What kind of cards are these???

[Tony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

I've come into possession of what looks like two video capture cards. They
are both PCI. They are both outfitted with 8x8, Inc chips. Here are the
particulars of each:

Card 1
Has no obvious part number
Has Headphone, Mic In, Line Out, RCA Video Out, a four pin circular Video
In, RCA, Video In
Has one 8x83501AKAD chip
Has one 8x83104AKAB chip
Has an Analog Devices ADSP-2181
Has Bt856KPJ and Bt829AKPF video encoder and decoder chips
A Crystal CS4215 audio chip
Various other support stuff

Card 2
Has part number (?) PCA46070
Has Handset, Speakers, RCA Audio In, 9 pin circular (S-Video?) Video In, RCA
Video In
Has one 8x83501AKAD chip
Has one 8x83105AKAB chip
Has a Philips SAA 7110A WP, AP9155.1 chip
Various support chips

A Google search on PCA46070 yields nothing. Again, these appear to be video
capture cards of some sort. I'd love it if someone could tell me who makes
them, a (usable!) model number for each, and whether either of them would
work in XP. Much thanks in advance!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

"Tony" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:yuydnZtHOrtQH-TcRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
> A Google search on PCA46070 yields nothing. Again, these appear to be
video
> capture cards of some sort. I'd love it if someone could tell me who makes
> them, a (usable!) model number for each, and whether either of them would
> work in XP. Much thanks in advance!
>
>

I'm pretty sure that, legally, every device has to have an FCC number
stamped somewhere, usually quite visible in a rectangular outline. If you do
a lookup with the FCC you should be able to determine the manufacturer.

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

"Kevin C." <nomail@dot.com> wrote in message
news:tUged.33698$QJ3.25248@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:yuydnZtHOrtQH-TcRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
>> A Google search on PCA46070 yields nothing. Again, these appear to be
> video
>> capture cards of some sort. I'd love it if someone could tell me who
>> makes
>> them, a (usable!) model number for each, and whether either of them would
>> work in XP. Much thanks in advance!
>>
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure that, legally, every device has to have an FCC number
> stamped somewhere, usually quite visible in a rectangular outline. If you
> do
> a lookup with the FCC you should be able to determine the manufacturer.
>
>

Hmm, I looked and looked and cannot find a number in a rectangular outline
on either card. As neither of these is has any video tuner output
capability, why would the FCC have any oversight on the technology?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:54:29 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:

>Hmm, I looked and looked and cannot find a number in a rectangular outline
>on either card. As neither of these is has any video tuner output
>capability, why would the FCC have any oversight on the technology?
>

Electrical and electronic devices produce some level of EM radiation
and RF interference. The CRTC in Canada, and the FCC in the USA
regulate communications. Anything that can potentially disrupt
communications would thus fall under their umbrella. All mass
produced electronic/electrics have to be tested and registered.
Anything that produces a high enough EM signature has to be licensed
by them. Whether or not a video tuner is involved is irrelevant.


---------------------------------------------

MCheu

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

"MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:endjn056j27tp43lvkmouqifuijm27ppk4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:54:29 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, I looked and looked and cannot find a number in a rectangular outline
>>on either card. As neither of these is has any video tuner output
>>capability, why would the FCC have any oversight on the technology?
>>
>
> Electrical and electronic devices produce some level of EM radiation
> and RF interference. The CRTC in Canada, and the FCC in the USA
> regulate communications. Anything that can potentially disrupt
> communications would thus fall under their umbrella. All mass
> produced electronic/electrics have to be tested and registered.
> Anything that produces a high enough EM signature has to be licensed
> by them. Whether or not a video tuner is involved is irrelevant.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> MCheu

Thanks for that explanation, M. Unfortunately it still does not help me.
Some additional investigation suggests these might be video encoder cards
from Darim Vision. One of their model variants goes by the MPEGator label. I
understand their older cards used these 8x8 chips, so maybe these are early
versions (mid to late 90s) of what they offer now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

"Tony" <none@none.com> wrote in message news:<a6WdnU_hUZe6TeTcRVn-ow@comcast.com>...
> "MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:endjn056j27tp43lvkmouqifuijm27ppk4@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:54:29 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hmm, I looked and looked and cannot find a number in a rectangular outline
> >>on either card. As neither of these is has any video tuner output
> >>capability, why would the FCC have any oversight on the technology?
> >>
> >
> > Electrical and electronic devices produce some level of EM radiation
> > and RF interference. The CRTC in Canada, and the FCC in the USA
> > regulate communications. Anything that can potentially disrupt
> > communications would thus fall under their umbrella. All mass
> > produced electronic/electrics have to be tested and registered.
> > Anything that produces a high enough EM signature has to be licensed
> > by them. Whether or not a video tuner is involved is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > MCheu
>
> Thanks for that explanation, M. Unfortunately it still does not help me.
> Some additional investigation suggests these might be video encoder cards
> from Darim Vision. One of their model variants goes by the MPEGator label. I
> understand their older cards used these 8x8 chips, so maybe these are early
> versions (mid to late 90s) of what they offer now.

If you have access to a digital camera and some webspace (maybe create
a geocities account), you could put up some photos of the card and
someone might recognize it. As it is, everybody here can only take
guesses based on your descriptions.

---------------------------------------------

MCheu

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

"MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72e0dc8b.0410231030.5cb1cf41@posting.google.com...
> "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:<a6WdnU_hUZe6TeTcRVn-ow@comcast.com>...
>> "MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:endjn056j27tp43lvkmouqifuijm27ppk4@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:54:29 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hmm, I looked and looked and cannot find a number in a rectangular
>> >>outline
>> >>on either card. As neither of these is has any video tuner output
>> >>capability, why would the FCC have any oversight on the technology?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Electrical and electronic devices produce some level of EM radiation
>> > and RF interference. The CRTC in Canada, and the FCC in the USA
>> > regulate communications. Anything that can potentially disrupt
>> > communications would thus fall under their umbrella. All mass
>> > produced electronic/electrics have to be tested and registered.
>> > Anything that produces a high enough EM signature has to be licensed
>> > by them. Whether or not a video tuner is involved is irrelevant.
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > MCheu
>>
>> Thanks for that explanation, M. Unfortunately it still does not help me.
>> Some additional investigation suggests these might be video encoder cards
>> from Darim Vision. One of their model variants goes by the MPEGator
>> label. I
>> understand their older cards used these 8x8 chips, so maybe these are
>> early
>> versions (mid to late 90s) of what they offer now.
>
> If you have access to a digital camera and some webspace (maybe create
> a geocities account), you could put up some photos of the card and
> someone might recognize it. As it is, everybody here can only take
> guesses based on your descriptions.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> MCheu

An excellent idea, M! Follow this link

http://home.comcast.net/~tonyp2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html

You'll see photos of both cards across two pages. Maybe this will help.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:05:16 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:

>>
>> MCheu
>
>An excellent idea, M! Follow this link
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~tonyp2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html
>
>You'll see photos of both cards across two pages. Maybe this will help.
>

Well the first clue should have been the *8x8 inc*.
http://www.8x8.com
It would appear that you have a couple of video conferencing cards not
video capture cards.

J.P.


Help keep the best *Free* Usenet servers running
http://www.readfreenews.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

Stick it in your computer. It may install automatically and show up
in Device Manager. If not, and the computer just witters on about
an "Unknown device, take it out again. No harm done.

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

"J.P." <J@P.net> wrote in message
news:j2kln0hqj1gbq44d01b0uutn1esiusacjr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:05:16 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> MCheu
>>
>>An excellent idea, M! Follow this link
>>
>>http://home.comcast.net/~tonyp2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html
>>
>>You'll see photos of both cards across two pages. Maybe this will help.
>>
>
> Well the first clue should have been the *8x8 inc*.
> http://www.8x8.com
> It would appear that you have a couple of video conferencing cards not
> video capture cards.
>
> J.P.
>
>
> Help keep the best *Free* Usenet servers running
> http://www.readfreenews.com

I actually already checked the 8x8 site. It appears they no longer deal in
board based solutions, so I figured I'd try Usenet, before calling them in
the hopes they still have somebody working there who knows anything about a
product they had in the mid-90's.

Given that one of the boards is outfitted with a hardware based encoder and
decoder I wasn't sure if it was possibly a capture card.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:30:31 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:

>I actually already checked the 8x8 site. It appears they no longer deal in
>board based solutions, so I figured I'd try Usenet, before calling them in
>the hopes they still have somebody working there who knows anything about a
>product they had in the mid-90's.
>
>Given that one of the boards is outfitted with a hardware based encoder and
>decoder I wasn't sure if it was possibly a capture card.
>
You have an old obsolete (no longer supported) card that was a
pre-runner of the newer solutions that they now offer. Notice the
phone jack that is on one of the cards? These cards were for analog to
digital video and audio encode/decode through POTS.

J.P.


Help keep the best *Free* Usenet servers running
http://www.readfreenews.com

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

It turns out these cards are different versions of the Osprey 1000. I know
there are NT drivers for this card, and in its day it was quite the high end
(and expensive). The question is whether it's still worth using, or if a $50
Leadtek can outperform it at this point. Anyone?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,alt.video,rec.video (More info?)

Tony wrote:

> It turns out these cards are different versions of the Osprey 1000. I know
> there are NT drivers for this card, and in its day it was quite the high
> end (and expensive). The question is whether it's still worth using, or if
> a $50 Leadtek can outperform it at this point. Anyone?

It's a videoconferencing board. The standards it supports are not the ones
normally used for digital video.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:clkndc01qa9@news4.newsguy.com...
> Tony wrote:
>
>> It turns out these cards are different versions of the Osprey 1000. I
>> know
>> there are NT drivers for this card, and in its day it was quite the high
>> end (and expensive). The question is whether it's still worth using, or
>> if
>> a $50 Leadtek can outperform it at this point. Anyone?
>
> It's a videoconferencing board. The standards it supports are not the
> ones
> normally used for digital video.
>

Can you elaborate on this, John? I downloaded the manual, and it seems to
indicate that it can capture in both NTSC and PAL at the usual resolutions
in either RGB or 4:2:2 (among many others). It even indicated operability
with VirtualDub, among other similar programs. Have newer analog video
capture standards come into play since these cards were discontinued?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Tony wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:clkndc01qa9@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Tony wrote:
>>
>>> It turns out these cards are different versions of the Osprey 1000. I
>>> know
>>> there are NT drivers for this card, and in its day it was quite the high
>>> end (and expensive). The question is whether it's still worth using, or
>>> if
>>> a $50 Leadtek can outperform it at this point. Anyone?
>>
>> It's a videoconferencing board. The standards it supports are not the
>> ones
>> normally used for digital video.
>>
>
> Can you elaborate on this, John? I downloaded the manual, and it seems to
> indicate that it can capture in both NTSC and PAL at the usual resolutions
> in either RGB or 4:2:2 (among many others). It even indicated operability
> with VirtualDub, among other similar programs. Have newer analog video
> capture standards come into play since these cards were discontinued?

As a capture board it appears to offer no advantage over a cheap Compro
board unless you're using the hardware compression features, and the
hardware compression that it appears to support is H.261/H.320, H.263, and
H.323, which are fine for videoconferencing but not particularly useful for
any other purpose. JPEG and MPEG are listed as "unscheduled support"
whatever that means. According to the FAQ it only supports up to 320x240
16-bit capture in any mode, which is pretty poor for anything except
small-window videoconferencing.

The H. standards that it supports are highly compressed for use on dialup
and ISDN lines--if you've ever seen that kind of hardware working you'll
know that the quality is marginal at best--even at fractional T1 transfer
rates it's pretty dismal. They'd be real nice boards for using Netmeeting
over a dialup line but that's really about it.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cln88l01m50@news3.newsguy.com...
> Tony wrote:
>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:clkndc01qa9@news4.newsguy.com...
>>> Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> It turns out these cards are different versions of the Osprey 1000. I
>>>> know
>>>> there are NT drivers for this card, and in its day it was quite the
>>>> high
>>>> end (and expensive). The question is whether it's still worth using, or
>>>> if
>>>> a $50 Leadtek can outperform it at this point. Anyone?
>>>
>>> It's a videoconferencing board. The standards it supports are not the
>>> ones
>>> normally used for digital video.
>>>
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this, John? I downloaded the manual, and it seems to
>> indicate that it can capture in both NTSC and PAL at the usual
>> resolutions
>> in either RGB or 4:2:2 (among many others). It even indicated operability
>> with VirtualDub, among other similar programs. Have newer analog video
>> capture standards come into play since these cards were discontinued?
>
> As a capture board it appears to offer no advantage over a cheap Compro
> board unless you're using the hardware compression features, and the
> hardware compression that it appears to support is H.261/H.320, H.263, and
> H.323, which are fine for videoconferencing but not particularly useful
> for
> any other purpose. JPEG and MPEG are listed as "unscheduled support"
> whatever that means. According to the FAQ it only supports up to 320x240
> 16-bit capture in any mode, which is pretty poor for anything except
> small-window videoconferencing.
>
> The H. standards that it supports are highly compressed for use on dialup
> and ISDN lines--if you've ever seen that kind of hardware working you'll
> know that the quality is marginal at best--even at fractional T1 transfer
> rates it's pretty dismal. They'd be real nice boards for using Netmeeting
> over a dialup line but that's really about it.
>
> --

John, I thank you for your clear explanation of these issues. I see you are
right on target with this, and I would have to agree. Oh well, it's not like
I fell into a box of Osprey 2000s; those were supposed to have MPEG 1 and 2
hardware compression and IEE1394. Sounds like they were REALLY meant for
video capture, eh?