Looking for a 480p capture card* [Archive] - Page 3

Mysteriouskk

10th January 2008, 16:56

Your Burnout video is a 60fps capture, but you're dropping a lot of frames. When I play it back I can see the "jumps" in the passing scenery which are not present in the game. It's blatant right from the beginning with the passing bus.

What tool are you using to capture? Can't you use VirtualDub?

Does it happen after a couple of seconds in the video? It could be just that the harddrive is spinning up, so it only loses frames at the beginning of the capture.

ajp_anton

10th January 2008, 20:49

If the hard drive is spinning up, you
1) have set it to spin down in Windows (can't be done on OS-disc)
2) can't record anything to it before it's rotating at full speed
3) haven't been using the drive for a long time (in most cases setting the capture filename counts as using the drive)

I don't think the drive spinning up can be a problem. Also, there are random dropped/duplicate frames over the whole clip.

Mysteriouskk

11th January 2008, 03:21

News Bot

11th January 2008, 17:45

Should I capture at a lower setting?

Do you have any USB devices, or any other external devices connected at all?

I drop frames like a complete sap when I have a USB device in. >_>

easy2Bcheesy

12th January 2008, 13:05

Should I capture at a lower setting?

That would most likely help. In truth 720p60 is very difficult to capture without recourse to a DirectShow encoder. Once again, are you using VirtualDub to capture? Does the MonsterX show up as a device within VirtualDub's capture core?

Jaxel

16th January 2008, 22:25

Hmm... well looking through this thread... I basically see 4 devices...

PV4, MonsterX, Intensity and HDRECS...

Would anyone please give me a straight answer on which one would work best for capturing video game content: such as Tekken Dark Ressurection, Virtua Fighter 5 or Soul Calibur 4? These are all 60fps core games.

From what I have read... PV4 and MonsterX can do D-Terminal, which is slightly better than Component. The Intensity is designed for HDMI, but it can do Component through a break-out box... So basically, all 3 of these devices can capture the PS3 (and possibly 360) video output in high definition...

So what is each devices' positives and negatives? Price? Where to buy? Hardware constraints? I assume all of them are PCIe.

easy2Bcheesy

17th January 2008, 18:36

I believe D-Terminal is essentially component with a different socket, so I'm struggling to imagine that the quality will be any better. For what it's worth, Intensity Pro's component support is OK, but its colour balance is incorrect and the picture is softer than HDMI.

That said, if your final deliverable video is going to be compressed to x264 or WMV (the only real choices for a 720p final deliverable asset), that might actually be a good thing.

Jaxel

18th January 2008, 06:16

Alright... then its confirmed that the Intensity can do Component video and that would be my best choice, right?

squid_80

18th January 2008, 06:32

Alright... then its confirmed that the Intensity can do Component video and that would be my best choice, right?
Intensity PRO can do component. Extra $100 over the regular Intensity.

easy2Bcheesy

18th January 2008, 08:53

So long as you don't want to capture 480p, Intensity Pro is fine.

Dot50Cal

18th January 2008, 14:09

The PV4 and MonsterX are Component (or DVI, to be more accurate) while the Intensity and HDRECS are HDMI.

They are D-Terminal, that is not DVI.

I believe D-Terminal is essentially component with a different socket, so I'm struggling to imagine that the quality will be any better.

Correct, I don't think there is any quality difference.

If anyone has the ability to capture HDMI out from a PS3 (be it debug, or using a device to get around HDCP) would you take some snapshots of PS1 and PS2 games? Im not sure what the problem is, but it appears the the PS3 has terrible video out while in these modes (compared to the PS2 or PS1). Im curious if its just the analog out or a system wide problem. Though I will say, it scales games much better, it just crushes blacks and distorts color (even when upscaling is off).

Jaxel

18th January 2008, 19:29

So long as you don't want to capture 480p, Intensity Pro is fine.

Wait... the Intensity Pro can do 720p... but it can't do 480p? WTF is that?

Dot50Cal

18th January 2008, 19:48

Wait... the Intensity Pro can do 720p... but it can't do 480p? WTF is that?

An all too common trend. If you want 480i 480p 720p 1080i and 1080p (limited to 960x1080 max) then you want to go with the PV3 / PV4. They are D-Terminal (Japanese equivalent of component). It captures all footage at 60FPS, so its up to you to convert the framerate appropriately should your game run less than that. You are however limited to using the application thats bundled with the card. Virtualdub and the like will not recognize it.

easy2Bcheesy

19th January 2008, 09:16

480p is not supported most likely because there are no 480p cameras - or at least none worth designing a capture card for. Blackmagic and the like will only dedicate engineering effort to products and functionality that will give them a significant marketshare, and I can't blame them.

Dot50Cal - I'm sure I've seen HDMI shots of PS2 via PS3 somewhere online on a forum posting or something. I'll look.

Seraphic-

19th January 2008, 18:20

An all too common trend. If you want 480i 480p 720p 1080i and 1080p (limited to 960x1080 max) then you want to go with the PV3 / PV4. They are D-Terminal (Japanese equivalent of component). It captures all footage at 60FPS, so its up to you to convert the framerate appropriately should your game run less than that. You are however limited to using the application thats bundled with the card. Virtualdub and the like will not recognize it.

Does the PV4 also do limited 1080p or is that just the PV3?

Now the real question is, what can you do with 960x1080p? After all, it's missing half of its resolution (960 missing). What can you do with a video missing so much? Must look quite distorted, no? And in that case, why not just 1080i? You would at least get the full 1920x1080 resolution and could deinterlace (although, it really isn't true "full" resolution... as 1080i would only be 540p).

Dot50Cal

19th January 2008, 19:22

I cant speak for the PV4, but the PV3 does "limited" 1080p.

De-interlacing is blah to me, I only capture progressive frames. Plus working with 1080p video with the bitrates/quality level I use just isn't an option really. Another thing to note is that most PS3 1080p games do not render at 1920x1080, rather 960x1080, so you'd basically be doing the scaling job yourself anyway. The only benefit to capturing full 1920x1080 frames would be that the PS3 has the ability to overlay HUD items after the image has been scaled properly, to mask the scaling.

Seraphic-

19th January 2008, 21:13

Good point, interlacing isn't really the ideal form for video as lots of issues with motion blur and what not. Most PS3 games are not even 1080p, just 720p.

Also, what revision of the PV3 do you have again? Anyone know if the PV4 does limited 1080p like the PV3?

Dot50Cal

19th January 2008, 22:08

I have the Red PCB, Revision B (final).

Seraphic-

19th January 2008, 22:21

Dot50Cal, have you ever heard anything about "hardware-assisted compression" for the PV3 or is it all done with the software codec? And is th process to take 960x1080 to 1920x1080 the same idea as taking 640x480 to anamorphic wides-creen of 853x480? I'm wondering because for games that are native 1080p, would be creating half the resolution from nothing (as half of it is not there). Interested in how that works.

You would think if the PV3 had 1080p support the PV4 would too. Wonder if it is worth the risk to buy a PV4 without knowing and just hope it has support as well. Anyway, was doing some searching using Google for 960x1080 support with the PV4 and came across an interesting article about this resolution.

Except, it will be pretty weak 1080 support with an odd and substandard result. The horizontal resolution will be worse than with 720p (960 across instead of 1280), and the images will be twice as blurry horizontally as vertically. 960x1080 is going to look worse than 1280x720 (although it’s certainly an improvement over having to drop back to 480i).

The point here is that horizontal scaling is easy because data is almost always output row by row. Vertical scaling is hard because you'd have to buffer entire rows of data and THEN double them or average between then.

The math is easy, too:

1280x720 = 921,600 pixels

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels (125% more than 720p)

960x1080 = 1,036,800 pixels (12.5% more than 720p)

http://ozymandias.com/archive/2007/01/29/Bruce_2700_s-Thoughts-on-PS3-Horizontal-Scaling-in-SDK.aspx

http://img167.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/users/8/2/7/9/keyboard0807-img600x450-1198645781p1010809.jpg

The four cards on the mag are basically the only four HD capture cards out right now. The PV4 and MonsterX are Component (or DVI, to be more accurate) while the Intensity and HDRECS are HDMI.

Does anyone know if the HDRECS suffers from the same problem as the Intensity?

What problems are you talking about for the Intensity and HDRECS? Also, what are the capture specs for the HDRECS (720p max)? What is the price as well?

easy2Bcheesy

20th January 2008, 09:41

I would imagine the problem they are describing is no 480p support whatsoever.

The rest of the info is described elsewhere on this thread: 1080i max, $1000. So you're better off with Intensity Pro.

Seraphic-

20th January 2008, 10:18

http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/GTHD%20Final.mp4

Someones replay of GTHD. I captured at 1080p (960x1080) and resized to 720p size. For GTHD it actually looks better than native 720p, since you get odd scaling issues with far away backgrounds.

Would you be able to scale this from 960x1080 to 1920x1080 or is going to 1280x720 the only way to do it?

easy2Bcheesy

20th January 2008, 11:12

You'd be able to scale it to whatever you want in VirtualDub, or better yet edit in 960x1080 and then encode your final WMV or MP4 to scale for you (this is a very good idea as it'll save bandwidth).

If you want to see a "best case scenario" of 960x1080, turn off 720p on your PS3 XMB, enable 1080p and load up Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. Most PS3 games will look a lot worse upscaled in this manner due to lack of anti-aliasing.

To be honest, 720p looks just as good and is a far more workable proposition for editing etc.

Dot50Cal

20th January 2008, 17:30

Would you be able to scale this from 960x1080 to 1920x1080 or is going to 1280x720 the only way to do it?

I will get some shots today, I no longer have the raw footage.

easy2Bcheesy

20th January 2008, 18:57

So PV3 is streaming 960x1080 at 60fps over a 32-bit PCI bus? Impressive.

Dot50Cal

21st January 2008, 01:23

Quite :)

I should have mentioned, for 1080i / 1080p capture you can modify the horizontal resolution if you desire. The max for 1080p capture is 960x1080, but the 1080i width can be modified to quite a few as you will see below.

*PLEASE DONT HOTLINK THESE*
480p:
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/480p.png

720p:
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/720p.png

1080i (960 width)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/1080i(960).png

1080i(1280 width)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/1080i(1280).png

1080i(1440 width)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/1080i(1440).png

1080i(1600 width)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/1080i(1600).png

1080i(1920 width)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/1080i(1920).png

1080p(960 width)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/1080p.png

I'll get some shots of a 1080p game (RR7) and a 1080p (1280x1080 - GT5 Prolouge) in a moment. Also I should note that GTHD runs 1440x1080, so seeing a benefit from capturing 960x1080 would see a boost in rendered pixels as opposed to capturing 720p.

Edit:
Ridge Racer (full 1920x1080 game)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/RR

GT5 Prologue (1280x1080)
http://dot50cal.the-horror.com/pv3/widths/GT5P

Do note that in order for me to get exact shots I had to record the footage, so there may be compression artifacts in these. Sorry about that, these games dont exactly pause for still shots well :devil:

Mysteriouskk

21st January 2008, 02:39

Seraphic-

21st January 2008, 02:40

Dot50Cal, have you ever heard anything about "hardware-assisted compression" for the PV3 or is it all done with the software codec? And is the process to take 960x1080 to 1920x1080 the same idea as taking 640x480 to anamorphic wides-screen of 853x480?

Oh, and here is an interesting video of HDMI vs Component gaming capture at 720p. I'm sure people will differ on what looks better.

http://trailers.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/2654/t_uncharted_comparison_componenthdmi_gt_h264.mov

What is your system"s spec? For some reason, my PV4 card doesn't work at all. I've tried multiple mobos, AMD and Intel and, it just doesn't recognize the card at all. It recognized it the first time I install the card, but now I can get it to work at all. Anyone know what I should do? Anybody want the card?

I think I saw your post on the video help forum. Made reply to your issue. The first gen of the PV4 cards had issues with Core2Duo CPUs, the PV4 will not work with them without a flash update. That might be the issue, but it should work with other CPUs. Did you try the newest drivers? Did you buy it new? And yes, I might be interested in the card. Was interested to know if it is able to do 960x1080p like the PV3.

Dot50Cal

21st January 2008, 02:51

What is your system"s spec? For some reason, my PV4 card doesn't work at all. I've tried multiple mobos, AMD and Intel and, it just doesn't recognize the card at all. It recognized it the first time I install the card, but now I can get it to work at all. Anyone know what I should do? Anybody want the card?

You may have one of the incompatible motherboards. I heard there are a lot of issues. I have a DFI Lanparty UT DR Expert and a 4800+ X2 CPU (Dual core).

Dot50Cal, have you ever heard anything about "hardware-assisted compression" for the PV3 or is it all done with the software codec? And is the process to take 960x1080 to 1920x1080 the same idea as taking 640x480 to anamorphic wides-screen of 853x480?

I haven't heard anything about hardware assist. Its all done in software AFAIK. Blim from Gamersyde did tell me that the PV3 has 3 different levels of compression though. On simple scenes it doesnt compress as much, but on hard scenes your preview may skip frames and CPU usage goes to 100%. I noticed this myself when capturing Uncharted. The video records fine, but your preview loses a whole lot of frames so its hard to play that way. It happened for me when Drake was using vines on a white/grey wall which was panning back and forth.

You'd just need to resize the 960x1080 capture to 1920x1080 when encoding if you want to simulate 1080p.

Mysteriouskk

21st January 2008, 02:55

Dot50Cal, have you ever heard anything about "hardware-assisted compression" for the PV3 or is it all done with the software codec? And is the process to take 960x1080 to 1920x1080 the same idea as taking 640x480 to anamorphic wides-screen of 853x480?

Oh, and here is an interesting video of HDMI vs Component gaming capture at 720p. I'm sure people will differ on what looks better.

http://trailers.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/2654/t_uncharted_comparison_componenthdmi_gt_h264.mov

I think I saw your post on the video help forum. Made reply to your issue. The first gen of the PV4 cards had issues with Core2Duo CPUs, the PV4 will not work with them without a flash update. That might be the issue, but it should work with other CPUs. Did you try the newest drivers? Did you buy it new? And yes, I might be interested in the card. Was interested to know if it is able to do 960x1080p like the PV3.

Yea, I bought it new, and it did work the first time I ever installed it, so I think I might just be using the wrong motherboard or something like that. Is there a way I can flash it myself? I can't try the new drivers, because it doesn't even show up on my computer.

I have yet to try an AMD mobo and X2 processor, so I'll probably try that first.

Do you know a motherboard that completely works with the PV4?

Seraphic-

21st January 2008, 03:05

Yea, I bought it new, and it did work the first time I ever installed it, so I think I might just be using the wrong motherboard or something like that. Is there a way I can flash it myself? I can't try the new drivers, because it doesn't even show up on my computer.

I have yet to try an AMD mobo and X2 processor, so I'll probably try that first.

Do you know a motherboard that completely works with the PV4?

No, I cant' say for sure what motherboard works with it. But what motherboard were you using when it first worked? I would suggest get an idea on what motherboard Dot50Cal is using, since he has a PV3 and the PV4 should be similar to that.

But when it was working, do you recall seeing if the PV4 had support for 960x1080p?

Mysteriouskk

21st January 2008, 03:22

No, I cant' say for sure what motherboard works with it. But what motherboard were you using when it first worked? I would suggest get an idea on what motherboard Dot50Cal is using, since he has a PV3 and the PV4 should be similar to that.

But when it was working, do you recall seeing if the PV4 had support for 960x1080p?

It did recognize the card that first time, but I never got to use it past then. I believe I was using a C2D E6600 processor with a gigabyte mobo.

Seraphic-

21st January 2008, 09:11

It did recognize the card that first time, but I never got to use it past then. I believe I was using a C2D E6600 processor with a gigabyte mobo.

Oh, and I forgot to say in my last reply. Yes, you can flash the update to the PV4 using a computer that doesn't use a C2D. The update used to be on their main page of their website. They might have moved it within somewhere.

But it is odd that your computer would see it and then not. Maybe it got burned out or was just a bad card? It seems like you tried in a few systems and it didn't work.

easy2Bcheesy

22nd January 2008, 10:41

You'd just need to resize the 960x1080 capture to 1920x1080 when encoding if you want to simulate 1080p.

That's a waste of bandwidth. Encode at 960x1080, but adjust the aspect ratio to widescreen (1.777 to 1 if memory serves) and it'll resize on the fly during playback. Both WMV and MP4 can do this, and so can MKV.

But as I said previously, this really is a waste of effort for the following reasons, assuming we're talking PS3:

1. Barely any games actually support 1080p
2. Those that do are often compromised in terms of performance - lower frame rate or what-not
3. Many games with 1080p support aren't rendering 1080p any way - most are 720p upscaled
4. Due to the limitations with card, your best case scenario is a barely perceptible increase of quality over 720p any way - the gains of which will most likely be lost in the encoding process.

Dot50Cal

22nd January 2008, 12:37

I agree, if I had to do such a thing I would scale it down to 960xXXX and keep the proper aspect ratio. I was just showing him that option is there (and is what games often do).

easy2Bcheesy

23rd January 2008, 13:56

Oh, and here is an interesting video of HDMI vs Component gaming capture at 720p. I'm sure people will differ on what looks better.

http://trailers.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/2654/t_uncharted_comparison_componenthdmi_gt_h264.mov

Such a comparison is meaningless as the quality of the component capture will be entirely beholden to the quality of the digital to analogue converter on whatever capture card it is they're using. From what I've seen though based on my own observations, there's a fair bit less detail resolved in component. I would put this down to my screen except that I struggle to see the difference at all with my 360 Elite.

Gametrailers' comparison is also meaningless when the base quality is compromised by lame-ass Quicktime h.264 encoding. Uncompressed stills like Dot50Cal's earlier would be a better indication.

easy2Bcheesy

24th January 2008, 08:15

Heard back from my contact in Japan - MonsterX is now officially out of production, and stock is scarce. If you're interested in one, I'd start to search now.

Iolly

27th January 2008, 00:16

What's the difference in acquiring a progressive source at 480i thru component with intensity pro (or any other) rather than 480p (assuming source is 480 over)?
I mean: won't all fields match anyway (careless if bottom or upper field 1st)?
???

easy2Bcheesy

27th January 2008, 07:40

You don't get a picture. Most likely because the frequency of the signal is entirely different to 480i. For starters, twice as much video information is being transmitted.

Schrade

28th January 2008, 18:14

Gametrailers' comparison is also meaningless when the base quality is compromised by lame-ass Quicktime h.264 encoding. Uncompressed stills like Dot50Cal's earlier would be a better indication.

They actually use SVQ3 and not h.264. They just name their files with h264 in them for some reason. Even the WMV ones.

GameTrailers really sucks with their encoding quality.

Video #0
Codec : Sorenson 3
Codec/Info : Sorenson Media Video 3 (Apple QuickTime 5)
PlayTime : 2mn 55s
Bit rate : 3330 Kbps
Nominal bit rate : 3382 Kbps
Width : 960 pixels
Height : 540 pixels
Display Aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate : 29.954 fps
Minimum frame rate : 8.022 fps
Maximum frame rate : 29.970 fps
StreamSize : 69.7 MiB
Encoded date : UTC 2008-01-19 00:09:40
Tagged date : UTC 2008-01-19 00:09:49

Audio #0
Codec : AAC LC
Codec/Info : AAC Low Complexity
PlayTime : 2mn 55s
Bit rate : 189 Kbps
Nominal bit rate : 192 Kbps
Bit rate mode : CBR
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : L R
Sampling rate : 48 KHz
Resolution : 16 bits
StreamSize : 3.96 MiB
Encoded date : UTC 2008-01-19 00:09:40
Tagged date : UTC 2008-01-19 00:09:49

gigantibyte

28th January 2008, 19:48

I only have room for one card in my Media Center, and it needs DVBt. Been planning to move the power supply outside the case and somehow put a capture card where it was, but i just found the perfect card:

http://www.leadtek.com/eng/tv_tuner/overview.asp?lineid=6&pronameid=399

I thought this would be cool but no...

From jr_huang@leadtek.com.tw:

Dear Customer,

Thanks for your contacting first of all.
The card is software MPEG-II encoder and it don't sell to Canadian due to digital TV format is different

I was then directed to choose one of their S-Video cards. :P

ajp_anton

28th January 2008, 21:30

It's the "software mpeg2" thing that makes it interesting. It should mean you can record uncompressed without any trouble getting past the hardware encoder, right?

About "digital TV format is different", are there different versions of "DVB-t" or just "different digital formats"?

Mysteriouskk

29th January 2008, 01:57

They actually use SVQ3 and not h.264. They just name their files with h264 in them for some reason. Even the WMV ones.

GameTrailers really sucks with their encoding quality.

Video #0
Codec : Sorenson 3
Codec/Info : Sorenson Media Video 3 (Apple QuickTime 5)
PlayTime : 2mn 55s
Bit rate : 3330 Kbps
Nominal bit rate : 3382 Kbps
Width : 960 pixels
Height : 540 pixels
Display Aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate : 29.954 fps
Minimum frame rate : 8.022 fps
Maximum frame rate : 29.970 fps
StreamSize : 69.7 MiB
Encoded date : UTC 2008-01-19 00:09:40
Tagged date : UTC 2008-01-19 00:09:49

Audio #0
Codec : AAC LC
Codec/Info : AAC Low Complexity
PlayTime : 2mn 55s
Bit rate : 189 Kbps
Nominal bit rate : 192 Kbps
Bit rate mode : CBR
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : L R
Sampling rate : 48 KHz
Resolution : 16 bits
StreamSize : 3.96 MiB
Encoded date : UTC 2008-01-19 00:09:40
Tagged date : UTC 2008-01-19 00:09:49

What is the best way to compress my videos if I use Sorenson Squeeze?

I'm using Sony Vegas Pro to edit my videos, so I'm wondering how I should go about compressing it.

Do I make an uncompressed video out of vegas and then put it through squeeze?

easy2Bcheesy

29th January 2008, 18:41

Why use Sorenson Squeeze at all? Surely Vegas has WMV and h.264 output options?

Mysteriouskk

30th January 2008, 03:23

Why use Sorenson Squeeze at all? Surely Vegas has WMV and h.264 output options?

I cant seem to get the same quality per bitrate when I use wmv or h264 or something.

It just looks better on gametrailers for some reason.

Schrade

30th January 2008, 07:07

I'd render the video out uncompressed then use something that uses x264 to compress it.

ffmpeg, Avidemux, mencoder, or x264 itself if you want to process audio separately.

Or, just try some of the handy GUIs out there like AutoMKV, RipBot or meGUI.

easy2Bcheesy

8th February 2008, 13:15

Weirdly I've never managed to get AutoMKV working with my HD .avi files.

Jaxel

13th February 2008, 16:29

I got a question for those of you out there who have the Black Magic Intensity Pro... I plan on building a building a machine for it since: its cheaper than the rest, its easy to buy, and its in English... Here are requirements listed on the Intensity Pro webpage:

Traditionally uncompressed HD video has required the use of very fast, external disk arrays. However the high quality Online JPEG codec included with the Intensity drivers means that you can capture high definition video to a single, internal SATA disk. If you want to work with uncompressed video, you'll need at least two SATA disks in a RAID 0 configuration for standard definition. For uncompressed high defintion we'd recommend at least four SATA II disks (with 16 MB cache and running at 7200rpm) in a RAID 0 configuation.

I prefer to do all my capturing at the highest quality possible, but getting four identical SATA2 disks together is a bit of a chore (especially when most motherboards dont have enough controllers for it). Are four disks an absolute necessity? Could I do it with two? What kind of quality loss should I be expected if I go the single disk compressed route?

As well, what kind of file sizes am I looking at here? Right now with my standard definition recordings with my ATI Radeon x800XT-PE I am getting about 12.5 minutes for each 1GB of recorded video.

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit

Really? Vista Ultimate? Why is Ultimate a requirement? Is Vista Home Premium enough? Also, are VirtualDubMod, AviSynth, DGIndex, and MKVToolnix compatible with 64-bit operating systems?