DV cam with video in vs. PC video capture card

[FlimsyFeet]

Probably a simple newbie question:

which would give best quality results for analogue capture, a MiniDV camera with video input, or a cheap video capture card in a PC?

I know for the price of a MiniDV camera, you can get semi-professional hardware for your PC (Matrox RT.X10) but I'm talking about cheaper cards such as those by ATI. Is there any major difference in quality between
VHS -> DV -> PC
or
VHS -> capture card -> PC

[trevlac]

The quality of VHS is soo low, that unless you buy a really cheap (<$400) DVCam, or a really old (or non PCI) capture card ... both are good enough.

They are however different ...

DVCam
- Can't do macrovision protected tapes
- May have some sound drift
+ Easier to use
- NTSC color conversion issues
+ You get a cam too
+ More stabalized picture
+ You can capture to DV Tape and later transfer to PC

Card
- Sound drift/sync can be a problem
- Have to learn to use good software
+ Cheap
+ Better color details (if they exist in the source)
- Probably worse chroma/luma seperation and picture stabilization

Having said all of that, people sucessfully use both. IMHO, the most important device for VHS capture is the VCR that is playing the tape. An SVHS machine (even for VHS tapes) is the 1st step. Anything else that produces a good strong stable signal is a good thing.

[FlimsyFeet]

Thanks for the detailed reply trevlac!

[2ZOD.COM]

Originally posted by trevlac
- Probably worse chroma/luma seperation and picture stabilization
[/B]

If you have a S-Video source you don't have to worry nearly as much about the chroma/luma separation issues.

Sometimes the better the VCR you use the better picture you'll get too. Really high end ones have really advanced electronics to help fix a lot of problems with VHS, but the ones that really do justice cost about $2,000.

[mustardman]

Yep. I agree with everything said.

Using an expensive card (cost $2k when I got it, a couple of years ago was selling for $1k) the image was very good. I had a lot of trouble with software, even that which would actually work. Drivers were a pain, getting the latest drivers sometimes screwed up the system. Data rate was also higher than DV for the same image quality.

The DV cam pass-through is fantastic. There are a few 'gotchas', but these are far far outweighed by the benefits. No pesky drivers (apart from one IEEE1394 driver, several OS already have it built in - absolutely no installation issues).

The image is just as good, slightly worse S/N ratio compared to my very expensive card. But for normal VHS stuff, you would be really hard pressed to see it (I tested with a broadcast signal generator).

I would certainly ageee, the better VCR you can afford, the better off you'll be. This is one thing not to skimp on!

The other is your source. Like trevlac said, macrovision is a problem for DV cameras, that said, there are problems with capture cards as well in this area.

Don't try to do passthrough with a JVC camcorder. The results are simply woeful! Strongly disreccommended.

I have never had A/V sync issues, with either DV cam or [MJPEG] card.

MM

[Longinus]

Just my 2(or is it 5? I never know) cents...

I also prefer to capture with a dv camera. Not only because it's easier, but because I can capture to minidv tapes, and later on (when I have HD space) send to the PC.

BUT I can't record anything in PAL with my NTSC VX2000. My VCR only outputs in the same type the tape is in, so no conversion to NTSC. I had an old capture card that could capture a LOT of different formats without problem. Maybe a better VCR would solve this, but living in Brazil with yet another format (PAL-M, nothing like PAL.. more like NTSC, only place in the world with this type), we only get VCRs that can do NTSC-PAL-M (and only this, not the other way around). So I have to buy imported VCRs or a converter (expensive).

Anyway, this is an issue with dv cameras, that usually isn't with capture cards (and a good VCR, of course).

[mustardman]

I've never had to do a PAL<->NTSC conversion!

That said, the MJPEG card I had could do both, and the ADVC-100 can do both (it is a DV external capture device, look up Canopus on the net).

I don't think either of them can do SECAM, but who would use such a format anyway ;)

I doubt any commercial DV cameras could do it, and probably even the professional stuff couldn't.

But then, working with my own material, it is all PAL, I don't have macrovision to worry about, and no copyright guilt trips either!

MM

[trevlac]

I did some testing that might give some more info on this question.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80033

[bjorn toulouse]

Mustardman, I was thinking of buying an ADVC-100 for the sole reason of transferring VHS Pal, I have two camcorders and old panasonic with no I/P and the JVC GR DVP9, do you think it would be worth my while investing in the ADVC-100?

[mustardman]

It is really a call that you should make.

I can thoroughly say that it has given me no problems. It can do macrovision material (although my one is now about 8 months old). It can handle NTSC and PAL, locked/unlocked audio (you will have to look that one up for a proper explanation) and I think it can do either 48kHz or 32kHz audio as well.

It cost me about AUS$500, and is far better value for money than anything else I have seen.

Have a look at the Canopus website, it is technically OK. Also, you may be interested in the ADVC-300, which has some interesting features.

MM

[bjorn toulouse]

Thanks for the feedback, Im fed up with buying things that don't work then finding the web sites that say just that! The 300 looks like the muts nuts but at £400 its a bit rich for me. I can get the 100 for around £175 just now over here which to me seem very resonable (expecialy given the fact I have spent about that on cheeper devices that just don't work and in the case of the ADS device I bought not at all). Some times you get what you pay for. Thanks again for the info.