Matrox RT.X100 moan

Tony A · #1 (**permalink**) 02-06-2005, 03:20 PM

Some posts ask about capture cards. I’ve owned a Matrox RT.X100 for 6 months, and recently contacted Matrox about image files not displaying on any video track. They were mystified. Jpegs, bitmaps, targas, even photoshop psd files would not display (without rendering first - an impractical editing situation). All I got is the red bar above the ‘X’ logo.

At first, Matrox said pixel dimensions must conform to standard 720 x 576 (for PAL) to display correctly. Now this is plain daft, and they knew it. I solved the problem by reinstalling X.tools, which meant all images now display ok - whether pixel size is standard or not.

When editing with PPro alone, it’s stable and trouble-free. But with a Matrox preset, it’s so unstable that even 3 short clips on the timeline cause it to struggle. Playback in the movie window is jerky, and looks like a slow frame rate. It’s impossible to carry on.

The point of my moan is that makers should address the compatibility issues surrounding their beloved products. The RT.X100 is known to be intolerant, and can even give trouble with systems that Matrox approve of – like mine. I followed every recommendation, and I’ve still never seen Matrox ‘Realtime Effects’ yet!

On the plus side, it captures analogue from VCR beautifully, in perfect synch. And being a hardware encoder, it makes sweet mpeg-2s. It’s an expensive item, and the reseller told me a lot of people buy it for the Adobe software bundle alone – the main reason I bought it myself.

So any prospective buyers – this is one video enthusiast’s experience. Haven't been able to radically improve my RT.X100 editing environment so far, but my fingers remain crossed.

Marc Peters · #2 (**permalink**) 02-06-2005, 05:26 PM

Don't you just love PCs? How many times has your washing machine been incompatible with a certain brand of washing powder? I love technology, but the more it advances, the more inefficient we become!

Tony A · #3 (**permalink**) 02-06-2005, 06:53 PM

True, there's no incentive toward common-ground compatibility. Doesn't seem likely to come about, either. Maybe these are just the early stages of leaps in technology, and a more unified approach is on the way.

As it happens, I get confused even using the washing machine.

Marc Peters · #4 (**permalink**) 02-06-2005, 06:55 PM

My parents would argue I don't know a washing machine from a dishwasher.

Tony A · #5 (**permalink**) 02-06-2005, 06:58 PM

You haven't been putting the jugs in with the knickers, have you? Because there's an incompatibility issue here. (So my manual says, anyway.)

Mike Thorpe · #6 (**permalink**) 02-06-2005, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Peters

Don't you just love PCs? How many times has your washing machine been incompatible with a certain brand of washing powder? I love technology, but the more it advances, the more inefficient we become!

Maybe Matrox should take a hint from a proper graphics chip manufacturer like ATI or nVidia

The list of incompatible items for te RT.X100 is quite simply appalling. OK, generally speaking there are going to be compatibilty issues with any hardware, but for a card costing that much to be so fiddly, that really is shocking.

Tony A · #7 (**permalink**) 02-07-2005, 10:56 PM

Couldn't agree more. And it's weight of opinion that can embarrass the makers into focussing on these things. Having browsed their user forums for quite a while, I'm sure Matrox are acutely aware of it. They're also aware that they could lose valuable market share of Premiere-associated hardware.

Alan Mills · #8 (**permalink**) 02-08-2005, 08:20 AM

For the record...

I've had my RT.X100 system for about 8 months now and to date I have not had a single issue with it. It worked first time and, so far, every time. Giving me real time support and all the effects I use regularly.

OK, so I know I don't push the thing to the edge of the envelope on a daily basis, but we don't all suffer these horror stories.

As for card compatibility. Any graphics card bought in the last couple of years has been designed AFTER the RT.X100 which has been around for a few years. So I could just as easily argue that it's these cards that are not compatible with the RTX100 and not an issue for Matrox at all.

I read stories like this tale of woe most days at the Matrox forums and I have not read anything that convinces me that the number of people having issues with this card is a tiny fraction of a single percent of owners.

Tony A · #9 (**permalink**) 02-08-2005, 10:14 PM

Yes, fair doodles. I was trying not to be too negative, and thought twice before posting. But my comments are from experience, and it's good to get something off yer chest. Last 2 weeks felt like swimming through treacle.

Capture, edit & finish - it does 2 out of 3, so cracking the third nut can't be far away. Incidentally, believe I use the same graphics card as your good self - GEforce dual head 5700. It was recommended by the reseller, and they use it in their ready-made RT.X100 systems.

You bought a ready-built setup, but bear in mind you may one day need to clear down & reinstall Windows, starting from scratch. This could be trouble-free, or possibly not.

Marc Peters · #10 (**permalink**) 02-09-2005, 09:58 AM

I'd have to agree with Mike and tone here. It seems ludacrous that they can't manage to get compatability right as it's not always practical to base a system build entirely around one component... what happens when you want to upgrade for example?

Personally, I think if they can't get the drivers right (and I assume it's a driver issue), then they should make it strictly an OEM product that can only be used by system integrators.