PDA

View Full Version : best VHS capture solution


sidar
2nd March 2002, 22:50
hello all,

i read a lot of documents. but my head is so confused. have some questions if you dont mind. sorry it is like a questionnaire.

the thing is, that I want to capture vhs from vcr, and convert it if possible high quality divx, or svcd.

1- think that my system is amd 1.8 ghz, 512 ddram, 40 gb ibm desktop. what should I buy:
a) a cheap tv tuner card (wintv or avermedia, range 30-60$)
b) a cheap graphic card with vivo (ati radeon 64ddr vivo or asus 6600 deluxe vivo or ati all in wonder 128, these are 60-80$ range)
c) a expensive graphic card with vivo (ati all in wonder radeon or ati aiw 7500 or geforce3 vivos, range 150-300)

2- think that my system is pIII 550, 256sd, 40 gb ibm desktop. what should i buy, a or b or c?

3- if possible, could you please give quality notes over 100 for 1a) and 1b) and 1c) and 2a) and 2b) and 2c)?

4- if possible, could you please give capturing and converting time notes over 100 1a) and 1b) and 1c) and 2a) and 2b) and 2c)?

5- what is your most efficient solution for this, and if possible please cheap. i give here some cards...

a) aver tv tuner: 60$, fly tv tuner: 35$

b)
ati radeon 64 mb ddr vivo: 80$
ati all in wonder
asus 6600 deluxe, 32sd geforce vivo: 65$
asus 6800 deluxe, 32ddr geforce vivo: 75$
asus 7100 deluxe, 32ddr geforce2 gts vivo: 110$

c)
ati all in wonder radeon: 150$
ati all in wonder 7500, 64 ddr: 200$
asus geforce3 vivo, 200$

sidar
2nd March 2002, 23:05
note that i never play games. i will buy this only for capture.

Scuba
3rd March 2002, 11:53
In all of this cases I will prefer a TV Tuner card.
I just don't like the integrated display cards. They make bad solutions for video editing and if you ever think to upgrade the video editing options in the computer you are trowing the mony you invested in it away.

You must make sure that the TV Tuner card can capture at full resolution and high quality. I understand that you can now use huffyuv codec, Do it and compress after.

But in any case, I will prefer a more professional solution if my main interest is video editing. and there are more solutions in the market.
For example:
I have a video capture/Edit card that work in Mjpeg codec. The card run on computers from 350Mhz and up.
It give much better quality then all of the display cards/TV Tuner cards all together.
It have a DV option where you can have DV out at all time or capture from DV directly to Mjpeg.

anarco
5th March 2002, 11:27
or use any openGL applications
Id suggest a capture card - IF it is cheaper.


Otherwise the ASUS Cards do a pretty good capture job and they are not nailed down to a proprietary program like a lot of capture cards are (not all are...).

Okay, it took me a while to config my ASUS 8200 but now it does the same job a DC30 does.


Not to forget it is also a matter of the CPU you have...
with your 550 Mhz a good capture card will do a better job than a geforce with TV in/out.

Neo Neko
11th March 2002, 10:44
The video on a VHS tape is 320x240 at least for NTSC. Capture at a larger rez is not very usefull. If you want to go higher on the second processing you can use some sort of bicubic resize to enlarge. It would be best to cap straight from TV if possible. Because not only is VHS rez low it has lumanence problems. If you watch several consecutive frames you will notice large lumanence fluctuations in solid color patches. It is all over the source, but it is most noticable there.

Scuba
11th March 2002, 11:12
Originally posted by Neo Neko
The video on a VHS tape is 320x240 at least for NTSC. Capture at a larger rez is not very usefull. If you want to go higher on the second processing you can use some sort of bicubic resize to enlarge. It would be best to cap straight from TV if possible. Because not only is VHS rez low it has lumanence problems. If you watch several consecutive frames you will notice large lumanence fluctuations in solid color patches. It is all over the source, but it is most noticable there.

The Video on VHS is NOT 320X240. it's 720X480, as it's the current brodcast "DV NTSC" standard. Standars is also refered to as "D1".
If you capture at full resolution from the first place you don't need to strach and exrtra process.
If you will use for encoding a coded that support Interlace material such as Mpg2 you also don't need to De-Interlace your material as the coded know how to handle it.

Using a cheap TV Tuner card or display card integrated with TV in for capturing will not give you best resoults in any case. Only a Pro-Sumer or professional cards will. (and you will need some massive drives to handle them).

Edit -
The Pro-Sumer DC30+ card capture native in MJpeg format. The DC30+ do the compression to Mjpeg using hardware encoder (the Zoran chip on the card) and a high quality hardware encoder at is.
you Can't compair it to a basically software driven card as the G-Force+TV-in option cards.

anarco
11th March 2002, 11:55
VHS is not able to hold full NTSC or PAL

VHS does a horizontal resolution of 240 lines is in pixels ~320
S-VHS instead does 420 lines (which is comparable to 640x480 pixels).

Example:
A PAL Broadcast comes in with 520 lines and 576 rows, recording it to VHS instead of directly recording to HDD would be stupid. You get the full 576 rows but not more than 240-250 lines.

However back to the subject... for good captures you should at least be able to capture sVHS resolutions. But any cheap BT 878 does 768x576 anyway... its more a matter of your other hardware and not to forget the playing quality of your VCR.


Fact is VHS or sVHS tapes DO NOT hold full PAL or NTSC resolutions.

Ookami
11th March 2002, 12:32
Fact is that the noise reduction filters etc. work much better if you capture at full PAL (or NTSC).

Fact is that all the things that Scuba (in his second posting, I highly disagree with "I have a video capture/Edit card that work in Mjpeg codec. The card run on computers from 350Mhz and up.
It give much better quality then all of the display cards/TV Tuner cards all together") mentioned are a fact too :D .

Fact is that the picture quality CAN be improved.

Fact is that the Asus cards (Chrontel chip) are way superior to all TV tuner cards out there (and to 99% of the mid range cards like DC10,30 etc.).

Fact is that I'm tired to write the same old stuff every week or so...

Fact is that I preached the same (wrong) stuff "Why should I capture a inferior format like VHS at a high resolution?", for months, before the pro's at Ultimateboard PROVED me wrong.

Fact is that you should use a SVHS VR as the tuner for you capture card (the only TV card that has a similar quality is the Asus TV box).

Fact is that my PC is not working like it should :( . Scuba, check your PM's :) .

So, test for yourself and THEN post!

Cheers,

Ookami.

Originally posted by anarco
Fact is VHS or sVHS tapes DO NOT hold full PAL or NTSC resolutions.

anarco
11th March 2002, 13:38
hehehe well,

the question wasnt if filters
do a better job on a high-res capture

assuming serdar got a pIII 550 with a 5400 RPM HDD
a capture in full PAL/NTSC is no option until
he buys a fast capture card (whatever device that is),
thats why I mentioned it should at least capture in
sVHS resolution (on this machine)

for the AMD Id probably go for 720x576 too
even if downscaling to sVCD from 640 or 720 didnt make
a visual difference to me (and I got a quite sharp TFT here)

I did 3 captures before I started capturing a whole tape,
one 768, one 720 and one 640. The only areas where you
could notice differences were areas with text but for the
rest the capture in 640 did not make any visual difference.

Squeezing all to a bitrate of 2200 for sVCD made all versions
-almost- equal.

On the other hand I tested two different VCR, both 6Head
but THEY really made a difference the panasonic provided a nice
smooth picture, the noname device instead lot of noise.

There could be added a lot of factors which are important for a capture. At the end it will always end up: Capture as high as you can as uncompressed as you can and with the best VCR you can afford.

If you dont have much money or dont want to spend it 640x480 mjpeg will do a good job too.

Ookami
11th March 2002, 13:50
I bow to the master. ;) There is nothing to add to the below quote. If you can, do it like Scuba, capture uncompressed :scared: .

Cheers,

Ookie.

Originally posted by anarco
There could be added a lot of factors which are important for a capture. At the end it will always end up: Capture as high as you can as uncompressed as you can and with the best VCR you can afford.

If you dont have much money or dont want to spend it 640x480 mjpeg will do a good job too.

anarco
11th March 2002, 14:11
if you want the best quality... go buy the damn movie as DVD ;-)

Scuba
11th March 2002, 14:21
My DVD player have Component outputs,
I can route it into my T3K workstation and capture Uncompressd YUV 4:2:2 - No quality loss here :D
Then use the TMW (http://www.highvid.com/software/tmw/tmw1.shtml) to re encode the DVD at what ever data rate I want and in real time. Quality is the same as CinemaCraft :p
Author back, I can even recreate most of the menus If I really want to.

But on the end,
I like the original covers and having no life I have anogth funds to buy as many DVD's as I like. In most cases I can even drop it on company acount.

Call is the "Easy way" or any other way you want.
I prefer using my time for better things then this (Like helping of 10 forums across the net) :eek:
(Told you, no life) :scared:

Neo Neko
11th March 2002, 22:13
Capturing at a large rez filtering and resizing can be usefull. I have found that when capturing from my standard NTSC VHS VCR that capturing in lossless HuffYUV at 320x240 works quite well. It takes up much less space than full NTSC with the same codec. And if you wish to do corrective filtering Bicubic resise while taking longer will give better results at least for me rather than capturing the 320x240 picture stretched to 640x480 or above. So I would use bicubic resize and enlarge to 640x480. Filter as necessary. Then just do a regular or bicubic resize back to 320x240. Capturing at 640x480 off of VHS would be just a bit worse than capturing at 320x240 and just stretching the pixels with a normal resize function. The bicubic resize gives me a much smoother result and reduces stair stepping along straight object edges. I am not talking stair stepping due to interlacing, but stretching.

takeru
14th March 2002, 17:06
i capture through my asus 8200t2 deluxe. 720x480 huffyuv, cd quality pcm sound. source is from my panasonic svhs vcr. i dunno about you but i get great results. no dropped frames.

scaling from a low resolution and then resizing back down doesn't do that much of a difference. you have to capture at a high resolution to start with or you'd still have jagged lines everywhere.

=======================
athlon xp 1600+, 512megs pc2400,2x120gig 8meg cache hd's (wd1200jb)
80gig+46gig storage hd's, 18gig 10k rpm 8meg cache ultra scsi boot hd

anarco
14th March 2002, 17:22
right, scaling up and down and down an image will do nothing but bluring the image


thats why I think digital zoom is most pointless crap ever invented ;)

on the other hand if a digital camera would have a satellite uplink the satellite could identify the object Im pointing at, taking pictures and generating assumed 3d objects sending back the view I am looking at ;-)

okay, science fiction hehe

Scuba
14th March 2002, 18:12
in the labs they have a GPS with 1mm acurecy
maybe not today but you will have every thing tomorow.
science fiction probably not for long ;)

Neo Neko
14th March 2002, 19:03
Originally posted by takeru
scaling from a low resolution and then resizing back down doesn't do that much of a difference. you have to capture at a high resolution to start with or you'd still have jagged lines everywhere.

Originally posted by anarco
right, scaling up and down and down an image will do nothing but bluring the image


thats why I think digital zoom is most pointless crap ever invented ;)

I will agree with you on the digital zoom part. But if my source is only ~320x240 and I capture it at 640x480 it gets the jaggies and looks like I just did a digital zoom. Capping at 320x240 and then using Bicubic resize to enlarge smooths out those jaggies for me better than if I was to capture at 640x480. Yes it might blur the frame, but only slightly. It is more acceptable to me than the large scale jaggies. I only wish I had an SVHS VCR. They are a rare item here in the US. ;)

takeru
14th March 2002, 19:54
Originally posted by Neo Neko

I will agree with you on the digital zoom part. But if my source is only ~320x240 and I capture it at 640x480 it gets the jaggies and looks like I just did a digital zoom. Capping at 320x240 and then using Bicubic resize to enlarge smooths out those jaggies for me better than if I was to capture at 640x480. Yes it might blur the frame, but only slightly. It is more acceptable to me than the large scale jaggies. I only wish I had an SVHS VCR. They are a rare item here in the US. ;)

tv source is a lot higher than 320x240. as to large scale jaggies i have no idea where you are getting that from. and svhs vcr's aren't THAT rare. maybe expensive, but not rare.

JVC SR-V10U S-VHS 4-Head Hi-Fi Stereo VCR (http://www.jandr.com/JRProductPage.process?Merchant_Id=1&Section_Id=1427&Product_Id=2455247&showcase=t)
JVC HR-S7900 S-VHS VCR (http://www.jandr.com/JRProductPage.process?Merchant_Id=1&Section_Id=1427&Product_Id=1817867&showcase=t)

Neo Neko
15th March 2002, 03:50
I was talking 320x240 as in VHS source. Yes TV can be much higher. And whenever possible I try to cap straight off TV.

SVHS can be found here in the US but they are not that common. But you are correct they can be found in a few isolated stores at about double the price of a standard VHS. But I do not know anyone who owns one. And I know alot of people who are home theater buffs and always have the latest greatest equipment. They have some pretty spiffy expensive VHS VCR. But not a single one of em owns an SVHS. I have thought about getting one to help better facilitate more video capture though. It would be nice.

Scuba
15th March 2002, 15:50
I have at least 5 S-VHS VCR's from diferant models and makers.

Neo Neko
15th March 2002, 22:08
Originally posted by Scuba
I have at least 5 S-VHS VCR's from diferant models and makers.

Any recomendations? Can I borrow one? :)

kopelen
15th March 2002, 23:26
Originally posted by Ookami
Fact is that the noise reduction filters etc. work much better if you capture at full PAL (or NTSC).

Fact is that all the things that Scuba (in his second posting, I highly disagree with "I have a video capture/Edit card that work in Mjpeg codec. The card run on computers from 350Mhz and up.
It give much better quality then all of the display cards/TV Tuner cards all together") mentioned are a fact too :D .

Fact is that the picture quality CAN be improved.

Fact is that the Asus cards (Chrontel chip) are way superior to all TV tuner cards out there (and to 99% of the mid range cards like DC10,30 etc.).

Fact is that I'm tired to write the same old stuff every week or so...

Fact is that I preached the same (wrong) stuff "Why should I capture a inferior format like VHS at a high resolution?", for months, before the pro's at Ultimateboard PROVED me wrong.

Fact is that you should use a SVHS VR as the tuner for you capture card (the only TV card that has a similar quality is the Asus TV box).

Fact is that my PC is not working like it should :( . Scuba, check your PM's :) .

So, test for yourself and THEN post!

Cheers,

Ookami.



I'm a bit troubled about the Chrontel chips and since Ookami constantly mentions the Asus/Chrontel cards being the best of the best, I want to buy one NOW. :D

Ookami, your posts leave me with more questions to ask. Hopefully I can get some answers out of you or from someone else. :)

Searching through Google.com using keyword, 'Chrontel CH7007A', I found only three Asus video cards that are equipped with this particular chip.

*V7700 Deluxe - GF2 TI200
*V7100 Deluxe - GF2 MX Series
*V3800TVR - ??

Unfortunately ( I will further verify this ), the GF3 Deluxe does not have the Chrontel chip - it may be that Asus is now using Brooktree chips.

But the question is, after searching for Chrontel chips in Google.com, I only found Chrontel chips to be used for Video-Out and not Video-In. I'm still in the process of understanding about video capturing and just want to know if the Chrontel chips ARE suppose to be used for Video-Out and does this improve overall video quality of captures? I thought it would be the Video-In chip that affects the quality of the source coming in.

After much investigation, I found out that the V7700 Deluxe has a Conexant chip for Video-In and Chrontel chip for Video-Out.

Please someone clarify what I don't understand, thanks.

Also, if I were to buy the V7700 Deluxe and Asus TV box/SVHS VCR, will I be able to capture NTSC TV @ 748x480 res using huffyuv using Virtual Dub ( the res. is most likely not correct - 7xx X 480)?

Thanks.

-kopelen

takeru
16th March 2002, 03:48
fyi: the asus 8200 T2/T5 deluxe use phillips encoder chips, SAA7108E (http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/pip/saa7108e/v1).

kopelen
16th March 2002, 05:56
Originally posted by takeru
fyi: the asus 8200 T2/T5 deluxe use phillips encoder chips, SAA7108E (http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/pip/saa7108e/v1).

Thanks for replying with that info. Ookami says the Chrontel chips are the best. But IYHO, do you think the Philips is just as good if not better?

takeru
16th March 2002, 08:19
i have never seen the quality from a chrontel chip, so i can't really compare them. ;)

Ookami
16th March 2002, 13:44
Hello Kopelen,

first I have searched for days for interesting threads, sites, reviews etc. when I wanted to buy a capture card (that was one year ago)... The people at Ultimatboard.de (closed :-( ), have always praised the Asus 3800 as the best in town ;) . So it could be that I've remembered the Chrontel chip, but that the Philips chip is the one who does capture job. If this is so, then I apologize. OK, I will no make a quick google search (real time posting :D ):

No good. :(

I will try to find my saved technical html page from Asuscom on my HD
Maybe later this day, I'll find it.

Further, the Asus card has excellent quality but buying a GPU for capturing is ALWAYS risky, because:

-if you have a souncard that is crappy or some driver issues you will have to fight with dropped frames.
-it is always more complicated to do a capture from a GPU than with a dedicated capture card

etc.

So, I recommend you to:

a) buy a decent SVHS VCR as the tuner for you future GPU, with Panasonic (the NV-HSxxx series should be good) you are almost always on the winning side :-) . If you are going to buy the Asus 3800, go for a Philips VR 1xxxx . Features that your SVHS VCR should have is TBC and 4 video and 2 audio heads (don't know if this is the right english word?).

b) I will upload these days a short sample of the Asus 3800 capture result, so if it is nothing special (it could be that Scuba will laugh his a$$ off ;-) ), forget it.

> Also, if I were to buy the V7700 Deluxe and Asus TV box/SVHS VCR, will I be able to capture NTSC TV @ 748x480 res using huffyuv using Virtual Dub ( the res. is most likely not correct - 7xx X 480)?

Off course you can capture full PAL (704x576).
But that is nothing special. The main con of my Asus 3800 is that is has VERY few resolutions to choose from, so for PAL I have only 704x576 and 352x288, sadly no 480x576 etc. This is a BIG con for this card...

As I said, I bought this card because 99% of the Ultimateboard mods have a variation of the Asus 3800 + a Philips VR 1xxxx SVHS (because it had a very good price/quality ratio and has a Philips chip in it, like the GPU).

Some clarification:

Conexant is the same as BT (broktree), so it's a big no,no. :D The only half good implementation of BT is the Elsa Erazor III, but this card has so many driver issues that is almost impossible to work normal with it.

If all fails buy a dedicated capture card like the DC30+ or something (Scuba, should be the one who can tell you what is good for you), and forget this crappy GPU captureing stuff.

Hope this helped a bit,

Mijo.

Originally posted by kopelen


I'm a bit troubled about the Chrontel chips and since Ookami constantly mentions the Asus/Chrontel cards being the best of the best, I want to buy one NOW. :D

Ookami, your posts leave me with more questions to ask. Hopefully I can get some answers out of you or from someone else. :)

Searching through Google.com using keyword, 'Chrontel CH7007A', I found only three Asus video cards that are equipped with this particular chip.

*V7700 Deluxe - GF2 TI200
*V7100 Deluxe - GF2 MX Series
*V3800TVR - ??

Unfortunately ( I will further verify this ), the GF3 Deluxe does not have the Chrontel chip - it may be that Asus is now using Brooktree chips.

But the question is, after searching for Chrontel chips in Google.com, I only found Chrontel chips to be used for Video-Out and not Video-In. I'm still in the process of understanding about video capturing and just want to know if the Chrontel chips ARE suppose to be used for Video-Out and does this improve overall video quality of captures? I thought it would be the Video-In chip that affects the quality of the source coming in.

After much investigation, I found out that the V7700 Deluxe has a Conexant chip for Video-In and Chrontel chip for Video-Out.

Please someone clarify what I don't understand, thanks.

Also, if I were to buy the V7700 Deluxe and Asus TV box/SVHS VCR, will I be able to capture NTSC TV @ 748x480 res using huffyuv using Virtual Dub ( the res. is most likely not correct - 7xx X 480)?

Thanks.

-kopelen

kopelen
17th March 2002, 04:24
Thanks for the reply, Ookami. :)

I believe my mind is set on the Asus V8200 TI500 Deluxe. I had an 8500DV card (GPU capture card), but I had too much trouble with the drivers and memory issues. This is why I sold the card off and looking for another, perhaps, better card.

One more question, Ookami.

I will need to purchase a VCR ( the Asus TV box is a bit expensive and limited in availability ). Would the Panasonic NV-HSxxx series work great with the V8200 TI500 Deluxe? You mentioned that the features that the VCR should have are :

*TBC
*4 video
*2 audio heads

What is TBC? Last time I bought a VCR I only looked for stereo output (no mono). What advantages are there with these other features?

Will Scuba be able to answer this?

The reason why I want to capture @ Full NTSC is because I have found that this works best for my TV captures. I don't have the cleanest source - U.S. Adelphia analog cable.
I simply capture at full NTSC using huffyuv and encode using Nandub - resize filter to resize it to 640x480,deinterlace the video, and compress the audio.

So does anyone who owns a Asus GF3 TI500 Deluxe know if you can capture @ Full NTSC? Also are there res limitations for the V8200 as well?

Thanks again.

takeru
17th March 2002, 07:43
kopelen: read this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19895) thread also. the 8200T5 can capture up to 768x576 with no drops. chip limit is 800x600, but dunno any prog that goes that high.

kopelen
17th March 2002, 10:23
Thanks again takeru, I'll be sure to follow the instructions when I get the V8200 TI500 Deluxe. :D

Ookami
17th March 2002, 15:11
>Thanks for the reply, Ookami.

Anytime.

>One more question, Ookami.
I will need to purchase a VCR ( the Asus TV box is a bit expensive and limited in availability ). Would the Panasonic NV-HSxxx series work great with the V8200 TI500 Deluxe? You mentioned that the features that the VCR should have are :
What is TBC? Last time I bought a VCR I only looked for stereo output (no mono). What advantages are there with these other features?

AFAIK, the Asus TV box is MUCH, much better than any other TV card/build in tuner in the graphic cards... But if you use a SVHS VCR as a tuner you will get the same (and even better quality).

As I said, I own a Philips VR 1100 (and the Asus TV box), the Panasonic is the Mercedes of the SVHS VCR's :-) .

TBC = Time based corrector. It "cleans up" the video signal. I have some better and more exact defintions, but not in the english language,I will not try to translate them :eek: .

Video+Audio heads: Kika, explained it to me like this (quick translation): "Most of the S-VHS-VCRs have a badder VHS-playback than modern VHS-VCRs. Take a good look at the technical infos.
Modern VHS-VCR's have a resolution >220 lines, a good S-VHS should make the same. This is only possible if it has 4 video heads. (this is probably not translated correctly) You should not count the heads for deleting. ((Wobei man bei S-VHS fliegende Lschkpfe NICHT dazu zhlt.))
There is a max. of 6 heads: 4 Video, 2 Audio, there is a difference between 2 Video+2 heads for deleting and 4 "real" video heads.
2+2 is used for editing, 4 is improving the picture quality (only for VHS)."

> Will Scuba be able to answer this?

Scuba, works with proffesional equipment. Unlike 99,9% of the people here ;) . He can answer anything =:-D .

> The reason why I want to capture @ Full NTSC is because I have found that this works best for my TV captures. I don't have the cleanest source - U.S. Adelphia analog cable.
I simply capture at full NTSC using huffyuv and encode using Nandub - resize filter to resize it to 640x480,deinterlace the video, and compress the audio.
So does anyone who owns a Asus GF3 TI500 Deluxe know if you can capture @ Full NTSC? Also are there res limitations for the V8200 as well?

Full NTSC? I read some quite different numbers like 640x480 and even 720x486... Quote: "When digitizing video, it's important to digitize the full 720 x 486 pixel matrix of the NTSC signal (a total of 349,920 pixels)."

Dunno, but I'm in a PAL country so I don't care :D .

>Thanks again.

I hope I answered the question right. And now I don't need to upload the asus test clip with my crappy dial up. Aaaah, I'm saved ;-) .

All the best,

Mijo.

kopelen
18th March 2002, 03:09
Originally posted by Ookami
the Panasonic is the Mercedes of the SVHS VCR's :-) .
Well, I do want the best of the best. It looks like I'll be getting the Panasonic SVHS VCR. Much appreciated once again, Ookami. :D

Edit :

It looks like the NV series are no longer in production? I checked the Panasonic website and they only have the PV series.

Here is the link (http://www.prodcat.panasonic.com/shop/newdesign/productlist.asp?categoryid=2599)

Can Ookami or anyone tell me which of the ten would be the great, as well as affordable?

Thanks again. :)

Edit :

Wow, I didn't know SVHS VCRs are so expensive. Are there any VHS VCRs be anywhere as good as the SVHS VCRs?

takeru
18th March 2002, 07:07
kopelen: check here (http://www.ecost.com/ecost/ecsplash/shop/category_list.asp?eStore=26448000&category=26464000&w=nav&id=26522000&subcategory=26522000) for better pricing. damn that d-vhs drive looks so good :)

kopelen
18th March 2002, 20:53
Thanks for the link, takeru

It looks like the Panasonic PV-VS4821 Super VHS VCR is pretty popular is it's sold out nearly in every online store ( except for the ones that are selling them at an expensive price ).

I guess I'm going to have to wait. :sigh:

\AX
26th September 2002, 07:00
Ookami...you say that asus use's a philips based chip...which is not a conexant. you said that you don't want to use conexant ("a big no no")because of driver issue's and you mad it seem lower quality or something of that line.

This doesn't add up in my search's. I can't find a asus card that doesnt use the conexant chip at all.

If you read this you will see that the newer asus GeForce3 Ti 200 deluxe uses a conexant chip but manufactured by philips. Even sort of sounds like they always have but that is just how it sounds sort of to me.

http://www.de.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q4/011214/gf2ti_gf3tix00-05.html

Im not saying your wrong or anything...i just want to know what card i can buy..that is newer and possible to buy at all, that use's what your talking about.

From what i can tell from this information at tomshardware and alot of other reviews/article's is this: If your using a conexant chip manufuactured by philips it wouldnt matter what board it's on...GPU or a dedicated capture card. It would seem to me that it would yield the same performance since it's using the same chip. So in otherwords a iomagic pc pvr (pinnacle pctv) card for 40usd would do the same thing as this Asus GeForce3 Ti 200 deluxe for ~185usd. Also it might be better if it was not on a GPU. Being on a GPU could only and more complexed overhead for your system i would imagine. 40usd for one card with a philips chip...or...180usd for another card with the same philips chip. the 40usd one also has coaxial in for capture...the asus does not. And i know that the tv tuner is also Philips NTSC_M or for atleast the one i got.

Again i just want to know what you mean exactly by a philips manufactured chip that is not conexant (BT) on a asus GPU. And where can i buy a modern one that is new and purchasable.

I really can't find a single Asus GPU that does not have a conexant chip that is currently available for buy.

^^-+I4004+-^^
26th September 2002, 13:57
Originally posted by \AX


If you read this you will see that the newer asus GeForce3 Ti 200 deluxe uses a conexant chip but manufactured by philips. Even sort of sounds like they always have but that is just how it sounds sort of to me.

http://www.de.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q4/011214/gf2ti_gf3tix00-05.html

Again i just want to know what you mean exactly by a philips manufactured chip that is not conexant (BT) on a asus GPU. And where can i buy a modern one that is new and purchasable.

I really can't find a single Asus GPU that does not have a conexant chip that is currently available for buy.

_you got it ALL wrong!
THG doesn't say that,but just that Philips solutions replaced
Bt/Chrontel ones!
Indeed :Philips chips are on (as far as i know) on ALL Asus combo boards...(doo't know of recent boards,but asus 7700 has Philips chipset)

Mijo (Ookami) sent me some examples of his capturing (huff&mjpeg) on Asus & i was able to BEAT those with my cheap bt8x8 card!
(i sent him examples too so he can affirm,but seems that's stuck in mail somewhere...)

if you can get you hands on newer conexant capture chip (mentioned in "Tested capture cards" thread), try that first...
otherwise of asus combo & bt8x8 solution i would pick bt:they are cheaper & have better picture,also more flexible....(according to my Bt experience &
samples of asus capturing...)

cheers_

Ookami
26th September 2002, 17:05
\AX, there are many threads in this board about comparing different GPUs and capture cards, I suggest you to read those.

As for "I'm wrong or not", when I read my old posting, I've mixed up many firms and names of the chips. Instead of checking first, I've wrote the names I've remembered, wich is not exact.

For instance:

All Asus/nvidia combos use that I'm aware of use a Philips SAAxxxx chip.

The mentioned Erasor has no BT chip but an Micronas.

It seems that the old Asus 3800 implementation is superior to the newer 6600 etc. combos.

The BT cards have a much better quality with relative new open source drivers.

And so on. So I apologize for my mixing up of names (wich I do to often on this board), but I still have to see something wich convinces me that BT is superior to the Philips combo.

Another note: With GPUs you can have quite some quality difference witgh different drivers, OS and so on. With dedicated capture cards you are mostly spared with those software issues (sadly not with hardware issues, most people build their PC around the capture card!).

"Mijo (Ookami) sent me some examples of his capturing (huff&mjpeg) on Asus & i was able to BEAT those with my cheap bt8x8 card!"

As I've stated in my mails to you, my captures cannot be a example of good quality because of the many reasons I've wrote... (not connected directly to the SVHS in, hardware issues, not same testing circumstances :) et al) Doesn't matter, I'm still waiting for your package to arrive (almost two weeks now). If your BT samples are going to be much better than mine (as you've stated), then I'll disegard everything I've read and saw until today.

I suggest you to read this thread http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32516 and those linked in the FAQ. Also do a forum search (here and in the hardware forum).

I agree with, Owen and Ivo, you should first try the new 10bit Conexant chips, as these could (should?) beat all the older implementations.

And a last note, these internet discussions cannot be objective and are always biased (in one way or another), so the best thing would be to go to a hardware shop and test those cards (or to friends etc.)... I would certainly not believe myself :) .

Cheers,

Mijo.

thorazine
26th September 2002, 18:36
Originally posted by Ookami
I agree with, Owen and Ivo, you should first try the new 10bit Conexant chips, as these could (should?) beat all the older implementations.

There are a few threads on the AVS Forum with some user feedback about this new chipset (mostly about the MSI TVanywhere (http://www.msicomputer.com/product/detail_spec/product_detail.asp?model=TV@nywhere&search_text=tv%20@nywhere) and the PixelView XCapture (http://www.prolink.com.tw/new_web/products/multimedia/xcapture.htm)):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=141074
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=159248

The quality seems to be better but they (still) have software and driver issues.

For those interested in continuing the Philips vs. Conexant war ;) this link should be interesting:

http://anipeg.yks.ne.jp/topic.html

It features a side-by-side comparison between the conexant 881 and the new philips saa7134 with sample captures. It's in japanese so no idea how biased could be... :)

\AX
26th September 2002, 19:00
Ok so any new geforce3 and newer have a philips conexant chip that is 10bit..im thinking atleast.

anyways...i see that he is sending you a sample of his capture. I was wondering if i could do the same via email or snail mail. Just to let you look it over and think what you will of it. Im having a hard time comparing capture's here...although i have several capture cards they all have the same effect i don't want. Maybe you can shed some light on this if you actually see it.

I would love to send you a sample anyway possible just to see what you say about it comparing it to your own caps with your hardware. If you can agree, and i hope you will, tell me how you want it.

Any help on this for me would be greatly appreciated...for im sort of in the dark on comparison since im the only person i know that capture's video with analogue capture cards here locally. So there is no comparison to do with other hardware that i dont have locally.

my email is hugelefthand@yahoo.com

thanks again for repling.

\AX
26th September 2002, 19:18
Sorry to repost so quickly but i found that the msi tv@nywhere as you probably know has the 10bit ad converter. This is only 60usd. Now would there be a difference in quality if you bought the same chip on a more expensive board. And what other boards support this. Im currently on the order page to buy it since it's sooooo cheap. I think it's worth buy for the price i just wonder if the chip could bring better performance on a another board.

and most importantly...

WILL VDUB and/or AVI_IO work with it...i need to use atleast avi_io but would preffer vdub..but i don't know since vdub is a vfw and this card is a wdm. Can these chip's work in with these application's is teh biggest ? i can think of regarding this new chip.

^^-+I4004+-^^
26th September 2002, 20:05
Originally posted by Ookami


[B]And a last note, these internet discussions cannot be objective and are always biased (in one way or another), so the best thing would be to go to a hardware shop and test those cards (or to friends etc.)... I would certainly not believe myself :) .

Cheers,

Mijo.

YES!you'we hit the nail on the head!!!
the more hardware you try the more you know!
it's just thte question of friendliness of the salesman...

@AX:10bit cheaper/more expensive cards?
quality is mostly determined by capture chip,not other additions on the card:so NO,more expensive cards won't have better picture
(although they can be bundled with better/more software/drivers)

but you can search the net for best drivers for your card too..
(not so much for combo cards:but for bt8x8 there's veriety of drivers...)

will vdub work?
it should !even with wdm drivers there's wrapper that ttranslates to vfw (that vdub understands...)

ps. contact me and you can send me some samples (vidcaps) & if i can beat them i'll send you some....

i doubt Mijo can get into this (samples) ,his hardware is..... hmmm problematic..hehehe(?)

it would be for the best if someone provided us with some web space for "publishing" samples (vidcaps...)

this (for sure) isn't the place for that anymore.....

cheers


Ivo

\AX
26th September 2002, 20:43
...I400... sounds good to me. I'll send, GLADLY, sample's to anyone that want's to see my caps. Just tell me how you want them delievered to you at what size. My size would be either the cap with huffyuv or divx.

Here's my setup. what is inbetween the . . is the quality and/or questionability factor i have for capturing.

.__OK___.Video:__DirecTV via S-Video cable
.__OK___.Audio:__DirecTV via l/r jack's to 1/8 pin in to SBLive! 5.1
.__AVG__.CPU:___Athlon 1.33ghz
.__????__.Mobo:__Asus M276 (older..in fact the first board to support the 1.33)
.__OK___.RAM____512ddr
.__????__.5 pci:__All 5 in use...cap card (Hauppauge WinTV)on slot 2.
.__OK___.CapApp:__AVI_IO and now VDubVCR
.__OK___.Compression:__Huffyuv 2.1.1

I ultimately encode to mpeg-2 with cce for dvd. I don't do divx with my cap's unless it's like saturday night live or something.


Thing's to be aware of in my caps:

1. My saturation level's are probably higher than yours. I capture video for kid's at a day care and/or my own son. Kid's love brighter, more vivid color's, so due realize that the saturation level's are going to be higher.

2. There at 704x480 NTSC. I don't apply any filtering at all. So what you see other than the saturation is what i basically get. I do not resize or anything...just record and that's it.


I forgot to mention that i have several capture card's...more than i have pc's. I have a asus geforce2, hauppauge, pinnacle pctv, ATI Vivo, ATI all-in-Wonder...and i know atleast 1 more that i can't find/forget. The cap that looks the best is actually on the Vivo..but it does not take a s-video in. But it also has some driver issue's. next to that is what i use. Either the Pinnalce pctv or the hauppauge...currently the hauppuage. I also have DV card's, one made by Sony (can't remember the model, it was my first), a Pinnacle DV200 and can get and use a Pinnacle DC1000,DC2000, or some professional DV boards by various manufacturer's. I don't know how DV is for capturing analogue video however. I tried it once feeding using a Canon XLS and a Sony DVX2000 but it didnt work out nearly as good as i thought. I used a canopus to get feed the video to the camera's so that might of been a problem (could of gone straight to the card but i wanted to give the tape's to a friend).

Im also on sure if i should get a new/different mobo. I have heard that the via chipset on my mobo might cause interferance/noise that can be apparent.

I went ahead and ordered that tv@nywhere. I really shouldnt of but i thought since it's cheap and has that new chip i'll try it. Im really look for a good cap card that is 200usd to capture with.

Thank's for taking the time to review my cap's with me. I know your all about beating this person and that person...so i hope you win :-).

I don't care who wins or lose's..i just want to get this zhit worked out as good possible.

Due understand im not a video guru. i just started cap'n video about a year ago, but quit, and started again. I only due DV other in capturing and that is nothing too special in my case either since it's only for a public access channel.

Ookami
26th September 2002, 22:14
Just a very important thing to add.

IMO, it should never be chip x vs. chip y.

It should always be card x vs. card y.

Because the implementation is the most important. There are many things that affect quality, cables, drivers, hardware, video in, the source etc.

So this is a very sensitive issue, and the best thing is to test it for yourself (for example before buying my Asus card + TV box, I've watched several TV cards in the stores, and found them to bring a badder quality (probably because those build in tuners are mostly badder than those external versions).

But this is not a real testing too, because I cannot come to the PC store and say, "Hey, let's install the drivers x and DScaler). :)

@\AX

With so many cards you still have, I really wonder why you need a advice from anyone :) . If I buy a new capture HD (the HD is dying), I'll cap something for you and send it...

Cheers,

Mijo.

\AX
27th September 2002, 03:54
True...the card has something to due with it greatly. But your saying it should Always be card y vs. card z. I don't agree. The chip has alot to due with it.

The card is like the suspension of a car, the chip is like the motor, and the pc is like the frame of a car. They all work together.

For you saying i shouldn't have to ask anybody for help...well your right...but im not a video guru at all. I wound up getting these card's for either free or like next to nothing. I only due what i have to with video. I'm not the type of person to sit in a chair for 6 hours for month on end just trying to figure out the correct way to transffer video. I would however sit there for 12 hours a day for a years on end trying to figure out what the footage should be however.

Ookami
28th September 2002, 10:23
Just to clarify (IMO, I have posted more than enough in this thread):

> True...the card has something to due with it greatly. But your saying it should Always be card y vs. card z. I don't agree. The chip has alot to due with it.

Of course the chip has alot to do with it. But that doesn't change the fact that there are too many factors that affect the quality to compare the chips alone and then buy a card on the assumption that it will be good only because of the quality of the chip.

> For you saying i shouldn't have to ask anybody for help...well your right...but im not a video guru at all. I wound up getting these card's for either free or like next to nothing. I only due what i

My comment was more of a joke and wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, altough you still have more cards to test than most of the people here (simuntaneusly testing, that is).

Cheers,

Mijo.

\AX
28th September 2002, 18:05
Sorry, you misuderstood me understanding you ;-). I figured it was a joke. But at the same time your right. I should have alteast more input that i have. It's just that the problem i have lies between all cards really. So it's like im not too sure how to fix that one problem.

Ive read the thread completely...your right you have posted enough...shut up :-) jkn

stl
2nd October 2002, 21:02
serdar,
to answer your question, if you have AT LEAST 800 PIII 1 CPU then for $50 US try the AverTV or Hauppauge cards, I heard that the ATI graphics cards suck for capture. These cards let you capture from TV or VCR in realtime MPEG2 at 720x480 (NTSC) or PAL equivalent
The pro or prosumer cards are better but cost more.

Also, for $170 US try Dazzle DVC100 which does the same thing but uses a standalone device connected via USB; but you must use their software.

Also I tried the Aver on a 600 PIII and it couldn't capture smoothly as there wasn't enough juice I'd recommend Over 1Ghz at least.

Flood
6th October 2002, 11:07
I just wanted to post this addendum, w.r.t. clocking between audio & video.

I've seen many a user bring up the point of a/v sync, and it should be noted that unless video & audio are clocked from the same source, there is absolutely *no way* to get perfect a/v sync, due to many different factors (source running slow/fast, occilator crystal differences, etc). You can *get* close, but there will be drift, and it can very easily be noticable (even if barely).

I have captured on many bt8x8 cards, using various sound cards, and the clock drift is always pretty bad (even at the emu10k native 48khz). The ONLY perfect way around this, is to either have a sound card with external clocking (and the appropriate source for this), or a combination a/v card that clocks off one source (typically video). Even the modified vdub which attempts to correct audio sampling to match video can be off; I suspect this is due to it performing an absolute calculation of what the intended frame rate *should be*, instead of what the actual sync from the input is. Anything over 20-25 ms drift will be noticable, although it may be exceedingly difficult to determine exactly what is wrong (produces the "lips are just slightly out of sync, but i can't quite tell what is wrong" feeling).

I, personally, ended up with a pinnacle dv500 card, with the external BOB (break-out-box). Sync is perfect, however new purchasers should be warned that the dv codec is ... lacking, and video doesn't look as good as it could (although audio is great: uncompressed, 32-48khz). There is no way, with this card, to capture uncompressed. Supposedly, the canopus cards are the best in terms of dv codec, however I don't know if they have an offering with analog inputs as well as firewire. I do know that canopus has an external box which encodes and connects to the host system via firewire. I suspect this may be an excellent solution, if canopus implemented their codec well in the external hardware.

The bottom line is this: If you are serious about capturing, you absolutely need to have higher-end capture hardware. I have seen SO many vcds/svcds on the net which have a/v sync issues, although most are minor annoyances (i.e. "close enough"). I, like many others I suspect, really want to get near-professional quality when we capture.

Human brains are just so very sensitive to audio visual sync.

Ookami
6th October 2002, 15:48
@Flood

You are not correct. Even with a very bad and unexact soundcard that I have I get perfect A/V sync. And I am very sensitive about this since I've even discovered a few days ago on the TV (life ;-) ), that the video and audio is not in sync... When you have passed the Power Ripper + direct saved wave ripping way, then you are very sensitive about A/V sync ;) .

And I have quite some problems with my hardware so I get sometimes up to 100 dropped frames at once and the audio is still in sync (hard disk is defective), so this, also, shows that the syning algorithms are very good...

So, I can only say, you have either not configured your PC correctly and/or not used a good program (like A. Dittrich's VD sync, altough it seems you have used it but I really doubt you have done everything correct).

And if that what you say would be correct "impossible A/V sync with soundcard and cheap capture card", then I doubt that you would be the first person to say such a thing in all those years I follow these forums et al.

And I will not even comment the strange "I have seen many captures from the net" thing...

However, thank you for your input.

Cheers,

Mijo.