Difference between 2D and 3D video cards

[Mgresh]

I have been told that 2D video cards ( Matrox G450 & 550) are better than 3D cards for digital image editing, but I have never had anyone explain why. Does anyone here know?

 

[afterdark]

There is no such thing as a video card specifically for 2D. Matrox has never been able to really make a feasible gaming card so they focused on image quality in 2D applications instead.

I've worked on computers with Matrox cards, and I didn't notice a difference.

Unless you are some professional graphics person who works with images every day and needs the absolute top quality, you don't need a Matrox card.

 

[bandikoot]

Because when you turn a 2D card on its side it vanishes. This quality is of great use when editing digital images as they have a tendency towards vanishing as well.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Don't mind afterdark, his vision is obviously damaged from all the reading after dark.

Matrox has always been the 2D leader even before there was modern 3D gaming cards. Gaming really came afterwards for everyone IMO.

One of the main reasons is the quality of their builds. They use quality parts. They were the first with 10bit per color channel (40bit) support in their VPU. They always have quality RAMDACS, their G series WAS the Fastest, and along with ATI they were early adoters of 400mhz RAMDACs. Matrox also uses a 5 stage output filter process while ATI and nV both use 3 stages. Gives you a truer image. They also have image related functions and features built into their hardware and software. 16X AA that applies to regular Windows text (Glyph AA) is a very nice bonus.

Wanna know more check their site for their PR literature;
<A HREF="http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/parhelia512/home.cfm" target="_new">http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/parhelia512/home.cfm</A>

Matrox didn't just default to 2D it has ALWAYS been their primary function. They make alot of cards for businesses that rely on 2D quality (like Medical Imaging, Video and Photo Editors, and CAD specialists), so they play to their strength.

Side by side, nothing beats the quality of a Matrox card, whether the output is via DVI/VGA connectors, or out to a TV. If you've ever had the chance to work on one you'd see the difference, just like those who went from an old Geforce to a an ATI or modern FX card, the diff. is noticeable.

The question is what exactly are you planning to do with your rig, or were you just curious?

BTW, the difference between 2D and 3D... well a D of course. And that D would be time IMO (it's not about the FPS)

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK

 

[Mgresh]

GreatGrapeApe, thanks for the explanation. I am planning a computer to scan medium format negatives and edit using Photoshop. Your post helps me with the last component that I was not sure about.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

If you want the very best colour and pixel accuracy definitely Matrox. I would recommend the P650.
You could do ok with a cheap ATI too. I picked the R9000non-pro for my video/picture editing rig because at the time there was only the option of the $600 parhelia or the older G450/550 for MORE money. So there was little option THEN, even as a Matrox aficionado. Now is nice the P650 is a reasonable price.

So if ~$150 US is a little steap for you, then an ATI R9200 would do ok. Just depends on how serious you want to be. I think a Parhelia would be overkill for you, and even a P750 has extra features you don't really 'NEED'. Check some reviews and see what you think you need.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK