Capture from PAL TV directly to DivX5 format.

Mole · 21st April 2002, 02:47

My brief hardware is:

Athlon XP 1800+
512 MB PC2100 DDR RAM
LifeView FlyVideo 2000

Will I be able to capture using VirtualDub and compress to DivX5 .AVI format to my HDD in realtime? I'll probably have to apply a few filters as well, but will my system be powerful to do such thing? The resolution will be about 480*360.

What about the quality of the FlyVideo 2000 card? Is it decent or do you recommend other better card?

Thanks!

avih · 21st April 2002, 03:22

1. why don't u just try??

2. this system should have no problem capturing at this resolution on the fly. adding filters can make the job harder, depedning on the filters. but u can also filter after u capture.

3. most of the cards use btxxx chipset and phillips tuner. most of them give decent quality. again, try. quality is a very subjective measure many times.

4. note that this is a 'strange' resolution in the sense that you will probably get 2 fields, but each will have just 180 lines. so it might have interlacing artifacts, but if you'll try to separate them, each field will have quite a low vertical resolution.

Mole · 21st April 2002, 03:39

Well, I'll have to go and buy the capture card before trying. Just wanna make sure it's possible before buying.

It is important that everything will be done realtime because I will record a lot of TV programs and there won't probably be enough time to re-process/compress the captured videos.

What resolution would you recommend in order to minimize the interlacing artifacts?

avih · 21st April 2002, 09:02

1. from your 1st post it seem as you're describing the spec of a system that u already have.

2. please read the whole 'capture' forum posts before asking such questions. there are many aspects to your question.

3. have you read these?:
http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19566

Mole · 21st April 2002, 09:33

Thanks for nothing, I have in fact already read all the links you gave me.

In fact, the recommended link in the one you mention:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19566

namely http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5686
is even broken!

I have read and followed all the links in this thread http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20344 and I believe I have done my homework.

I have just now already bought the FlyVideo EZ card and it's using a chipset from Conexant. Tonight I'll try it out myself. The reason of my post is that perhaps somebody may already been in a similar situation as me and might have some useful suggestions.

My original question also included any recommendation of any better capture cards, which of course you didn't answer.

My second question about recommended resolution was also unanswered.

So, instead of being so damn cocky and assuming that I'm just some damn newbie who post questions without reading FAQ and researching on my own first, next time simply don't answer anything at all and let somebody who might actually know something do the answering instead. Especially since your answers were of no help for me whatsoever.

Even though my post count is low, you should not assume that I'm some kind of stupid newbie. I have been lurking around these forums for years and the only reason why my post count is low is because of the forum change.

avih · 21st April 2002, 10:17

Quote:

Thanks for nothing

np, my pleasure.

Ookami · 21st April 2002, 14:13

EY, EY! People, chill out...

Soooooo, let's see... Uncle Ookie will try to help you

...

> Will I be able to capture using VirtualDub and compress to DivX5 .AVI format to my HDD in realtime?

Yes, there should be no problems.

> I'll probably have to apply a few filters as well, but will my system be powerful to do such thing?

Filtering during capture is a thing that I don't recommend...

> The resolution will be about 480*360.

Yikes... Why choose such a resolution? If you do direct Divx 5 cap. then you could go to the 352x288 res. You should first try a HQ (full PAL 704 (or 720) x 576) capture, then a LQ (352x288) and then something in between (like 352x576 or 480x576 etc.) to see what fits your needs.

> What about the quality of the FlyVideo 2000 card? Is it decent or do you recommend other better card?

I hate such questions... What is decent for you? IMO, someone who uses a loossy ;-) format like Divx5 for captuering does not need a decent card =:-D . Now, in the tests and threads I read the FlyVideo was always above or even below average, but if it is enough for you then why not? I mean, I still use my crappy Belinea 17 inch monitor to ruin my HQ captures encoded at 1.x FPS =:-) .

> I have read and followed all the links in this thread http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20344 and I believe I have done my homework.

Aha! Then you'll surely recognize these sections:

"3.) What is the best TV/capture etc. card?"

"7.) What settings could/should I use?"

"10.) What capture (or end) format is the best?"

Alle Klarheiten beseitigt? If you don't know german, ignore the previous sentence, just a joke...

Cheers,

Ookie "the real helpfull is now in charge" Dude

Mole · 21st April 2002, 23:37

Ah, danke! Ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch.

"3.) What is the best TV/capture etc. card?"

There were no mention of specific TV capture card such the one I asked about. There were just talks about ATI cards or other cards which cost 200-300. I bought mine for US$ 43!

"7.) What settings could/should I use?"

The reason why I was thinking of using 480x360 is because it's 4:3. I need to use a 4:3 resolution because I'll be playing them back full screen on the computer monitor without stretching. The movie will also be recorded to VHS through Matrox Millennium G550.

BTW, speaking of TV out quality. There are super cheap cards based on the SiS chipset, TNT2, GeForce, ATI and Matrox. Is there any difference in the TV out quality between the different cards if I play for instance VCD resolution files or DivX3-5 compressed movies?

"10.) What capture (or end) format is the best?"

The reason I'd like to use DivX5 is that currently it gives the best quality (or am I wrong) at low bitrates around 500-600. The reason why I need to use such low bitrates is that the movies will be sent through the Internet.

I live in Thailand an my intention is to capture and encode TV shows and compress them at a bitrate around 500-600 including sound and saved to .AVI. This needs to be done realtime. Then any commercials will be cut out and the file will be sent to somebody in the US, who will then playback the shows and record them on video tapes.

One of my concern is that I'll probably need to apply some kind of deinterlacing filters during capture and I'm not sure if my hardware will be powerful enough to both perform the deinterlace and compress with DivX5 in realtime.

Ookami · 22nd April 2002, 11:34

>3.) What is the best TV/capture etc. card?"

>There were no mention of specific TV capture card such the one I asked about. There were just talks about ATI cards or other cards which cost 200-300. I bought mine for US$ 43!

You could also try the capture card list on http://www.vcdhelp.com . Altough I would not but too much emphasize on the notes given there.

>"7.) What settings could/should I use?"

>The reason why I was thinking of using 480x360 is because it's 4:3. I need to use a 4:3 resolution because I'll be playing them back full screen on the computer monitor without stretching. The movie will also be recorded to VHS through Matrox Millennium G550.

See the pixel aspect ratio link below.

>BTW, speaking of TV out quality. There are super cheap cards based on the SiS chipset, TNT2, GeForce, ATI and Matrox. Is there any difference in the TV out quality between the different cards if I play for instance VCD resolution files or DivX3-5 compressed movies?

Sure there is. But, I don't follow those things too much anymore so my infos would be outdated. Outdated info:

ATI = best
Matrox = second best
Geforce MX = good
99% of the TNT TV out implementations were crap.

But you can use tools like TV tool etc. to improve the situation a bit.

>"10.) What capture (or end) format is the best?"

>The reason I'd like to use DivX5 is that currently it gives the best quality (or am I wrong) at low bitrates around 500-600. The reason why I need to use such low bitrates is that the movies will be sent through the Internet.

Don't know. Don't do such low bitrates (except when I do RM). Have you tried RM (RealMedia)? I never used it for direct capture, so I don't know.

>I live in Thailand an my intention is to capture and encode TV shows and compress them at a bitrate around 500-600 including sound and saved to .AVI. This needs to be done realtime. Then any commercials will be cut out and the file will be sent to somebody in the US, who will then playback the shows and record them on video tapes.

Hmm... I see a few things that could be a problem:

a) audio (if you do it in realtime and send it right after that, you won't have time to compress the audio)
b) AR, if you record to 352x288 you'll have non square pixels . So if this video would be played back in the MP you'll have a "squished" picture. ( http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/pixelaspect.html )

Like, Kika, wrote:

For AVI:
384x576
768x576

For MPEG:
352x288
704x576

If you record xxx x 576, you'll need to deinterlace!

>One of my concern is that I'll probably need to apply some kind of deinterlacing filters during capture and I'm not sure if my hardware will be powerful enough to both perform the deinterlace and compress with DivX5 in realtime.

If you capture only one field (for example 352 x 288), then you don't need to deinterlace... And, I don't know anyone who did good (!) deinterlacing in realtime... Even with those super computers you all have here (I have a Athlon 850

)...

I wrote this in a hurry, hope that everything is correct and that I didn't messed up.

Cheers,

Mijo.

avih · 22nd April 2002, 12:02

dscaler does VERY good 'separate fields + deinterlace' on the fly (realtime tv view).

but i'm unaware of a good method for deinterlacing WHILE capturing. (vdub filters are too slow for that from my experience).

but keeping it interlaced have it's advantages:

1. not loosing info
2. someday maybe the codecs will be able to double framerate+deinterlace on the fly, so there would be no need for encoding deinterlacing. (xvid might be the 1st i think).

BUT for those bitrates, i think it won't be needed. i guess for that specific target, 320x240 would be enough.

and regarding the audio, there's no problem compressing in rt in gsm for example. it gives quite good results with 8K/s.

so overall, i'd say for his usage:
capture @320x240x25(/30) (xvid or divx) with best quality gsm or low quality mp3 in mono.

no re-encoding needed, and the formats and resolutions are good enough for this specific usage.

Mole · 22nd April 2002, 16:12

I have now decided that I'd probably use resolution of 384x288, bitrate at 500. The audio will be 44KHz, stereo, bitrate 64.

It could capture and compress both audio and video in realtime at 25 FPS 352x288 and the CPU usage was reported to be at around 50%.

I tried the FlyVideo EZ card a few hours ago, but I was not happy with the result. It would also not accept any resolution above 352x288, which is unacceptable for me. But what can you expect from a 40 bucks card.

But my father who's expert on analog video said there might be something which I've done wrong with the cables or something, so I'll let him try next week.

I'll get an ATI Allinwonder anyway because I need the higher resolutions.

theReal · 22nd April 2002, 18:47

For any resolutions above 384x288 you need to deinterlace, especially all "off" resolutions in between full and half size of the TV picture can only be dealt with using smart deinterlacing filters.

Don't expect to get good results in full size on the fly with a bitrate of 500. If you definitely want to encode on the fly without further re-encoding, you have certainly reached the best setting - an ATI all-in-wonder won't help here.

I capture to Divx5 as well, but I do it in 100% quality setting with a resolution of 640x480. The result looks really good, but it needs further filtering and re-encoding.

Mole · 22nd April 2002, 19:05

Of course, when I plan to capture at 640x480, I won't be using bitrate at 500 anymore. Probably a bitrate closer to 1000.

The problem is that the cheapo card I bought won't even support resolution at 384x288. Max is only 352x288.

theReal · 22nd April 2002, 19:27

On this site http://www.lifeview.com.tw/english/f...000&3000_e.asp they say your card can capture up to 720x576 resolution, so it's only a thing of getting this to work. TV tuner chips are kind of REALLY stubborn sometimes, you need some time to get to know your card before you can use all it's features

I have a kind of cheapo card too (Hauppage Wintv pci) and it supports all resolutions up to fullscreen, but it is VERY driver dependent. About two years ago (yes, the card is really old!) the drivers were still very bad and with every new release I was surprised that my card suddenly supported a whole lot of new features.

unit01 · 22nd April 2002, 19:35

Hi Mole,

Your card electronically supports capturing full pal resolutions unfortunately drivers and windows Direct Media is the issue and the capture programs that will work with the one available driver I know of take a look at

http://btwincap.sourceforge.net/download.html

It may or may not be useful to you I appoligise in advance if it is'nt

I think in theory you need to get to uninstall the card driver you are using now completely then install btwincap ones. Then try and use either the dittrich sync mod virtualdub

VirtualDub-1_4_8__sync1_01b.zip or avi_io by forcing them to use the wdm > vfw wrapper which I hav'nt tried at all btw.

An alternative to try without using new driver would be to get hold of the newest build of iuvcr by iulab that supports wdm properly which when I tried had issues with sound sync and drops frames but a guy said a few threads back this could have been fixed now

Anyway Good Luck

John

Ookami · 22nd April 2002, 19:56

> but i'm unaware of a good method for deinterlacing WHILE capturing. (vdub filters are too slow for that from my experience).

That's what I meant.

BTW, DScaler does not support every chipset and is "only" an deinterlacer for viewing (AFAIK, my card isn't supported, so I've never could test it).

@everyone

Thank you for your participation in this thread. I'll put a link in the FAQ.

Cheers,

Mijo.

Mole · 23rd April 2002, 00:46

theReal, thanks for the link, but I've been there already. But the card I have is not the FlyVideo 2000/3000, but EZ. I have tried to find any documentation or spec for it on the net, but have so far been unsuccessful.

Perhaps I should have bought the FlyVideo 2000 instead since it costs only around US$ 57.

unit01, thanks for the link too, but my card is based on a chipset from Conexant. I was somewhat surprised when I saw it too since I always thought they only made modem chipsets.

As I said, this cheapo card is only for experimental purposes only. I'll get an ATI Allinwonder as soon as I get all the cabling and everything tested first.

BTW, I noticed in the spec of FlyVideo 2000 that it doesn't support stereo sound. WTF is that supposed to mean? I always thought that you get the sound from the line in on your soundcard?

avih · 23rd April 2002, 00:51

mole
brooktree (aka BT) is the old name for the company now known as connexant. and the chips are exactly the same (except versions).

and u should give a try to the btwincap drivers. they work for many. and i think they SHOULD work with your card as well.

theReal · 23rd April 2002, 03:43

When the tv tuner only sends a mono signal to the sound card, it won't be stereo.
When you capture from an external source and feed the sound to your soundcard directly, you will get it in stereo.

Mole · 23rd April 2002, 07:55

Ah, I understand now. It's the same situation as Rockwell and Conexant then.

21st April 2002, 02:47	#1 \| Link
Mole Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 259	Capture from PAL TV directly to DivX5 format. My brief hardware is: Athlon XP 1800+ 512 MB PC2100 DDR RAM LifeView FlyVideo 2000 Will I be able to capture using VirtualDub and compress to DivX5 .AVI format to my HDD in realtime? I'll probably have to apply a few filters as well, but will my system be powerful to do such thing? The resolution will be about 480*360. What about the quality of the FlyVideo 2000 card? Is it decent or do you recommend other better card? Thanks!

21st April 2002, 03:22	#2 \| Link
avih Capture, Deinterlace Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Right there Posts: 1,971	1. why don't u just try?? 2. this system should have no problem capturing at this resolution on the fly. adding filters can make the job harder, depedning on the filters. but u can also filter after u capture. 3. most of the cards use btxxx chipset and phillips tuner. most of them give decent quality. again, try. quality is a very subjective measure many times. 4. note that this is a 'strange' resolution in the sense that you will probably get 2 fields, but each will have just 180 lines. so it might have interlacing artifacts, but if you'll try to separate them, each field will have quite a low vertical resolution. Last edited by avih; 21st April 2002 at 03:28.

21st April 2002, 14:13	#7 \| Link
Ookami Xe-Rotaredom Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Croatia Posts: 1,029	EY, EY! People, chill out... Soooooo, let's see... Uncle Ookie will try to help you ... > Will I be able to capture using VirtualDub and compress to DivX5 .AVI format to my HDD in realtime? Yes, there should be no problems. > I'll probably have to apply a few filters as well, but will my system be powerful to do such thing? Filtering during capture is a thing that I don't recommend... > The resolution will be about 480*360. Yikes... Why choose such a resolution? If you do direct Divx 5 cap. then you could go to the 352x288 res. You should first try a HQ (full PAL 704 (or 720) x 576) capture, then a LQ (352x288) and then something in between (like 352x576 or 480x576 etc.) to see what fits your needs. > What about the quality of the FlyVideo 2000 card? Is it decent or do you recommend other better card? I hate such questions... What is decent for you? IMO, someone who uses a loossy ;-) format like Divx5 for captuering does not need a decent card =:-D . Now, in the tests and threads I read the FlyVideo was always above or even below average, but if it is enough for you then why not? I mean, I still use my crappy Belinea 17 inch monitor to ruin my HQ captures encoded at 1.x FPS =:-) . > I have read and followed all the links in this thread http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20344 and I believe I have done my homework. Aha! Then you'll surely recognize these sections: "3.) What is the best TV/capture etc. card?" "7.) What settings could/should I use?" "10.) What capture (or end) format is the best?" Alle Klarheiten beseitigt? If you don't know german, ignore the previous sentence, just a joke... Cheers, Ookie "the real helpfull is now in charge" Dude __________________ "Only those who attempt the absurd achieve the impossible."

22nd April 2002, 11:34	#9 \| Link
Ookami Xe-Rotaredom Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Croatia Posts: 1,029	>3.) What is the best TV/capture etc. card?" >There were no mention of specific TV capture card such the one I asked about. There were just talks about ATI cards or other cards which cost 200-300. I bought mine for US$ 43! You could also try the capture card list on http://www.vcdhelp.com . Altough I would not but too much emphasize on the notes given there. >"7.) What settings could/should I use?" >The reason why I was thinking of using 480x360 is because it's 4:3. I need to use a 4:3 resolution because I'll be playing them back full screen on the computer monitor without stretching. The movie will also be recorded to VHS through Matrox Millennium G550. See the pixel aspect ratio link below. >BTW, speaking of TV out quality. There are super cheap cards based on the SiS chipset, TNT2, GeForce, ATI and Matrox. Is there any difference in the TV out quality between the different cards if I play for instance VCD resolution files or DivX3-5 compressed movies? Sure there is. But, I don't follow those things too much anymore so my infos would be outdated. Outdated info: ATI = best Matrox = second best Geforce MX = good 99% of the TNT TV out implementations were crap. But you can use tools like TV tool etc. to improve the situation a bit. >"10.) What capture (or end) format is the best?" >The reason I'd like to use DivX5 is that currently it gives the best quality (or am I wrong) at low bitrates around 500-600. The reason why I need to use such low bitrates is that the movies will be sent through the Internet. Don't know. Don't do such low bitrates (except when I do RM). Have you tried RM (RealMedia)? I never used it for direct capture, so I don't know. >I live in Thailand an my intention is to capture and encode TV shows and compress them at a bitrate around 500-600 including sound and saved to .AVI. This needs to be done realtime. Then any commercials will be cut out and the file will be sent to somebody in the US, who will then playback the shows and record them on video tapes. Hmm... I see a few things that could be a problem: a) audio (if you do it in realtime and send it right after that, you won't have time to compress the audio) b) AR, if you record to 352x288 you'll have non square pixels . So if this video would be played back in the MP you'll have a "squished" picture. ( http://www.lurkertech.com/lg/pixelaspect.html ) Like, Kika, wrote: For AVI: 384x576 768x576 For MPEG: 352x288 704x576 If you record xxx x 576, you'll need to deinterlace! >One of my concern is that I'll probably need to apply some kind of deinterlacing filters during capture and I'm not sure if my hardware will be powerful enough to both perform the deinterlace and compress with DivX5 in realtime. If you capture only one field (for example 352 x 288), then you don't need to deinterlace... And, I don't know anyone who did good (!) deinterlacing in realtime... Even with those super computers you all have here (I have a Athlon 850 )... I wrote this in a hurry, hope that everything is correct and that I didn't messed up. Cheers, Mijo. __________________ "Only those who attempt the absurd achieve the impossible."

22nd April 2002, 12:02	#10 \| Link
avih Capture, Deinterlace Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Right there Posts: 1,971	dscaler does VERY good 'separate fields + deinterlace' on the fly (realtime tv view). but i'm unaware of a good method for deinterlacing WHILE capturing. (vdub filters are too slow for that from my experience). but keeping it interlaced have it's advantages: 1. not loosing info 2. someday maybe the codecs will be able to double framerate+deinterlace on the fly, so there would be no need for encoding deinterlacing. (xvid might be the 1st i think). BUT for those bitrates, i think it won't be needed. i guess for that specific target, 320x240 would be enough. and regarding the audio, there's no problem compressing in rt in gsm for example. it gives quite good results with 8K/s. so overall, i'd say for his usage: capture @320x240x25(/30) (xvid or divx) with best quality gsm or low quality mp3 in mono. no re-encoding needed, and the formats and resolutions are good enough for this specific usage. Last edited by avih; 22nd April 2002 at 12:05.

21st April 2002, 03:39	#3 \| Link
Mole Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 259	Well, I'll have to go and buy the capture card before trying. Just wanna make sure it's possible before buying. It is important that everything will be done realtime because I will record a lot of TV programs and there won't probably be enough time to re-process/compress the captured videos. What resolution would you recommend in order to minimize the interlacing artifacts?

21st April 2002, 09:02	#4 \| Link
avih Capture, Deinterlace Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Right there Posts: 1,971	1. from your 1st post it seem as you're describing the spec of a system that u already have. 2. please read the whole 'capture' forum posts before asking such questions. there are many aspects to your question. 3. have you read these?: http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19566

21st April 2002, 09:33	#5 \| Link
Mole Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 259	Thanks for nothing, I have in fact already read all the links you gave me. In fact, the recommended link in the one you mention: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19566 namely http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5686 is even broken! I have read and followed all the links in this thread http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20344 and I believe I have done my homework. I have just now already bought the FlyVideo EZ card and it's using a chipset from Conexant. Tonight I'll try it out myself. The reason of my post is that perhaps somebody may already been in a similar situation as me and might have some useful suggestions. My original question also included any recommendation of any better capture cards, which of course you didn't answer. My second question about recommended resolution was also unanswered. So, instead of being so damn cocky and assuming that I'm just some damn newbie who post questions without reading FAQ and researching on my own first, next time simply don't answer anything at all and let somebody who might actually know something do the answering instead. Especially since your answers were of no help for me whatsoever. Even though my post count is low, you should not assume that I'm some kind of stupid newbie. I have been lurking around these forums for years and the only reason why my post count is low is because of the forum change.

21st April 2002, 23:37	#8 \| Link
Mole Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 259	Ah, danke! Ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch. "3.) What is the best TV/capture etc. card?" There were no mention of specific TV capture card such the one I asked about. There were just talks about ATI cards or other cards which cost 200-300. I bought mine for US$ 43! "7.) What settings could/should I use?" The reason why I was thinking of using 480x360 is because it's 4:3. I need to use a 4:3 resolution because I'll be playing them back full screen on the computer monitor without stretching. The movie will also be recorded to VHS through Matrox Millennium G550. BTW, speaking of TV out quality. There are super cheap cards based on the SiS chipset, TNT2, GeForce, ATI and Matrox. Is there any difference in the TV out quality between the different cards if I play for instance VCD resolution files or DivX3-5 compressed movies? "10.) What capture (or end) format is the best?" The reason I'd like to use DivX5 is that currently it gives the best quality (or am I wrong) at low bitrates around 500-600. The reason why I need to use such low bitrates is that the movies will be sent through the Internet. I live in Thailand an my intention is to capture and encode TV shows and compress them at a bitrate around 500-600 including sound and saved to .AVI. This needs to be done realtime. Then any commercials will be cut out and the file will be sent to somebody in the US, who will then playback the shows and record them on video tapes. One of my concern is that I'll probably need to apply some kind of deinterlacing filters during capture and I'm not sure if my hardware will be powerful enough to both perform the deinterlace and compress with DivX5 in realtime.

22nd April 2002, 16:12	#11 \| Link
Mole Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 259	I have now decided that I'd probably use resolution of 384x288, bitrate at 500. The audio will be 44KHz, stereo, bitrate 64. It could capture and compress both audio and video in realtime at 25 FPS 352x288 and the CPU usage was reported to be at around 50%. I tried the FlyVideo EZ card a few hours ago, but I was not happy with the result. It would also not accept any resolution above 352x288, which is unacceptable for me. But what can you expect from a 40 bucks card. But my father who's expert on analog video said there might be something which I've done wrong with the cables or something, so I'll let him try next week. I'll get an ATI Allinwonder anyway because I need the higher resolutions.

22nd April 2002, 18:47	#12 \| Link
theReal Piper at theGates of Dawn Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,136	For any resolutions above 384x288 you need to deinterlace, especially all "off" resolutions in between full and half size of the TV picture can only be dealt with using smart deinterlacing filters. Don't expect to get good results in full size on the fly with a bitrate of 500. If you definitely want to encode on the fly without further re-encoding, you have certainly reached the best setting - an ATI all-in-wonder won't help here. I capture to Divx5 as well, but I do it in 100% quality setting with a resolution of 640x480. The result looks really good, but it needs further filtering and re-encoding.

22nd April 2002, 19:05	#13 \| Link
Mole Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 259	Of course, when I plan to capture at 640x480, I won't be using bitrate at 500 anymore. Probably a bitrate closer to 1000. The problem is that the cheapo card I bought won't even support resolution at 384x288. Max is only 352x288.

22nd April 2002, 19:27	#14 \| Link
theReal Piper at theGates of Dawn Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,136	On this site http://www.lifeview.com.tw/english/f...000&3000_e.asp they say your card can capture up to 720x576 resolution, so it's only a thing of getting this to work. TV tuner chips are kind of REALLY stubborn sometimes, you need some time to get to know your card before you can use all it's features I have a kind of cheapo card too (Hauppage Wintv pci) and it supports all resolutions up to fullscreen, but it is VERY driver dependent. About two years ago (yes, the card is really old!) the drivers were still very bad and with every new release I was surprised that my card suddenly supported a whole lot of new features.

22nd April 2002, 19:35	#15 \| Link
unit01 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: perth Posts: 14	Any card based on a Bt8x8 Will support Full P.A.L. res Hi Mole, Your card electronically supports capturing full pal resolutions unfortunately drivers and windows Direct Media is the issue and the capture programs that will work with the one available driver I know of take a look at http://btwincap.sourceforge.net/download.html It may or may not be useful to you I appoligise in advance if it is'nt I think in theory you need to get to uninstall the card driver you are using now completely then install btwincap ones. Then try and use either the dittrich sync mod virtualdub VirtualDub-1_4_8__sync1_01b.zip or avi_io by forcing them to use the wdm > vfw wrapper which I hav'nt tried at all btw. An alternative to try without using new driver would be to get hold of the newest build of iuvcr by iulab that supports wdm properly which when I tried had issues with sound sync and drops frames but a guy said a few threads back this could have been fixed now Anyway Good Luck John

22nd April 2002, 19:56	#16 \| Link
Ookami Xe-Rotaredom Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Croatia Posts: 1,029	> but i'm unaware of a good method for deinterlacing WHILE capturing. (vdub filters are too slow for that from my experience). That's what I meant. BTW, DScaler does not support every chipset and is "only" an deinterlacer for viewing (AFAIK, my card isn't supported, so I've never could test it). @everyone Thank you for your participation in this thread. I'll put a link in the FAQ. Cheers, Mijo. __________________ "Only those who attempt the absurd achieve the impossible."

23rd April 2002, 00:46	#17 \| Link
Mole Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 259	theReal, thanks for the link, but I've been there already. But the card I have is not the FlyVideo 2000/3000, but EZ. I have tried to find any documentation or spec for it on the net, but have so far been unsuccessful. Perhaps I should have bought the FlyVideo 2000 instead since it costs only around US$ 57. unit01, thanks for the link too, but my card is based on a chipset from Conexant. I was somewhat surprised when I saw it too since I always thought they only made modem chipsets. As I said, this cheapo card is only for experimental purposes only. I'll get an ATI Allinwonder as soon as I get all the cabling and everything tested first. BTW, I noticed in the spec of FlyVideo 2000 that it doesn't support stereo sound. WTF is that supposed to mean? I always thought that you get the sound from the line in on your soundcard?

23rd April 2002, 00:51	#18 \| Link
avih Capture, Deinterlace Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Right there Posts: 1,971	mole brooktree (aka BT) is the old name for the company now known as connexant. and the chips are exactly the same (except versions). and u should give a try to the btwincap drivers. they work for many. and i think they SHOULD work with your card as well.

23rd April 2002, 03:43	#19 \| Link
theReal Piper at theGates of Dawn Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,136	When the tv tuner only sends a mono signal to the sound card, it won't be stereo. When you capture from an external source and feed the sound to your soundcard directly, you will get it in stereo.

23rd April 2002, 07:55	#20 \| Link
Mole Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Thailand Posts: 259	Ah, I understand now. It's the same situation as Rockwell and Conexant then.