said the card  only works on the PS/2
>series because of the Multi-Channnel Arch.  Why would this be true?

    IBM are pushing the microchannel bus as hard as they can, even
    though they're making it more expensive to build machines with it
    than with ISA bus.  However, there are actually machines from other
    manufacturers appearing which use MicroChannel.  I only know this,
    though, because BYTE examined a set of them last October.  Apart from
    that review, I've never heard them mentioned.

    MicroChannel is a *really* different beast from the old ISA bus.
    Adapters built for it are a different shape from adapters built
    for ISA.  Its abilities, signals, etc. etc. are all quite different.
    You might just as well try to use a board made for the Mac's NuBus.

>Could it be designed around this -- guess it's just there way of selling
>more machines???  I must say they were very helpful in getting me
>information, but I still would like opinions from the rest of the world.

     I found them reasonably helpful too.  In one case where they were
     less so, I got a handsome apology by e-mail after I mentioned it
     on the net -- in fact, in this group.

     My feeling at the moment is this: take MicroChannel boards, like
     M-Motion; ISA boards, like VideoLogic's DVA-x000; boards for the Mac,
     boards for the Amiga, etc.; and establish some portable,
     system-independent interfaces on which applications can be built,
     which use features common to them all.  As Borland's GRAPH unit
     for Turbo Pascal does across the variety of graphics adapters 
     for PC's.  

     Why do that, at the risk of losing some favourite feature from
     a particular one of them?  Because this area is still very young,
     and it remains to be seen exactly what standards will emerge and
     stabilise.  Until then, you want your applications and their support
     as portable as possible.

     And as I always do, I will again recommend high-level languages 
     for this work, not authoring languages.  You need readability, 
     maintainability, portability, and strong support for software 
     engineering precepts (and moderately efficient code generation 
     is rather nice too).


     Alastair Milne

In <15244@darkstar.ucsc.edu> marti@saturn.ucsc.edu (Marti Atkinson) writes:

>We've been working with  the AVC boards, but not with the M-Motion 
>adapter.  We love the boards, but the software interface is a real
>pain, especially the graphics.  

   How so?  M-Control's consists of a software interrupt, with registers
   set to point to a carefully-documented variable block.  It was quite
   straightforward.

   What happens to graphics on AVC?  With M-Control they are unaffected.


   Alastair Milne

In article <1991Apr29.200448.14543@isc.rit.edu>, rhm5684@isc.rit.edu (R.H. Mowery ) writes:
> So I am requesting advice and sugesstions from anyone out there who 
> may have or are currently developing multi-media applications on 
> the IBM - PC platform.  I know it is not the best ...
> 					-R. Mowery III 

Hi. I am doing something like what your doing. If you could call me
at work 216-646-4229 or home 216-951-4845 it would be great.

I just got back from  NCGA '91 and the best thing I saw was SF-QUAD/1.
Both Alan Paller(SP) and Aaron Marcus told me to check it out. It is a
board that can display 4 camera feeds on the same screen along with
computer data and graphics. The video images can be sized, dragged and
frozen.  You can configure your system to display 64+ video windows but,
64 is the most anyone has done to date. You even have the ability to
access the video source from the pc(play,ff,rewind,lights,drapes,ect.)

You might want to look into it. If you do call me or
Scott R. Sharer at SFPS 1-800-736-9242.

Good Luck;

Mitch Harris       harrism@mc.ab.com      ak251@cleveland.freenet.edu