Capture in Non-Real time?

[Undead Sega]

Does anyone know if this is a possibility? the reason why i asked this is because i was getting a few dropped frames from capturing DV (or D8 to Hi8 A/D converter) and i read around and apprantly Cyberlink Power Director can do non-real time capturing which is apprantly an option for those who has dropped frames. But when i read version 5's manual, i cant see or find the option anywhere, thus im bit confused, and the latest version 8 doesnt state it either, so i dont know if its real or a gimmick for the consumer to buy the software.

i assume the process is done by slowing the tape in order to capture those dropped frames. Anyone know if such process exist?

[scharfis_brain]

I don't know any way to capture in slower than realtime (analogue or IEEE1394).
Get your system fixed instead.

[Undead Sega]

A user from a forum mentioned so, and there is somesort of discussion of non-realtime capturing using Cyberlink Power Director:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?p=510731

plus, i am capturing via Firewire and nothing is wrong with my system.

[scharfis_brain]

i am capturing via Firewire and nothing is wrong with my system.
If the system would be okay, there won't be any framedrops.

Also try some light weight applications like WinDV (SD) or HDVSplit(HDV) for capturing.

[Undead Sega]

Framedrops occur in the tape itself, but there was a theory mentioned that if one was able to slow the tape down, those frames could be viewable, now that probably wouldnt work for all sources but that most likely would be the case.

My point here is if there could be any application that does such a thing that Power Director says it does, did u happen to read the link i have provided?

[scharfis_brain]

how do you want to tell the camera to play back the video at half speed? I've never seen such possibiliy.

Also I haven't found any interesting in the thred you mentioned.

[Undead Sega]

in the link ive provided, they talk about non-real time capturing with Power Director, thats was the reason why i linked it, but its strange because as ive said before ive read the manual but i cant see or find the option anywhere stated thoroughly.

[setarip_old]

Here's what appears to be the underlying theory (multiple buffering) stated in a patent application:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7287106/claims.html

[Ghitulescu]

You can't have dropped frames on a normal system, I did that 10 years ago on my laptop (Pentium3) with a slow 4500rpm HDD.
DV (and D8) have the same 25Mbps rate, an USB memory stick (not the TM from Sony) and almost every memory card can have now more than 5MB/s (~30Mbps) for writing.

If you have dropped frames is then something wrong with your analog part, and only if you're doing tapes (TV captures should work ok). Buy yourself a TBC. You didn't say which A/D-convertor did you use, but if it's a camcorder in pass-through, beware!

[Undead Sega]

yes it is a camcorder A/D-converter, im taking and trying to digitize Video/Hi8 tapes, but when i do the capture or when it playing back at normal speed i can notice that there are a few frames missing from a broken scene change, but when i slow down the tape, i can preview those few frames. Why beware may i ask?

[Ghitulescu]

Because the camcorder pass-through mode is very sensitive to analog drop-outs (a digital source is quartz-driven, therefore they use the cheapest solution for analog).

[Undead Sega]

I see...that bad is it may i ask? although if i am correct, the quality is more retained if the method of capturing was done by using a capturing device connected to it by a composite?

Here is also an interesting thread regarding recovering the dropped frames:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/162/869473#869473

[Undead Sega]

i would like to mention after a very quick experiment, i captured the same tape through 2 methods:

1: Built in A/D converter in a Digital8 camera capturing via. Firewire

2: Connect a Hi8 cam to a Canon HV30 and capture via. Firewire

While inspecting the same frame in both captures, i found the Digital8 cam gives a cleaner and more natural look as a result, however the edges doesnt tend to look somewhat stable with the interlacing as well, I'm not sure what this is called but this is where method 2 wins over, another point where method 2 wins is the fact it still retains those frames that were originally dropped using the direct capture.

[lordsmurf]

You can't compare HDV to DV, for this topic. (reference to a creative cow post linked above)

You need to use WinDV for transfer of DV material.

More likely, you need a TBC between the analog source, and the camera.
Note that not all TBCs are the same, so "my camera has a TBC" doesn't mean much here. (There's a lengthy explanation of this at http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/showthread.php/alternative-avt-8710-1853.html [see 3rd post] if you're really interested in TBCs.)

I've tried working with slow-than-realtime methods in the past, for restoration purposes, but that's just a road to nowhere.

[Undead Sega]

you are right, it cant be compared however i only placed the link due to the unconventional method of capturing and the user had somesort of success. But why would u recommend using WinDV for capturing? is there a major differnce from other DV capturers, especially when one is able to use Premiere Pro for capturing?

What is the TBC for in this may i ask? are u refering to the second method where i mentioned "the edges doesnt tend to look somewhat stable with the interlacing as well"?

[Ghitulescu]

Well, WinDV is free.

I noticed lately that lot of people seem to use really expensive software (scenarist, premiere, etc.) to do simple things and have no idea of their purpose... I personally won't spend some 20000€ for scenarist to do a simple authoring, which can be done simpler and easier with freeware (or payware less than 50€ worth). Unless 50€ is also expensive -> http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=36236

You can capture directly in the timeline with PPro.... this was possible since it was called adobe premiere 2.0 (maybe in 1.0 too but I never used 1.0).:)

[lordsmurf]

WinDV is low-resource. Adobe Premiere is a great editor, but it's a resource pig. It can actually cause dropped frames, for that very reason.

You're better off just transferring the tape to the AVI file, then loading the AVI file separate.

The TBC goes between an analog source and a digital converter. Hi8 is analog, and I suggest a good Sony Hi8 camera as the player. Signal into TB. Then signal into recorder (computer capture card, or DVD recorder, or analog input across DV camera bridge to computer).

[GrofLuigi]

But why would u recommend using WinDV for capturing? is there a major differnce from other DV capturers, especially when one is able to use Premiere Pro for capturing?
WinDV does some "special" buffering... I forget the details now, but at the time I (and many others) found it was better performing than other capturing apps. With the improvement of hardware, that might be a moot point now, and maybe others have implemented its "trick", but still, if I would need to capture a DV now, it would be my first choice.

GL

[Undead Sega]

i will give WinDV a try very soon, however the cam im using is a TRV480e, which apprantly has a built-in TBC? Also, again why would i need the addition of a TBC between the analog source and a digital converter? Wouldnt u agree with me also that the D8 cam (method 1) does provide a slightly superior result compared to method 2? I will post screencaps very soon.

[lordsmurf]

Did you not read the post I linked to? (Link is a few posts up from this one.) It discusses the different types of TBCs, and what they are good/bad at.

One camera looking better than the other doesn't mean anything if the "better" camera won't capture stable. You have to pick the lesser of evils.

[Undead Sega]

I just read it briefly and it is indeed very informative, when i get some free time i will read it thoroughly. However, apprantly some of these TRV cams have built-in TBC, do these TBC's vary in the different cam models? or they are more or less the same throughout?

in the meantime, here are a couple of screencaps for comparision.

Method 1, screencap 1:

http://img35.imageshack.us/i/d8hi83.png/

Method 2, screencap 1:

http://img204.imageshack.us/i/hv30hi83.png/

Method 1, screencap 2:

http://img35.imageshack.us/i/d8hi81.png/

Method 2, screencap 2:

http://img228.imageshack.us/i/hv30hi81.png/

[lordsmurf]

Chroma noise
http://img204.imageshack.us/i/hv30hi83.png/
http://img228.imageshack.us/i/hv30hi81.png/

No chroma noise
http://img35.imageshack.us/i/d8hi83.png/
http://img35.imageshack.us/i/d8hi81.png/

What's chroma noise? Read this: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/showthread.php/vhs-chroma-flaws-565.html

1: Built in A/D converter in a Digital8 camera capturing via. Firewire
2: Connect a Hi8 cam to a Canon HV30 and capture via. Firewire

The HV30 isn't doing a great conversion here, and it might be enhancing ambient chroma noise. The Hi8 cam may not be very good, either. I have no such problems on my Sony cam (model not available right now, sorry).

The D8 cam has some degree of TBC functionality to help clean up chroma. But it's similar to a S-VHS VCR, meaning it won't necessarily stabilize the signal. And that is where frame drops come from.

Then again, are these all DV transfers? Are you getting DV drops? It may be some else. Again, run down the dropped frames list from an earlier post of mine. http://www.digitalfaq.com/guides/video/capture-dropped-frames.htm

And use WinDV.

Some people would call the HV30 image color "better". I'd call it "cooked". It's not real. It's pumped up way too much, and that's where all the noise comes from.

[Undead Sega]

Indeed you are correct about the Chroma noise, but i get that almost all the time when i even plug the Hi8 cam to my TV via composite, and to my very old TV tuner/capture card years ago, if i am correct, if it this chroma noise that is giving this 'warm look' to the video?

The D8 cam has some degree of TBC functionality to help clean up chroma. But it's similar to a S-VHS VCR, meaning it won't necessarily stabilize the signal.

i assume the Hi8 cam has somesort of a better TBC than the D8, which is why i see that the vertical edges of the footage off jthe D8 cam is a tiny bit wavy, thus giving an inaccurate processed footage when it gets deinterlaced?

And that is where frame drops come from.

Is this for real, that a TBC can prevent such frame drops? wouldnt that mean that when using method 1, all the video signal is received but because of either the crap or lack of TBC is what's causing for not all the frames to be displayed properly? How would this compare as well to what Ghitulescu said about:

Because the camcorder pass-through mode is very sensitive to analog drop-outs (a digital source is quartz-driven, therefore they use the cheapest solution for analog).

Is this both that contributes to this problem?

[Ghitulescu]

You questions have been anwered several times, with hints and advices. You should read yourself the capture guide, most answers are there.

We help people gladly here, but there's a point where this has to stop, namely where the essential was said and the OP should also do himself some homeworks.

[buzzqw]

from my simple test (dv camcorder) the "best" way for acquiring is using windows movie maker
never got a frame drop.

other software give me drops

BHH

[lordsmurf]

I agree, it's getting round-about.

Undead, why are you deinterlacing? Unless you're planning to stream videos (i.e., Youtube), then stop doing that, it's needless and harmful.

And while it may seem logical that one TBC is "better" than the other, it's incorrect. As I explained in previous posts, or in places where I linked, different TBCs do different things. It's not necessarily a better/worse scenario, but rather an issue of processing in different ways.

I'm betting a different camera may be the solution... or to outsource those videos to a service.