Video/Audio Capture and Display Card

I'll admit now that I have never dealt with PC104, therefore I may be
asking for something silly, I don't know.

I have an application in mind where I will need to capture a composite
feed and audio, compress these to MP4 or similar and record to a hard
drive.  I will also need to be able to add an overlay/OSD to the
incoming image, the overlay becoming part of the final video that is
compressed and recorded.

I have found cards that do this, though as yet I have no idea of
price, but sadly there is one more thing on my wish list, is there a
card that does all this, and is also a video display card?

This would allow me to have the processor board and a video/audio
board only, so I can plug the camera and mic into the video board, and
the display into it to see what's going on & use the device.  As you
might have guessed space is at a premium!

Does this make sense?


Tom

Tom wrote:
> This would allow me to have the processor board and a video/audio
> board only, so I can plug the camera and mic into the video board, and
> the display into it to see what's going on & use the device.  As you
> might have guessed space is at a premium!
> 
> Does this make sense?

Here's one issue that seems to indicated it doesn't: what good do you 
expect a PC-104 setup to do you if there's only *one* board in it 
besides the CPU?  In other words, why use a backplane system to connect 
less than three modules?

On Feb 21, 7:58 pm, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker <HBBroe...@t-online.de>
wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > This would allow me to have the processor board and a video/audio
> > board only, so I can plug the camera and mic into the video board, and
> > the display into it to see what's going on & use the device.  As you
> > might have guessed space is at a premium!
>
> > Does this make sense?
>
> Here's one issue that seems to indicated it doesn't: what good do you
> expect a PC-104 setup to do you if there's only *one* board in it
> besides the CPU?  In other words, why use a backplane system to connect
> less than three modules?

Maybe I'm being obtuse here, but how about, why have 3 boards when 2
would do?

If you used a PC104 as a web server, using a USB hardisk, then there
would only be one board required in total, the network, USB and
processor are all on the processor board.

It seems to me that part of the idea behind PC104 is being small?  It
seems likely that any device that is used to capture video is also
likely at some point, even if only occasionally, to want to display
the result on a screen.  So having a card that can both capture and
encode video as well as display to a monitor would be useful?

Tom

Tom wrote:

> Maybe I'm being obtuse here, but how about, why have 3 boards when 2
> would do?

I'll answer that with a question: what's the point of splitting the job 
onto two boards in the first place?  If you really want it small, why 
waste space on a connector between two separate boards, probably 
carrying signals that you don't even need?

> It seems to me that part of the idea behind PC104 is being small? 

A part, indeed.  Which means that there's more to it.

The real idea behind PC-104 is to be smaller than a full-fledged PC, 
while retaining its flexibility.  That flexibility comes at a price, and 
a large part of that price is excess size and weight compared to a 
narrow-purpose board.

So once you start wasting space by going for PC-104, why bother how much 
you waste?

And why insist on having the graphics output on the Video-In card, when 
you can just use a CPU board with integrated VGA?

On Feb 21, 11:38 pm, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker <HBBroe...@t-online.de>
wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > Maybe I'm being obtuse here, but how about, why have 3 boards when 2
> > would do?
>
> I'll answer that with a question: what's the point of splitting the job
> onto two boards in the first place?  If you really want it small, why
> waste space on a connector between two separate boards, probably
> carrying signals that you don't even need?
>
> > It seems to me that part of the idea behind PC104 is being small?
>
> A part, indeed.  Which means that there's more to it.
>
> The real idea behind PC-104 is to be smaller than a full-fledged PC,
> while retaining its flexibility.  That flexibility comes at a price, and
> a large part of that price is excess size and weight compared to a
> narrow-purpose board.
>
> So once you start wasting space by going for PC-104, why bother how much
> you waste?
>
> And why insist on having the graphics output on the Video-In card, when
> you can just use a CPU board with integrated VGA?

As I say I am totally new to this technology, what I need is the
flexibility of a PC but without the size, in fact I am talking
wearable equipment, not tiny stuff sown in, but full functional
commercal technology that can be secured in gauntlets or waist coats.
Ideally a single board computer the size of a PC104 with video
capture, encoding, hard drive support (USB or IDE) and VGA would be
great, saldy I don't think such device exists, certainly not in the
price bracket I'm interested in.

So, your last part about a CPU board with VGA on board, is music to my
ears!  I have a full time job as a programmer for a company, but I do
some work for my fathers company, so I haven't had time to search all
the options available, but I needed to get some ideas quick.  So what
I am now thinking thanks to you is a CPU board with VGA output on it
and a video capture board for the composite and sound input and
encoding.

I don't suppose you would be kind enough to provide a model number or
similar for the CPU/intergrated video board?

Thank you so much, I hope I haven't come across as an ignoramous.


Tom