|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 10th, 2011, 11:31 PM | #1 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
Matrox MC-100 3D muxer (and more) announced
Dual SDI to HDMI Mini Converter for 3G/3D/HD/SD | Matrox MC-100
Let me preface my statements by first saying that I'm biased because I had a hand in the 3D feature design of this product since its inception. However, I truly feel this box is the most versatile mini-converter now on the market. Not only can it mux left and right HD-SDI into HDMI 1.4a frame-pack and side by side, top/bottom, difference, anaglyph or superimposed on the HDMI and HD-SDI out, it can also re-sync non-genlocked signals, adjust convergence, tune out slight vertical disparity, amplify HD-SDI signals, act as a 2-source HD-SDI switcher and multiplex1.5Gx2 HD-SDI into a single 3G HD-SDI and then use a second MC100 on the other end to demux it back to separate 1.5G signals. The two HD-SDI outs can each be configured to output different types of signals. The best part is that the SRP is only $495!
__________________
Tim Dashwood |
September 11th, 2011, 08:32 AM | #2 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 101
|
Re: Matrox MC-100 3D muxer (and more) announced
This looks like a key piece of equipment for 3D work... and for the long term too.
But for the immediate situation, it seems the Matrox MC-100 could be used as a Live video-tap of both cameras.(using the SDI out) And just plug the SDI outputs into 3D monitor, so the key personnel on the set (and even the client) can view in 3D live. Am I reading this right? If so, is there an inexpensive (under $1,000) monitor recommended? (I have a potential 3D shoot coming up and this may be a key piece of the monitoring equipment.) |
September 11th, 2011, 01:44 PM | #3 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 147
|
Re: Matrox MC-100 3D muxer (and more) announced
Cool - thanks, looks very useful.
Carlton, 32" LG passive 3D TV is under $1000 why not use that (or similar) for on-set monitoring? |
| ||||||
|
|