PDA

View Full Version : best way to capture


maxwell3
17th June 2003, 19:30
After much reading Ive come to understand there are a few excellent capture devices . The DC10 ,ADVC100 and the , MSI@anywhere pci . Im going to capture to AVI and convert after editing . Can someone suggest which may be the best to use for this . Ill be capturing from satellite and VHS mainly . Thnaks

killingspree
17th June 2003, 20:06
from the forum rules (http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm) :

12)
...
Do not ask "what's best" because this question cannot be answered objectively. Each and everyone has their own view about what's best in a certain area. The best is what works best for you!


furthermore this topic has been discussed many many times... try using the search (http://forum.doom9.org/search.php?s=) button!

steVe

maxwell3
17th June 2003, 23:18
Perhaps when you read my post you noticed the part that says "after much reading"
To clarify my request .I realize no one can say whats best ,however perhaps someone with more ecxperience has done a comparison or may have some advice

Ookami
18th June 2003, 00:20
If you have done "much reading" on this forum, then you'll surely know that you should write exactly what you want and be more detailed. Saying I'm doing satellite and VHS doesn't say much...

maxwell3
18th June 2003, 19:11
I dont understand . How difficult is it to comprehend . Im captureing from satellite and some VHS tapes . And Im looking for info on what others have found when they tried this . Thanks anyway

killingspree
18th June 2003, 19:36
ahm... ok...
obviously you need some step by step instruction:
a) please have a bit more respect for other forum members, expecially highly respected ones like Ookami.
b) ok you want to capture from sattelite and VHS
that is two different things. if you capture from VHS you have to do analogue capture - in the capture guide (http://www.doom9.org/capture/start.htm) and the capture FAQ on top of this forum there's some instructions and informations on what cards are recommended.
if you want to capture satellite you'll want to capture digitally as satellite TV is already broadcasted digitally. so you'll need a DVB-s card for this purpose!
c) now you have to specifiy, and that is what Ookami was talking about, what you want to do with the captures. do you want to convert them to divx, do you want to go for (S)VCD or even DVD-R? how should we know this?

steVe

maxwell3
19th June 2003, 00:24
Sorry about the misunderstandings they are probably born of frustration . Thanks that is helpful. I dont know what a DVB-s card is . I thought any capture card could capture any source .Since everyone praises theADVC100 I was considering purchasing one . . My appologies to Ookami also I didnt realize what he was referring to . Im planning on captureing in avi., editing , reencoding to mpeg2 and burning to DVD

killingspree
19th June 2003, 00:42
DVB-s stands for Digital Video Braodcast - satelite
the channels you recieve from your satelite system are already encoded in mpeg2, so if capturing analoque you will waste a lot of possible quality and time. of course you can also capture the analogue signal from your reciever, if you don't want to invest more money. but as you are looking for the best way, going for a dvb-s will be it (:

steVe

maxwell3
19th June 2003, 13:19
Just a little more help would be greatly appreciated . Im still a little confused . Are you talking about a pci card ? Ive read many posts and never once seen DVB-s mentioned . Is there a brand you could recommend . Thanks

killingspree
19th June 2003, 13:24
PCI? yes... also possible as an USB external device
brand? hauppauge

Ive read many posts and never once seen DVB-s mentioned
ahemm... there's a forum named partly after it :D HDTV/DVB ... you might want to take a look into it ;)

steVe

maxwell3
19th June 2003, 13:42
I swear to GOd I thought you were pullng my leg. Ive always looked only in" capturing video" .I had absolutley no idea . Thanks for you patience youve help me greatly .

rays888
22nd June 2003, 08:54
Your question was lacking a lot of necessary detail – like your hardware configuration, processing speed, OS, Hard Drive capacity etc. When you say ‘convert after editing’ I’m assuming you mean to some other format like VCD, SVCD or DVD to burn on a disc.

What I can offer is the following based on my own experiences.
I started putting a machine together a few years ago to preserve some old VHS home movies.
At the time, I went for value and selected an Athlon 1.2 Gig Thunderbird processor with 512M 2100 DDR memory, Win98SE and an IBM 60 Gig HD. For video capture, I bought an ATI Radeon AIW 32 DDR Video card. If I had to do it over again, I would have waited 6 months and done more research on Doom9 and VCDhelp. I have since added to my machine an additional 80 Gig HD and a Pioneer DVD-R burner. Video capture with the ATI AIW is acceptable at SVCD rates but terrible at 720 x 480 due to excessive dropped frames.

What I know today is that a colleague can capture at 720 x 480 29.97Hz with a $30 US Hauppauge capture card better than I can with my $240 US ATI AIW that just cuts it at 352 x 480 29.97 Hz. His advantage we believe is a combination of his processing speed at over 2 Gig. (And probably the 2 years of ‘stuff’ I have on my hard drives – End It All aside) The fact that he is running Windows XP may also be a factor. There are probably others as enumerated in the FAQs on Video Capture – like (not) unplugging my Ethernet cable while capturing.

I did a search on VCDHelp for capture devices and did a sort by highest user rating. Without question, the Canopus ADVC-100 was at the top of the list. I also learned, from people in this discussion group, that capturing in DV is much less demanding on processing speed due to the fact that most Analog capture cards are generally relying on your Processor to encode the information into MPEG2 on the fly. My processor apparently couldn’t handle the higher bit rates. So based on encouragement from this board, I purchased an ADVC-100 last week and have just made a spectacular DVD of an 18+ year old VHS tape (with a little help from a Time Base Corrector - TBC). The only caveats are that I’m now looking for a much larger hard drive and I am also considering going back to a Macintosh -:) before I’ll shell out another $200+ to Microsoft to ‘upgrade’ my OS again! this time to overcome the 4 Gig file size limit – Grrrr -:(:D

maxwell3
22nd June 2003, 21:00
Thanks rays888, I have a new computer 2.8g p4 with 1 g pc2700(333)ram 120ghd winXP sony dru-500a burner . I was using an ati700AIW in my old computer 800mhz p3 256 rdram win 98se. After doing research I also decided on an ADVC100 although Im a little short of funds at the moment .You say youve gotten excellent results converting vhs to DVD. I have alot of tapes I want to convert I would be VERY interested in the process you used, equipment, programs ,settings etc.. If you would be so kind please post this information here or pm me and Ill send you my email address.

\AX
23rd June 2003, 05:21
I probably should of hesitated to reply...but i have to because you
must know there is NO WAY ON EARTH to know what is the "best.

Think about it, not all video, even if you have the "masterfull" setup is equal in quality. Some is darker and you could afford to use
lower bitrates with different codecs...some is sharper where you might want to capture at higher bitrates and a different codec.

I dont even capture anymore but i did what i could do for almost 2 years and there was something that i always ran across that was new (most of the time degrading) to my captures.

Best thing to know is what your source quality is. From there you can determine a ~average setup to attack the capturing and after some experience tweak it to your needs. I captured from satellite, so i know it was broadcasted as MPEG2 and not above 480 hlines...so i knew that to get full quality via analog i did not need more than 480hlines. Then what was i capturing? was it something older like a cartoon from the 80's that i could afford to drop it down to like ~350lines and be satsified. (although capturing at full hres is always the best way to go...but if your in hardware constraints you might want to think about that)

There is not a "god send" in capturing. Depends on source and hardware.
From the looks of your hardware you could be doing test runs of capturing like it aint no thing with no real hardware constraints at all...so give it a go with EVERYTHING and find out. I recommend a MSI TV@nywhere with your system (~65usd) then if you want better prepare to step up into what i consider the prosumer game of hardware and shell out like 2000usd for something hardcore.

With your system though i wouldnt even be posting. There is no reason to since you got the power to try anything...just read and try EVERYTHING. Even if you run into problems like field order or whatever dont even worry yet...keep on capturing to find the best quality, find your preferred apps and setup...and come back with some more technical questions that are worth the inquiry.

What your asking for now does not exist...and never will. Again with your system just shoot the moon.

(on a side note....dammmnnn...i wish i had his hardware setup...id still be capping RIGHT NOW WHILE POSTING :-)

maxwell3
23rd June 2003, 13:30
I understand . Its kind of like someone saying whats the best car . I t depends on what your looking for gas mileage power,comfort . There is no answer to whats best .
Ill explain, though, my perspective. Most of the people posting here have lots of experience capturing . I do not .Im new to this and I dont think you can understand just how overwhelming this all is . SOOOOO much information . SOOOOOO many things to know Im just trying to save a little time. to get a head start so to speak by getting other peoples perspectives .
Thanks for your reply That too has helped
By the way how much is 2000usd in US dollars and what prosumer product are you referring to

\AX
24th June 2003, 05:25
Originally posted by maxwell3
By the way how much is 2000usd in US dollars and what prosumer product are you referring to

alot of products....hahaha..look at the above...hehe

John2002
25th June 2003, 16:59
Just wanted to point out that there's a difference between figuring out which car is the best for you vs. figuring out which video capture device is best for you. With cars people can easily find information to make that decision depending on what they want (Consumer Reports, Car & Driver, Four Wheeler, Hot Rod, AutoTrader.com, etc.). With video capture, well, good luck finding the same type of reliable info.

In a few years the question of which is best for 90% of all kinds of capture will be answered with "Sony!" There'll be many competing models of DVD/hard disk recorders from first tier companies (ATI, MSI and Hauppauge aren't in that league) and they'll all cost less than a couple of hundred dollars. Just drop in a DVD disk that costs 30 cents, press record, and get a really good video recording. Can't wait!

dar1us
26th June 2003, 01:03
Apologies, but... i completely didn't get that last post care of john2002.

I am confused. Care to rephrase a lot:D


harrison

erbuk
26th June 2003, 12:09
I got myself a DVD-Recorder (Philips DVDR70) a few weeks ago. My intention was not to use it to capture video that I want to convert to other formats (like DivX or XviD). But I have found that it is perfect also for that. I record my VHS-tapes or TV-shows on DVD, rip the DVD and convert it with Gordian Knot. I get better results than with my capture-card (Osprey 200) and it's much more reliable and easy to use.

For Digital TV-capture the best alternative is naturally a DVB-s, -c or -t card. But then you can't use it for analogue capture. And there is also an issue on encryption. If the Cable or Satellite operator moves to a better encryption system then you can't be sure that your DVB-card will support it (it probably will but you cant be sure if and when). And you will need an extra sim-card (and subscription) if you still want to use your satellite/cable-box for ordinary tv-viewing.

The cheapest DVD-recorders (like the DVDR70) are not much more expensive than a good capture card so I can really recommend this alternative.

John2002
26th June 2003, 18:01
Originally posted by dar1us
Apologies, but... i completely didn't get that last post care of john2002.

I am confused. Care to rephrase a lot:D


harrison

Oh, sorry, that was just a rant whenever I read these what's best threads. Asking what's best always seems to be taboo but why not ask what's best? Worse is that there is so little out there to answer the question of what's best. I mean, really, what's so difficult about determining what's best? You mainly determine what's best for the most typical uses and that's good enough for the majority of the people. Then you rank new cards against the standard. Not necessarily to pick on them but if you read a review on Tom's Hardware of capture cards do you ever see any mention of the capture quality of card A vs card B or even mention of the capture quality of card A OR card B? The newbie reader shopping for a card could get the impression that high quality capture is a given when we all know that's far from true. Let's face it, consumer-grade PC capture cards are generally kind of crappy.

So I'm looking forward to the time when it won't matter what's best because most models of what we'll be buying will deliver very good quality. And that'll be just a cheap DVD/hard disk TV recorder. A quote from the July/August Sound & Vision might suggest what's just around the bend for everyday video capture (or already here if you can shell out $500):

"Of course, DVD recording is the [Panasonic] DMR-50's forte, so I recorded an episode of Dragnet from cable. Playback quality of the parts of my new DVD-R recorded at the XP and SP levels was excellent, with good color and picture detail that was *indistinguishable* from the original broadcast signal."

If what the reviewer says is right then we can have near-broadcast (!) quality now and the near-future of digital video capture won't be PC cards but will be a cheap TV disk recorder (give it a year or two for prices to come down, plus there might still be improvement in average quality across brands). Near-broadcast quality capture is the holy grail and it's finally here.

\AX
27th June 2003, 11:14
well...not to sound pesimistic but who the hell is that guy that wrote that review??? he's not a lawyer or something right??

like your hinting at john the quality is not a standard and even user's see different quality.

in 2 years??? in my opinion, and this is just mine, pick yourself up a msi tv@nywhere TODAY and SAVE 440usd :-)

Btw standalone devices can often aswell lead to encryption, macrovision, and decimation...not to mention they cant (as far as i know) hook up to digital devices like a DV cam. And you got to capture to a compressed source and rely on the consistancy and mechanics of a Disc which the hard disk drive beats all disc's on that. Not to mention another power outlet and room to provide...that could possibly be a concern aswell. Also the reparing of such systems would most likely cost more or close to the system itself.

DVD recorders are not for everybody.

erbuk
27th June 2003, 12:19
Ok, I shouldn’t be too cocky about this because I have only owned my DVD-recorder for a month. But my experience so far, after doing something like 50 recordings, is that it’s much more tolerable with source-problems like dropouts, static and copy protection than the capture cards I have used (quite a few by now: Matrox Rainbow Runner, ATI Rage Fury pro, Hauppauge WinTv PVR, Adaptec VideOh and Osprey-200).

And I have had no reliability problems at all. Ok, it’s to early to draw any conclusions from that. But I can’t see any reason why DVD-recorders should be less reliable or more expensive to repair than other electronic devices.

My DVD-recorder can’t hook up with a DV-cam but there are lots of models (in fact most of them) that can. I chose not to buy one of those simply because they are a little bit more expensive and I don’t own a DV-cam. And even if I did then hooking it up to the PC should be a better alternative in that case.

When it comes to quality; yes, in theory, capturing to mpeg-2 and recompressing it to mpeg-4 should not give you the same quality as capping using lossless compression, like huffyuv. But I can just tell you what my eyes see (but I agree that other peoples eyes might see it differently) and I think the quality is better that anything I achieved using my capture cards.

I must admit that I have been very sceptic to stand-alone DVD-recorders in the past but now when I have used one for a while I really like it. I don’t want to tell people what to buy or claim that I know what’s best for everyone. But from my point of view DVD-recorders are for everyone, capture cards are not.

By the way: The worst way to capturing video is to buy an Adaptec VideOh! DVD. That is really the worst piece of crap that I have ever bought. It stops capturing at the first dropout and if it don’t then audio gets out of sync after an hour. And you can only use the very crappy bundled apps to capture video, there are no other compatible apps to use. Just so you know.

dar1us
27th June 2003, 18:24
Originally posted by \AX
in my opinion, and this is just mine, pick yourself up a msi tv@nywhere TODAY and SAVE 440usd :-)

Whoa! /AX, you have certainly changed your tune, you got it working then:D I have actually stopped using mine, I am back on the S-Video of my LeadTek Winfast A280LE, Ti4200 w/PhillipsSAA7108 vivo chip. I am thinking about getting the TVXP as my specific (has never really worked properly) MSI TV@nywhere creates to much dot crawl noise via S-Video, though it's composite is about as good as it gets.


harrison

dar1us
27th June 2003, 18:27
Remember, a DVD recorder will contain a similar chipset to a Capture card, it just has a hardware MPEG2 encoder built in, and codes/writes to DVD all at the same time... Saying that, it is talyor made to the needs of analogue signal>mpeg-2 so it will preform it better and more stabally(sp?) than a computer. I would love to try one, but cant afford it, well, can afford it, but wont cos hey, that just ain't me. I feel what is the point in telling the world about something that only a few people (at the moment) would actually use. It is far better to tell people about cheap products that do virtually the same job, or making the most of those cheap products; hence overclocking.

If you cracked open a DVD recorder, I am sure you would find something like a CX2881 or a 7108 or even... a 878, but I have never used one of those.

Kerching,


harrison

erbuk
27th June 2003, 18:50
I feel what is the point in telling the world about something that only a few people (at the moment) would actually use. It is far better to tell people about cheap products that do virtually the same job, or making the most of those cheap products

Yes I respect that. But people in this thread are talking about product like Canoplus ADVC-100 and the Hauppauge DVB-cards. These produtcs are at the same price level as the cheapest DVD-recorders. So compared to them I find the DVDR alternative to be a good choice.

maxwell3
27th June 2003, 18:54
4

rays888
27th June 2003, 22:35
I have little doubt that DVD Recorders will someday overtake VHS as the Consumer video recorder of choice. I give them an edge over Hard Drive systems only because you can't rent a hard drive movie at Blockbuster or archive home movies the way you can with a DVD. (For that matter, used Hollywood hit movies on VHS are selling cheaper at these video rental stores than some brands of Blank DVD media. So much for Macrovision.) I also believe that alot of the discussions we are having today about the best way to capture and store video will be moot in a year or two by advancing technology. When 2+ Gig Computers are becoming the norm and DVD players that use IDE drives are selling at under $70, then its only a matter of time when DVD Recorders will dominate the shelves. My local Circuit City store only had about 6 different VHS models for sale and well over 20 models of DVD players - two of which were DVD Recorders!

Right now I liken this period of time to the early days of CD burners and media. Good burners were expensive and cheap media made a lot of coasters. Today, my $9.95 Verbatim 48X12X48X CD-RW and free Imation CD's (Office Max rebate specials) haven't ever made a bad disc yet.
Burning DVDs today is just as frustrating as the early days of CD-Rs. Remember when CD-R media went from 1X to 2X --WOW!

The biggest advantage I see today with a Computer based capture system and a DVD burner is the ability to make menu's, edit, filter, separate clips and salvage old tapes that are showing signs of age. Will a DVD Recorder made for the Consumer market be able to do that? Can they now?
:confused:

erbuk
27th June 2003, 23:09
I can only speak for my own recorder but the basic edit functions are there if you use RW-discs. You can split and remove scenes. You can't make your own menus but the ones created automatically are very good.

But if you have a DVD-burner in your pc then doing the editing there is to prefer.

I don't share your frustration with DVD-burning. I have burned at least 100 discs, most of them low-price Datawrite and Infinti, on my NEC ND-1000 (DVD+RW) and I haven't had a single coaster. It's very fast compared to burning the same amount of data on CD-R:s despite the fact that my burner is only 2.4x. From what I have learned in another forum the plus system has much better error correction than the minus system. Maybe that's the reason for our different experiences. But I believe that this is a discussion for that forum rather than this ;)

\AX
28th June 2003, 04:06
dar1us...yeh...right...i wish. I lent it to a friend a few months ago and he has been using. He loves it. I havent seen any of his captures but he says it is better than the hauppauge i lent him. He has both right now. I have given up until i get a new system. (mobo combo). I thought i would have one by now...but havent.

as far as the dvdr standalone recording thingy...im interested in how it allows you to cut out commercials? I mean surely it doesnt have a 1gig of ram in it...so it must have a hdd correct?

i shouldnt knock the standalone dvdr units...but i can honestly say this. Now, currently after having a grip on what to do with my pc involving capturing, there is no chance i would ever go to a standalone.

for 500usd i can get a kick AZZ PC to sit right next to my tv and do it for me awesomely :-). Only problems i would run into would be caused by my own fault 99% of the time so i could only get angry/aggrevated at myself for flaws :-).

@rays888 "..you can't rent a hard drive movie at Blockbuster ..." this is true but we are talking about capturing here. You cant take your captured video to blockbuster and get free rentals. (although being "cockbuster" i wouldnt doubt it)


i honestly think, in 2 years you will see pc system's sitting next to tv's rather than these new top of the line standalone devices (which are getting close a pc as it is). I see standalone devices making it as far as beta did. However, to the general public computer capturing i know for sure isnt something they could want/can do. So it might make it big in the mass public, in my opinion now, not for the quality of it but the lack of knowledge it takes to do it. Just hit record...couldnt be easier.

Of course with a pc comes more complexity...but once you get used to that complexity anything else, in ways seems inferior and inferior by alot for some reason. Even if its not really that inferior...for some reason i still feel it is for myself.

Whoever writes a GREATLY easy and wonderful capture app will make it big...today you either got great functions with a higher learning curver, or you got some corporate commercial bundle of software that might aswell be a screen saver (ie. intervideo).

Only time will tell right, but soon as i see that first great DVB for capturing (at a low price aswell), i'll jump ship regardless if i got that tv@nywhere working or not.


@dar1us: dot draw was NOT noticable on my pc, yet on my friends the only time i saw it working on his system, i noticed soemthing similar. The quality i saw on my system is beyond what he see's on his. Im still wondering why with this particular card it yields so many different results for people. I mean i know its the same with all cards, but this one seems to be more variable than any other i have ever seen.

o yeh i forgot...could you maybe post a clip/pic of what your dvdr standalone recorder capture's?? I would like to see what it looks like. Also can you set the bitrate and framerate and possibly the audio bitrate with it? Or is this pretty much a SVCD recording on DVD? aslo what is the res of the capture?

erbuk
28th June 2003, 06:12
Yes, when using DVD+RW discs removing commercials is no problem. It works more or less like a harddrive. With a DVD+R disc you can delete scenes but naturally not reuse the space. It just rewrites the toc with the unwanted scenes marked as deleted.

From what i have read the minus system is more limited when it comes to editing (without loosing compatibility).

But I should add that editing on the recorder using the remote is no fun even though i works. I prefer ripping the disc and do the editing on a PC.

Yes, I will for sure have a PC connected to my TV now and in the future. I even prefer playing DVDs from my harddrive cause controlling ZoomPlayer with a cordless mouse is superior to using a remote control with zillions of buttons. And I keep most of my recordings in DivX or XviD format. But I think I will do most of my videocapturing (but not all) with the DVD-recorder.

maxwell3
29th June 2003, 00:20
You guys are making me nervous with this talk about dot crawl (dont know what it is but I know I dont want it) I just ordered a tv@nywhere . Should be here tues.
Erbuk , I have no experience with xvid. How do you like it

erbuk
29th June 2003, 00:30
I like the quality but it's very slow right now if you use all the features that the GordianKnot guide suggests. It takes twice as much time to encode with XviD as with DivX5. But hopefully it will get faster in the future.

So if I am in a hurry or when I encode very long movies or tv-series I use DivX5. And, to be honest, the difference in quality is there but it's really not that big in most cases.

maxwell3
29th June 2003, 19:14
I know this is probably a stupid question but Ive never used either so... Which is the better of the two ? Also Ive read here and there that divx 3 and 4 give better results.Lastly do you use only gordian knot or have you tried other methods . This is a little off topic so pm or email me if you want Thanks

erbuk
29th June 2003, 20:03
I'll take it here. I'm sure that one of those "do a search"/"wrong foum"/"read the guides"-guys will kill me anyway in the near future. I have a hard time understanding why some people just can't answer a simple question or just leave instead of waste time bitching (ok, after writing this I will probably be banned :o ).

It's almost impossible to answer that question because it depends on what's most important for you. I can just say that I recommend XviD if you are not in a hurry because the quality is sometimes slightly better than DivX5. If time is an important factor then use DivX5, it's much faster. And as I said before the difference in quality is not very noticeable so you are not completely wrong whatever you chose.

Forget about DivX4, that's an older version of DivX5. And I don't use DivX3 cause it's a hacked, not completely legal, codec. And there is no need to use it now when there are good, free and fully legal alternatives.

Yes I have tried lots of "excellent, one click, easy to use"-apps. But they just don't work. And I have tried doing it completely manual, but it is just too much work and it's easy to fail. So I found that GN was the best alternative for me. The guides at the main page are excellent as long as you really follow them. And once you have done it a few times and understand the basics then GN is very easy to use.

I also do some capturing directly to DivX5. The quality is decent but not quite as good as if you capture with a lossless codec (or a DVD-recorder) and do the mpeg-4 encoding afterwards. And since you can only cut the video at keyframes you can't do perfect cuts. But for recording something you just want to watch later and maybe not keep, it's perfect.

VirtualDub VCR is the best app for this. It's got a recording timer and a modification that keeps the audio in sync.

maxwell3
29th June 2003, 23:21
Thanks for the help. Last question... . .Are you using the pro version

erbuk
29th June 2003, 23:35
Yes, I even paid for it, stupid me :D

... and you need the pro version to get everyting to work as it's supposed to.

John2002
5th July 2003, 02:31
Originally posted by \AX
well...not to sound pesimistic but who the hell is that guy that wrote that review??? he's not a lawyer or something right??

like your hinting at john the quality is not a standard and even user's see different quality.

in 2 years??? in my opinion, and this is just mine, pick yourself up a msi tv@nywhere TODAY and SAVE 440usd :-)

...


\AX

The guy is probably just a staff reviewer for Sound and Vision Magazine. If he says that the recording was indistinguishable from the original broadcast I would trust him. The magazine tends to do thorough reviews of stereo and TV equipment.

Anyway, what I believe he's saying is that the recorder yielded broadcast quality. Does the MSI product do that? I don't know if the Asus TV tuner with the latest, greatest Connexant chipset is as good as the MSI but I own the Asus and it doesn't even come close to delivering broadcast quality.

As for the comments that you sometimes read that the components in these DVD/disk recorders are the same as in the PC capture cards, the chipset/tuner that's included only tells part of the story. The rest is implementation.

People on discussion boards seem to believe that what's best for equipment or what's best for video quality is fuzzy (no pun intended :) ) and indefinable. That's true if you don't define the criteria. I submit that the starting point should be simply the device's basic ability to record and play back video exactly like what you saw on the original broadcast. How close a Panasonic, Sony, ATI, MSI, Hauppage product can do that determines which is best. Beyond that the other criteria could be price, format, features and convenience.

Owen
5th July 2003, 06:09
To get the best out of any capture card you need to pay close attention to driver Brightness, Contrast, Colour settings.
I use a TV@nywhere and Contrast is the biggest problem. The default is way too high. I have it set at about 2900 which gives a little less contrast than original but captures the full luma range.
Higher settings will over saturate luma, resulting in near white detail lose.
The TV@anywhere is still much better that the old BT8x8 cards. They have bad luma clipping problems.
I do not have any dot crawl or noise problems.


erbuk,
For editing ease with Xvid or DIVX, forcing a key frame every second is usually enough. Or you can force all frames to be key frames for maximum quality and editing ease.
What settings where you using for capture with DIVX ?
Set to 8Mbit with all fancy features off, gives very good quality at quite low average bit rate. Better than Xvid at any setting IMHO.
There is a rate control bug in DIVX up to 5.05 with interlaced source.
You must use the deinterlace function in DIVX or an external deinterlace filter during capture or you will get occasions where the picture will turn into a blocky mess every so often.

Another reason PC’s are better for capture is time limits.
A 4.xGig DVD disk dose not allow for long capture sessions.
Big hard drives are cheap and allow many hours of capture.

If you have a DV Cam with Svideo input and want top quality capture, use the pass though function to capture direct to disk. Quality can’t be bettered and recording time is only limited by disk space.

Regards,

Owen

maxwell3
7th July 2003, 13:51
Owen ,
Although I havent had a chance to even install it yet I recieved my MSI tv@nywhere thursday . If I remember correctly you us flyds to capture . I was wondering what you think of msi's pvs program . Also any tips on using this card thanks

erbuk
7th July 2003, 19:57
Originally posted by Owen
For editing ease with Xvid or DIVX, forcing a key frame every second is usually enough. Or you can force all frames to be key frames for maximum quality and editing ease.
What settings where you using for capture with DIVX ?
Set to 8Mbit with all fancy features off, gives very good quality at quite low average bit rate. Better than Xvid at any setting IMHO.
There is a rate control bug in DIVX up to 5.05 with interlaced source.
You must use the deinterlace function in DIVX or an external deinterlace filter during capture or you will get occasions where the picture will turn into a blocky mess every so often.


I will try that, thanks.

Originally posted by Owen
Another reason PC’s are better for capture is time limits.
A 4.xGig DVD disk dose not allow for long capture sessions.
Big hard drives are cheap and allow many hours of capture.


Agree, there is a four hour limit if I want good quality, so I still do a lot of my "to watch later"-caps with the computer. But I'm more and more convinced that the DVD-recorder (or a DVB-card) is the best alternative for high quality caps. And most other people who has seen the caps agree.

Owen
8th July 2003, 04:12
I think the DVB card sounds good to me as long as its no problem to edit and play it back.
Editing a Mpeg stream without recompressing could be tricky.

Owen

erbuk
8th July 2003, 07:07
I use the Womble mpegvcr editor. A bit unstable and not the best interface but it does what I want, precise enough editing of mpeg2-streams without recompression. I have also tried a freeware tool called ChopperXP that should be able to do the same thing (but I never got it to work). And I know there are other commercial tools out there that can do this.