what the heck are these lines from??

[DaveQB]

not sure if this should go in newbies or here, so here it is (i am sure it will be moved otherwise)

with my new CX23881 chip based card i can get some good quality, but....

i found toinight running some tests the best res is 320x240
384x288 is a better quality, but i get these damn lines, like a "digital" look to it.

@ 640x480, its all over the place,
of course 240x180 removes these lines completely, but the quality is, of course, getting closer to the old 8-bit chipped based cards

http://DavidWard.myvnc.com/lines.jpg

what could this be and any filters for VD that could solve it??
i capture with iuVCR, as the software that came with sux and theres limited programs that suport this new chipset

thanx

[The Edge]

It is interlaced.
Use a De-interlace filter in VurtualDub or AVS filter later.
Search for interlace as this would surly have benn discussed before.
Good luck.

Edge

[DaveQB]

yeah thought exactly that, but no,

the deinterlace in VD makes the picture so bad its terrible

:confused:

[DaveQB]

ok it worked this time,

i thinks it all to do with res

i ran the Deinterlace @ 640x480 and it got ride of the lines, but a little blurrier.

so i figured if its interlaced then it need to be deinterlaced even @ 320x240 which is showing no lines anyway,
but that simply makes the picture blurry, doesnt help the coz


my question now is, is it possible to make a Capture Card capture interlaced @ certain res and not interlaced @ other resolutions ???

any light shed on this subject, much appreciated

[fellaw]

Every capture card will cause interlace if captured with a vertical res. higher than half of max. possible. E.g., you'll get interlaced video for PAL if the vertical res is > 288. There is some old fashioned material(old movies, for example) which is noninterlaced anyway, so it won't be captured interlaced no matter which res.
If you want to encode the captured video to vcd, you can configure VDub to discard one field, as you won't need it. Then resize the picture to vcd res.

[DaveQB]

hmmm okee, very interesting.

its max res as stated on the site and box is
720x576

576/2 = 288 (duh!:))

so my 320x240 is the best res to use ??

it doesnt have the lines at all, but isnt as clear as 384x288

384x288 cap ran through VD with Deinterlace filter on does end up somewhat similar to a direct 320x240 cap

hmmmm all good to learn,

back to some more testing .....

:D

thanx

[fellaw]

384x288 is better than 320x240. You won't need a deinterlace 'cause there's only one field captured.

[DaveQB]

oh, hmmm
but theres the interlacing lines like my eg vid up there ^
just not as bad,

320x240 removes all interlace effects,

i am confused now :confused:
:D

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

i see you're from australia,and therefore on PAL
and therefore you can consider only 2 (two)
vertical resolutions:
288 or 576 !
( you can toy with horizontal resolution (352,480 etc), but using
on capture something different than those two vertical resolutions i DON'T
reccomend- for PAL off course )

use 576 and you worries are gone!
(not to go deeply into explanation why 480 is wron for PAL etc. )

cheers
Ivo

[DaveQB]

hmmm, but i have found that 320x240 is the highest i can capture at without getting the interlacing effects all over the screen.

384x288 produces them, along with every res above that

is that just this card in particular or is that normal ?!?!

should i therefore, cap @ 384x288 and then run deinterlace over it ??

the largest res it will allow in iuVCR is 640x480

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

driver issues for that card have ben discussed recently here
to some extent.......
search for those(in thread "samples" you'll find some people that
have the card,etc._i don't know if they'll be willing to help,probably yes...also on recent therad on "best capture card" something,there some more........few people have it,and even fewer got it to work properly on their systems.... ),& see if you can get it to work on hi-res:
352x288 is not good enough if you're gonna ask me,
640x480 is flat-wrong for PAL input ( that's sure as hell! )

if 288 is all you can get,you better off,and use bt8x8 on 720x576 (or so) instead.......
(but i guess by now you know 288 is lousy on that device,and on any bt device really..)
btw: 288 CAN'T be interlaced ,as in that mode card disregards one field.....(if you selected PAL for input..if you selected NTSC and then tried it then....well.......)

iuVCR has some funny resolution pick-up issues etc.,and also
when it makes segmentation (if you're on FAT32) it drops some
content on those spots.....

[if you think that you saw interlacing on 288 then send screenshot,and
i'll try to tell you what happened....off course your card has to be in PAl mode (jumpers on card itself,etc.) ]

[DaveQB]

http://davidward.myvnc.com/eg_384_288.jpg
heres a pic @ 384x288 see the funny lines on the far side line ??

http://davidward.myvnc.com/eg_320_240.jpg
@ 320x240 those funny lines have gone, but so has picture quality :(

i cant decide which card to sell, this based on the new 10-bit ship or my Winfast based on the old 8-bit chip

i think the future is the CX23881 but right perhaps not

?!?1

[DaveQB]

http://davidward.myvnc.com/eg_368_276.jpg

368x276
see the funny lookin lines ???

[Zhnujm]

one thing is clear these pictures are not interlaced.
and now something different, where did you see lines in the pictures ?? :confused:
the one with the higher res looks just more clear to me.

[DaveQB]

Originally posted by DaveQB
http://davidward.myvnc.com/eg_384_288.jpg
heres a pic @ 384x288 see the funny lines on the far side line ??

[Mike456]

Capture @ full res. (640*480) and deinterlace it with SmartDeinterlacer and NOT with VirtualDub's own deinterlacer and the video will look fine.

[DaveQB]

i ran several tests and found VD's own deinterlace to be better then any other plugin filter i could find (including SmartDeinterlacer)
:confused:


http://davidward.myvnc.com/lines.jpg

heres a good eg of those lines, it looks like compression, but its not, they actually move in like a wavy pattern,

happens alot on edges and especially computer generated graphics

[Zhnujm]

can you post a moving example of that ? i still cant get it and im feeling like an idiot :) (but well, i have glasses)

[FreQi]

I really suggest you use 640x480, then edit it with AVISynth2 (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=57023) and deinterlace it with Donald Graft (http://sauron.mordor.net/dgraft/)'s Decomb (http://sauron.mordor.net/dgraft/decomb/decomblegacy.html) plugin. It'll retain sharpness of both fields of the interlaced frame, and avisynth just rocks for editing.

Use something like this:
AVISource("cap_0.00.avi")+AVISource("cap_0.01.avi")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\AviSynth2\plugins\decomb.dll")
Telecide(guide=1)
Trim(framehere,framehere)++Trim(framehere,framehere)
Decimate(cycle=5)
Crop(0,4,640,476)
BilinearResize(512,384)
Amplify(2.2) # increases the audio volume

And just fill in framehere with the frame numbers to cut on. See the docs (http://www.avisynth.org/index.php?page=AviSynthManual) on AVISynth for more details.

[wotef]

the decomb script above is for IVTC and is not appropriate for PAL;

instead you should just try
telecide()
or
fielddeinterlace()

daveqb - can't really see these jaggies properly - they are either caused by bad deinterlacing or a poor resizing algorithim

give the avisynth deinterlacing filter tomsmocomp a try

[DaveQB]

gonna throw in my Winfast 2000 and see what i get with that.

if its all fixed then i am selling my Prolink (although i know the Winfast wont be as sharp)

its not interlacing, as someone mentioned here, i think a case of a cheap card coupled with a utlra clear chip, brings this out (i think:D)

i'll post a small snippet in DivX

[DaveQB]

its hard to show the lines coz:

only plainly visable in Huffy as when its compressed to DivX the funny lines look like compression artifacts :(


i have my Winfast back in now and if you look closely you can see the same lines but alot less noticable to plain eye.

I think we have a case here of the Prolink is so much clearer that analog to digital conversion that produces these lines becomes more apparent

in other words, the lines are always there, but with this Prolnk (10-bit CX23881) they are more of a stand out
running the VD deinterlace filter blurs everyhting enough to get rid of the lines and a video quality the same as a BT878 based card, so i guess with the Prolink i can have both :D

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

>and avisynth just rocks for editing

?????????????????????????????????????
try editing more than 2 (like 10 or 15)
cuts with trimm.......
get it?
but it's fine for processing

(and cuting made with VD)

on to the "problem"
there are no "lines" in your video,only you see "staircase" effect
because of lores capture and/or poor resizing.....
your picture is ok for such lores...(actually looks pretty fine!)

also i DON'T recommend huff for lo-res capture....and you should try picvideo (or another) mjpeg: with huff lores pixelization sttays all the way to divx.....with mjpeg it doesn't,as mjpeg decoder itself smooths that in the way human eyes like it.......

use huff for hires (if you have space) that's where it comes to light....(bright light!)

also what are you doing with deinterlacing lo-res capturings?
don't deint. something that's progressive in the first place....

do it like this,or do it your way:
capture hi-res with yout bt device (either one...bt is now conexant)
7xx x 576 for pal or 7xx x 480 for ntsc
(you guys on secam shouldn't capture at all----LOL!)
1-deinterlace (or telecide if film source)
2-noise filtering (cnr,temp.smoothers/spattial smoothers,etc.)
3-resize (i wouldn't go bellow 512x384 for pal...VHS included)
4-crop (null transform-crop junk)
5-resize (input the cropped size,expand frame and letterbox to desired
dimension ie. the one you inputted on "3"...precise bicubic all the way)
6-compress
(u can use avs for speed improvement too.....)

i'll cut both of my hands if you see staircase pixelization again .......->if you do it like this (zooming the video excluded,offcourse!)

cheers

Ivo
[ps. you should change this thread's name:it's not "lines"
but pixelization on diagonal lines aka "staircase"...it's misleading.....even i forgot about it just reading the subjects...LOL!]
[ps2. but i see you have nice 3dmark,so don't worry about the video too much..hehehe]

[dar1us]

If any of you want some fun deinterlacing, grab samples 7 and 8 (MSI) from

http://www.ab296581.force9.co.uk - thats the damage you can do with it. After deinterlacing (proper ways) - you get some mighty scruffy artifacts left over. It's kinda crappy.

I wish my card could Telecide by itself, then compress it. Hardware telecide:D

- addition - if you can say that you have EVER EVER EVER seen an analogue capture better than MSI 6 (enterprise) - then you ARE a liar. Swivel:) - It rules

Please DONT point out the white compression bar thingy, my card straps one of those on to all captures, easily removed, I crop always (4:3) 8,6,704,544): 8 off each horizontal and 6 of each vertical. it leaves less fiddling on AVS scripts.

btw, that capture is totally RAW, the only one thing I did is re-encode the XVID with 2Pass (wasteful really) and thats it, oh and 128kbps MP3 (and no, I dont do that usually, just looks a little bland with out audio:)

The only ONE problem is a little contrast noise, and also, I soldered the cable that I am capping on myself, out of an old SCART lead and then a Composite cable:) - it is PRETTY crude, I will have to take some snaps!


If you have poor eyes, the contrast noise thingy is a lot more evident on the 7th sample (naughty girl thingy (hey - it was random:)) - if you still cant see it, look at the Non-Stop new year red thingy-ma-jig

[DaveQB]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
>and avisynth just rocks for editing

?????????????????????????????????????
try editing more than 2 (like 10 or 15)
cuts with trimm.......
get it?
but it's fine for processing

(and cuting made with VD)

on to the "problem"
there are no "lines" in your video,only you see "staircase" effect
because of lores capture and/or poor resizing.....
your picture is ok for such lores...(actually looks pretty fine!)

also i DON'T recommend huff for lo-res capture....and you should try picvideo (or another) mjpeg: with huff lores pixelization sttays all the way to divx.....with mjpeg it doesn't,as mjpeg decoder itself smooths that in the way human eyes like it.......

use huff for hires (if you have space) that's where it comes to light....(bright light!)

also what are you doing with deinterlacing lo-res capturings?
don't deint. something that's progressive in the first place....

do it like this,or do it your way:
capture hi-res with yout bt device (either one...bt is now conexant)
7xx x 576 for pal or 7xx x 480 for ntsc
(you guys on secam shouldn't capture at all----LOL!)
1-deinterlace (or telecide if film source)
2-noise filtering (cnr,temp.smoothers/spattial smoothers,etc.)
3-resize (i wouldn't go bellow 512x384 for pal...VHS included)
4-crop (null transform-crop junk)
5-resize (input the cropped size,expand frame and letterbox to desired
dimension ie. the one you inputted on "3"...precise bicubic all the way)
6-compress
(u can use avs for speed improvement too.....)

i'll cut both of my hands if you see staircase pixelization again .......->if you do it like this (zooming the video excluded,offcourse!)

cheers

Ivo
[ps. you should change this thread's name:it's not "lines"
but pixelization on diagonal lines aka "staircase"...it's misleading.....even i forgot about it just reading the subjects...LOL!]
[ps2. but i see you have nice 3dmark,so don't worry about the video too much..hehehe]

thanx for that, been working hard @ my 3DMark ;)

anyway, i am trying to follow your ideas there,
i downloaded PicVideo codecs, just installed and i see the PicVideo and www.jpg.com on the screen :(
i see its $399 for the lossless codec, so that idea is out the window, huffy it is!

in the tests i did once showed that capturing @ a low res or capturing @ a high res and deinterlacing was the same result, cept the low res was less processing and less space on HDD :confused:

and yeah ok, stair casing could be a better way to explain it

gotta run right now, but i will return...... :)

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

Originally posted by DaveQB
thanx for that, been working hard @ my 3DMark ;)

anyway, i am trying to follow your ideas there,
i downloaded PicVideo codecs, just installed and i see the PicVideo and www.jpg.com on the screen :(
i see its $399 for the lossless codec, so that idea is out the window, huffy it is!

in the tests i did once showed that capturing @ a low res or capturing @ a high res and deinterlacing was the same result, cept the low res was less processing and less space on HDD :confused:

and yeah ok, stair casing could be a better way to explain it

gotta run right now, but i will return...... :)


not lossless mjpeg,but mjpeg WITH compression.......
(paying for mjpeg?don't get me wrong,but.....hehe..... got it?)
i still say huff is sh*t for lores and it will only give divx or xvid great troubles.......my huff->divx stuff proves that....


capture at hires,but DON'T downsize all the way to lores ( don't do 384x288 or so )
downsize to 512x384 at worse........don't go lower than that.....
576x432 or 640x480 are better!

and when you compare (in full screen for example) resulting 512x384
to your lores stuff,you'll see the difference all right....
(higher the res,sharper the image gets....)

and if you wan't quality:stop saving on those cdr's..will you.......

[DaveQB]

ok heres the best i could do to demostrate these "lines" or "Staircase" effect

i made a real short snippet and compressed with a high bitrate in DivX (5,000)

you can especialy see it on the paint white line on the field, this staircase effect is not as noticable on out door fields

Example (http://davidward.myvnc.com/staircase.avi)

is this indeed staircase effect or something completely different or new ??

thanx for reading :)

[DaveQB]

PS i dont get this effect with my BT878 based card

but the picture is more blurry, so maybe that covers it up
thats me theory ;)

[DaveQB]

i cant capture above 640x480 in iuVCR :(

so i cant follow those suggestions ^^-+I4004+-^^


so basicly, i shoukld be chasing a way to remove staircasing ??

i think it will be ok, because DivX compression hepls to rid it :confused:

dunno, but it does, blends in with the compress artifacts i guess
havent tried mpg or mpg2 yet though, hopefully same result.

its really only prevalent with graphics on the screen or straight lines like on the field in many of my examples, games shot on out door fields hardly show any "staircasing"

any further suggestions anyone ?
thanx all for reading :)

[wotef]

what exactly is the source you are capturing from? a digicam?

seems to me your problem is your primary source has staircasing

unless you solve that, messing with filters and codecs on your capture file is a waste of time

[DaveQB]

hmmm, yeah its an 8mm tape based camera

but the staircasing isthere with cable TV etc
and its not htere with a BT878 based card

its still a better quality cap then the BT878 cards, but would be even better without staircasing.

i guess the reason its bothering me is i have had a BT878 card for so long and never had this staircasing, now moving to sharper, clearer card, its there!

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

and perhaps it's the simple answer:
if new card gives sharper image (and it should)
perhaps it's just that staircasing becomes more apparent on
lower res than with blurier image if old card?

make test,use same codec (for capturing) and capture same sequence
with both devices....that should tell you enough...

i've seen few of your screenshots,and i know for sure that bt8x8
can't give such sharpness on res. that low.......

[DaveQB]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
and perhaps it's the simple answer:
if new card gives sharper image (and it should)
perhaps it's just that staircasing becomes more apparent on
lower res than with blurier image if old card?


thats exactly what i have been thinking, i think i made a post in this thread discussing that theory, but no one picked it up

thanx guys for all the info

[DaveQB]

LMAO!!

it appears i have found a way to ge rid of the wavey effect on straight lines, looking like heat

if i view @ 352x288, but then set capture format to 384x288 i am left with only some staircasing

i dunno!

i checked the captured video and it is in 384x288 (movieidw)


i have attached a screen shot thats been cropped to save space, the fuzzy line can be seen on the far side line
this is @ 288x384 WITH preview set to 384x288

http://davidward.myvnc.com/384 preview1.bmp

edit: attachment didnt attach

[DaveQB]

and heres with the preview set to 352

still capturing @ 288x384 i'll have you know,

pic is croped to save space, a jpg lost the effect of what i am trying to show

http://davidward.myvnc.com/352 preview1.bmp

[DaveQB]

i suggest enlarging to see what i mean

no rational explaination for this ??
:confused:

[wotef]

yep, your card has got a nice image but the resize algo of the drivers is screwed

[DaveQB]

Originally posted by wotef
yep, your card has got a nice image but the resize algo of the drivers is screwed

algo ??

but you see the the difference ??
yet captured in the same format, codec, segemnt of film etc etc

just the preview res was changed

doesnt make sense to me ! :confused:

[Xesdeeni]

It sounds like there are two artifacts being discussed in this thread:

1. The "stairstepping" appears to be just a natural result of throwing out one field when you capture the video. Consider:-----
-----
-----What happens if you throw away one field:-----
-----You can see that there is a gap in the line now.

With the large amount of motion in the video, it might not help, but you might get better results if you capture both fields and then run the image thorough a deinterlacer and then scale it down instead of throwing out one field. There are several deinterlacers available for VirtualDub and AVISynth, and even a decent one in TMPGEnc if you are going to MPEG.

2. The "checkerboard" pattern looks to me to be "chroma crawl" (I don't know what the technical term for this is :) ) but I didn't think this showed up very often in PAL videos. This is normally caused by an interference to the luminance (Y) signal caused by the chrominance (U and V for PAL; I and Q for NTSC) modulation added to a composite TV signal (this is one of the reasons why S-Video's separation of luminance and chrominance is a Good Thing). The interaction can occur at the point where the color information is added to the luminance and/or at the point where it is separated. The effect is also exacerbated by any physical connections between the source and destination that carry the composite signal.

I had a discussion a while back about detecting the pattern and eliminating it. It should be possible to mathematically determine where this pattern will occur, based on the color information and the sampling rate. But I'm afraid I don't know enough to create such a filter.

Xesdeeni

[DaveQB]

WOW!

really ??
is that what u think it is ??

i'll search for it

but why though does it go away when i have the preview on and set to 352x288 ??

to me the preview shouldnt make a diff to the capture settings

oh and point one cant be down,

max caputre is 640x480 and it comes out clear but blocky, like blocks across the screen bout 10 in the whole screen

looks weird

trying to find a cap proggy that will allow me a high res (if cards supports it; chipset does)

[Xesdeeni]

but why though does it go away when i have the preview on and set to 352x288 ??Good question. Without knowing what the drivers, software and hardware are doing, I'm just guessing. Maybe they do a different filtering when you are in preview mode.

In order to do analog-to-digital conversion, you have to limit the input frequency to avoid aliasing. The optimum (maximum) frequency of that filter is called the Nyquist frequency. Variable filters are more expensive, so most cards use a set filter. To get the most out of their card (making it more attractive to you and me), they normally set the filter near the Nyquist frequency for the highest resolution that they can capture. Then when you choose a lower resolution, they have to do some extra work. In the worst case, they just throw out pixels. In the best case, they do some filtering elsewhere.

Perhaps your card has a filter with two different settings, and in the preview mode they use a lower frequency. Again, I'm just making a guess here, but a lower filter would smooth out the artifact.oh and point one cant be down,

max caputre is 640x480 and it comes out clear but blocky, like blocks across the screen bout 10 in the whole screen

looks weirdI'm not sure what you mean. You mean the lines are smoother, but there is now a new problem? Can you post a frame with that visible?

Xesdeeni

[DaveQB]

i guess we may never know bout the card, but at least i found a nice solution :)

and yeah sorry, kinda hard to explain..
see here
http://davidward.myvnc.com/blocky0.JPG

see the umm i guess massive staircase effect on the railing to the right??
its actually all through the video,

it makes the cap totally useles really, its that bad, but taking that out you can see the nice clarity this card offers

i hope i make myself easier to understand then last post :D

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

and THIS looks like "banding",doesn't it?
it's just too much in this sample!
(on the tv transmission this was diagonal line parallel to the one the car is in?
and it wasn't torn like this,but looked same as this parallel line?)
with what codec was this captured?
my suggestion (in PM) that card does some weird vertical resizing or so (on lores) isn't the answer in this case:because left side of the picture is prettyt ok,and right isn't!

BUT(!!!!) daveqb DON'T make us all confused because you're capturing PAL
at 640x480!
you're in australia,right?
it's pal country:
it's either xxx x 288
or xxx x 576 for you my friend...
(nothing else is aceptable in my mind....288 is too lousy for any bt device just let me add.....so do it properly:576 )
probably most of your "special effects" derive from that fact!

capture at xxx x 576 and produce such results and then "hat down" from me!

cheers

Ivo

[Xesdeeni]

I think ^^-+I4004+-^^ hit it on the head. You are in Australia, so you're dealing with PAL. When you specify 480 lines (640x480), your card has to convert from 576 lines to 480 lines. To scale down properly, it would require on-board memory to interpolate, which would add to the cost/complexity of the board, so they just throw out lines. In this case, they are throwing out 1 out of every 6 lines (480:576 = 5:6). This might not look so bad, except that TV is interlaced. In that case, they have to handle the fields separately. So they end up throwing out 1 out of every 6 lines in each field. But when these fields are recombined, you are really throwing out 2 out every 12 lines: odd even
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 <-- thrown out
12 <-- thrown out
13
14
15
16
.
.
.Unfortunately, they can't stagger the dropped line or the lines would be reversed (I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader :) ).

Anyway, since you say your card will capture 640x480, which is a square pixel aspect ratio, then for PAL you should be able to capture 768x576, which is also square pixel.

And for ALL your captures, from this point forward, I recommend that you use this resolution exclusively. If you want to go smaller, do so in software after you capture. For CIF, deinterlace and then scale down. If you just don't have the hard drive space, then capture at 384x288, but you'll have to live with the "stair-stepping" you saw above and possible aliasing caused by the filtering issue I mentioned above.

Xesdeeni

[DaveQB]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
and THIS looks like "banding",doesn't it?
it's just too much in this sample!
(on the tv transmission this was diagonal line parallel to the one the car is in?
and it wasn't torn like this,but looked same as this parallel line?)
with what codec was this captured?
my suggestion (in PM) that card does some weird vertical resizing or so (on lores) isn't the answer in this case:because left side of the picture is prettyt ok,and right isn't!



thanx guys,


"that card does some weird vertical resizing"

nah, that block line is a horizontal thick like line, goes all the way across, maybe not the best pic to show it, its just what was on TT at the time :)

point 2

i mustn't be making myself clear in my posts then

iuVCR max capture with this card is 640x480
still a 1.3333 aspect ratio

i tried AVI_io and it allowed 720x576 WOOHOOO!
but when i started the cap it said "capture End" and then crashes if i try anything else

the max res that works with AVI-io is 352x288

so therefore 640x480 is the highest i can get ATM

maybe new drivers will help this out as the chipset supports 768x576 (checked the conexant site)


PS did a few caps with the bt878 using the btwincap drivers @ 720x576 and then deinterlaced it and IMO not bad at all!
But its not easy, programs crash and freeze with those BTwincap drivers (and yes i selected the right card during install) in fact the system wouldnt boot when i installed them, had to boot in safe mode, uninstall, and then re-boot and then let it install again on its own :rolleyes:

it appears cx23881 for low res and bt878 for high res, damn it! i wanted to sell one of these cards

[dar1us]

MAN! I should really have paid more attention to this thread. I knew the problems at capping at 480 in PAL all along (my card wanted to fix vertical res to 480 but I said NO!).

Sorry for no input earlier.

[dar1us]

Here's the time for the useful input:)

Dave and anyone... You can capture at any res you want in iuVCR, just change the settings in the registry.

First, load up regedit (Run/ then type in REGEDIT)

Then go to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\

and DELETE the registry file for 'iuvs' (for a fresh start

Close regedit and then run iuVCR, when you have selected your capture device, then quit it and load up REGEDIT

Goto HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ivus\iuVCR\4.X

Then you go into whatever you see below that, for me it is something like "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ivus\iuVCR\4.X\||?|pci#ven_14f1&dev_8800&subsys_00000000&rev_03#3&61aaa01&0&50#{65e8773d-8f56-11d0-a3b9-00a0c9223196}|global" - but something different for you.

Then expand that, load 'PRESETS' then expand that and go to whatever is next, for me it is "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ivus\iuVCR\4.X\||?|display#nvcap#5&c471e73&0&ca000002&01&00#{65e8773d-8f56-11d0-a3b9-00a0c9223196}|global\Presets\{00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000}"

Then you start fiddling!

Find the key "CaptureFrameHeight" - right click, then hit MODIFY. Change the value type to Decimal, then type in 576. Then change it to hexidecimal. Then click OK.

You can also do the same for the preview. Do the same at "PreviewFrameHeight". It is simple.

CLose regedit then load up iuVCR. From now on, DONT TOUCH THE CAPTURE FRAME HEIGHT until you have saved it as a preset.

!Use a CUSTOM Aspect Ratio!

You can change the width (ideally to 720) in iuVCR, you can also do that with the preview settings. Change framerate if necessary to 25, set your sound type in the audio settings block. Then save it as a preset. After you have saved a few you might want to use 720x576, 480x576... Then you can change your frame height to 288 if you were to capture cartoons or something like that. Now you will notice you wont be able to change it back to 576, it will max at 480 or whatever.


Hope you can understand all of that crap I just wrote.


Edit: on later investigation, if you set your frame height to 288 it will mess up all the rest of the presets and make them 288 aswell, to a fixed aspect ratio of 9x11?!

[DaveQB]

Wow man!!
thanx heaps for that valuable information :)

i will try that first thing in the morning ! :D

(well after the gym anyway :))

your da man!! (providing it works :D)

[DaveQB]

PS dar1us,

how did yuo get to keep your sig on your PC stats ??
i was told to remove mine by klona (he doesnt like any colour) :confused:

just not post in the DVD forums ?? hehehe

[dar1us]

No problem. I hope it works after writing all of that. You can see how it may work!

I have had no hassel about it, but if I was asked to remove it, I would.

Ps, if you want to add something to a previous post, hit the EDIT button.

No GYM for me, I am wallowing in the joy of not having to do that much, I have some unidentified illness, bloodtests on munday'. Wish me luck! I hope I have something bad because otherwise, the doctor will tell school, I had been skiving (or under stress - but I think I am too chilled for that:)

Enjoy