Canopus ADVC300 - to buy or not to buy

[Cheesus]

I'm seriously thinking about purchasing the ADVC300. I love the fact that it has a TBC, some great prefiltering noise reduction features, analogue & digital inputs & a monitor output. However there is one huge drawback for me, it uses it's own lossy proprietary DV codec :(.
Is there an alternative capture card out there that does all of the above but allows you to use huffyuv instead of the DV codec (preferably with component inputs too) in roughly the same price range ($600)? If not could somebody suggest to me the next best alternative capture card? Lastly, is the fact that it uses this DV codec really a problem, how many artefacts does it actually introduce?
I'm going to be capturing from a wide varitey of analogue & digital formats & some of the tapes could be in pretty bad shape. I am concerned that the DV codec won't be able to handle them or make the pictures a lot worse.
For me the two biggest issues are stability (that's why the TBC seems so enticing) & quality.

All suggestions would be greatly appreciated

[Video Dude]

I have the ADVC100 and love it. I wish I had the money to upgrade to get the ADVC300, I would buy it in a second.

After hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of capturing I have yet to see any artifacts, even in sporting event capturing where there is lots of action, panning and high details like faces in the crowd.

The only thing is, since it is DV, if you convert to MPEG-2 for NTSC DVD you will need to interpolate the color. This can easily be done using the AviSynth filter ReInterpolate411().

In my opinion, that the Canopus has an advantage in sound quality compared to capture cards. Almost all capture cards make you route the sound into the sound card with a 1/8 inch mini jack plug. I find that this dulls the sound. With the Canopus, you can use high quality RCA cables.

[Cheesus]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm only concerned with the initial capture quality because this is the only area the ADVC300 will be involved at. I know I'll be dealing with AVIsynth etc at some stage, I just want to be giving these other tools the best material possible to begin with. I'm guessing that I'm going to be told, like you have, that the many pros outweigh the con (that the codec isn't lossless) & that there might not even be a con as the codec is fine. This would be the ideal outcome for me.

Anyone out there had any problems with the Canopus DV Codec?

Cheers

[cwk]

Howdy Cheesus,

I also use the 300 to capture from old videotapes of sporting events. I previously used a Leadtek PCI capture card, but the quality of the original videotapes was too low to capture effectively that way. I was getting brightness 'washouts' (I am capturing hockey games, the ice is white) and the individual scan lines wavered all over the place. The 300 has fixed both of those problems. However, I do notice a small loss in quality when I capture directly through the 300. It is only noticeable at the edges of images, where a very minor shimmering takes place.

I am now using the 300 for its TBC functionality as a passthrough. The VHS video is captured by the 300, then output as analog from it to be captured with my old Leadtek card, compressed with huffyuv. The original conversion that takes place within the 300 maybe lossy whether I am using it as a passthrough or to do the capture itself. But it is less noticeable when I do the capture using my LeadTek card. The edges lack residual noise and I think the color is closer to the original.

This method DOES require two pieces of technology though, so it is difficult to recommend. Any artifacts and color variations introduced by the Canopus codec are minor. Incidentally, I don't know of any other way to capture using a different codec when utilizing a 300, it seems tied to the proprietary codec.

ck