Re: VideoLogic Captivator pros & cons

Alex Watson (alex@pathfinders.com)
Sat, 30 Mar 1996 16:40:28 -0600 (CST)


I have video captivators, and a QuickCam, and intel's card. Intel's best
for .AVI recording, anyhow, comparing videocaptivator to quickscam....

The pluses of having a video captivator as opposed to QuickCam:

1. No need to plug something into keyboard, and use-up parallel port.
(such as QuickCam)
2. Faster video frame capture. (not enuff for 28.8 unless you have ISDN+)
3. Capture video in color.

The minuses of using a video captivator:
1. Need seperate video source (camera).
2. Costs the same as QuickCam w/o camera.
3. Extremely hard to find and support. (Not available anymore, unless
they are making more.)

Definately recommend QuickCam for experimental tinkering!

alex

> I'm trying to decide which video capture board to buy. I've decided to go
> that route as opposed to a QuickCam because I already have a camcorder and
> it should provide a lot more possibilities. The Captivator seems like a
> good choice at first because Tiger Software sells it for under $100 and it
> does all the things I want it to do (CU-SeeMe, Video for Windows, frame
> grabbing, etc.). However, I've read that it doesn't always work well when
> recording still frames from a VCR or camcorder, and the manufacturer doesn't
> plan to support its use under Windows 95 because it's been discontinued.
> Does anybody out there have one, and have you tried it with Win 95? If so,
> I'd like to hear from you.
>