why use analog capture card?
Srm72499
analog capture card vs getting an external analog-DV bridge. I'm planning on
getting a Canopus bridge, and want to make sure that I'm not missing
something... Thanks.
-Steve
Robert Morein
"Srm72499" <srm7...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030810211430...@mb-m03.aol.com...
You're not. The external analog-DV bridge is the way to go.
However, I think the DAC-100 has a better reputation.
Laurence Payne
Get the Canopus DAC-100. It's the tool for the job. Cheaper
solutions don't lock audio and video in synch., making them virtually
useless.
Simon Walters
purchasing an
> analog capture card vs getting an external analog-DV bridge.
The advantage is that you would be able to capture video
without any compression which would give better
quality.
However, the enviroment inside a computer is very harsh
in terms of signal interference and can easily negate
this advantage.
An external DV bridge is less susceptable to
interference.
regards
Simon
PS And analog capture cards are far cheaper approx £40.
Irn Mdn
Canopus AVDC-100 is way overpriced for what if does.
I've been using a $50 dollar TV-tuner card with Virtual VCR (freeware)
with over 99.9% AV Sync for captures well over 1 hour. I use HufYuv
codec (lossless), I drop less than 1% frames when I capture to IDE HDD
which also holds the boot partition. If you are re-encoding to
mpg-2/DVD, HuffYuv
will give you better quality than DV which already compressed once.
Take your pick: $275 Canopus or any $15 generic Bt848 TV-Tuner card.
$200 will buy you a 250GB HDD with ATA Controller still leaving enough
for some beer and pizza.
Keith Clark
Irn Mdn wrote:
> Take your pick: $275 Canopus or any $15 generic Bt848 TV-Tuner card.
>
Where did you find a tv-tuner card for $15? I'd love to find one for that price, my wife would probably let me buy one. LOL! ;->
FLY135
"Keith Clark" <clarkpho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F37FBF2...@hotmail.com...
I got an IO Magic on sale after rebate at CompUsa for $5. It was a
repackaged Pinnacle PCTV Pro ($90) w/o the remote control. But it did
include the $50 PowerVCR II, which unlike Pinnacle's Vision actually works.
Haven't seen it that cheap since then though.
Paul D. Sullivan
complement your digital setup?
Use AVI_IO to capture the video, as it also enforces Audio/Video
sync.
Srm72499
What's the difference between these and the cheap ones?
Chimera
> I've been using a $50 dollar TV-tuner card with Virtual VCR (freeware)
> with over 99.9% AV Sync for captures well over 1 hour.
Take a look at VirtualDubMod latest versions. It includes the sync patch by
Andreas Dittrich, supposed to add sync compensation for the clocks between
audio/video capture cards not being fixed. Also, if you use AVISynth at
all, the built in script support is nice.
Now I think Ill go get that extra hard drive :)
Irn Mdn
There was one at Frys/Outpost for $10 after rebate few days back.
Irn Mdn
> what about those super expensice cards? I've seen some for over $500...
> What's the difference between these and the cheap ones?
Some expensive cards have hardware mpg-1/mpg-2 encorder and filter
circuits on-board
Carl Robitaille
Hi,
I'm following this thread with great interest. My goal is to capture VHS
tapes at 720x480 to put on DVDs.
Really? 10$? And how does it compare to an ATI AIW?
Carl
U. U.
news:9kTZa.7096$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
Well, it's a little more than $15 but newegg lists a LEADTEK WINFAST
"DELUXE" TV2000XP TV/FM card INCLUDING REMOTE for $51. It has good
reviews, anyone on this board using it (if so, can you confirm that it can
display closed captioning)? It seems a better deal than the ATI TV Wonder.
Ule
Irn Mdn
> Irn Mdn wrote:
> > "FLY135" <fly...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<9kTZa.7096$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >> "Keith Clark" <clarkpho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3F37FBF2...@hotmail.com...
> >> >
>
> I'm following this thread with great interest. My goal is to capture VHS
> tapes at 720x480 to put on DVDs.
If your requirement is to capture analog video as AVI (which can
be edited, encoded and authoered to DVDs)
all you will need:
1) Any BrookTree Bt848,Bt878 based TV-tuner card (doesn't matter what
it says on the packaging, cheaper the better) [$10-$15]
2) HUGE 7200RPM harddrive with dedicated NTFS partition for capture.
[<$1/GB]
3) Btwincap drivers from http://btwincap.sourceforge.net/ [FREE]
4) HUFFYUV lossless Win32 video codec
http://www.divx-digest.com/software/huffyuv.html [FREE]
5) Virtual VCR for capturing AVI with near perfect A/V Sync
http://www.digtv.ws/ [FREE]
6) VirtualDub for trimming and applying filters [FREE,Optional]
7) Editor of your choice. [Sometimes packaged with #1]
8) Encoder of your choice
9) DVD authoring software of your choice.
This should give you best possible DVDs on a consumer budget.
Only #8 has any bearing on the final quality of DVD.
Recommended encoders: CinemaCraft($2000) and TMPeg ($50)
Crappy ones are sometimes packaged with #1, #7
DISCLAMER:All the above are based on over four years of
first-person amature experience in analog/digital video.
Samuel Paik
> Well, it's a little more than $15 but newegg lists a LEADTEK WINFAST
> "DELUXE" TV2000XP TV/FM card INCLUDING REMOTE for $51. It has good
> reviews, anyone on this board using it (if so, can you confirm that it can
> display closed captioning)? It seems a better deal than the ATI TV Wonder.
Both of these cards are based on the BT878, so any differences
has to do with quality of board layout and software.
Carl Robitaille
Great info! For a newbie like me, this kind of personal hands-on experience
is priceless. Especially:
> 1) Any BrookTree Bt848,Bt878 based TV-tuner card (doesn't matter what
> it says on the packaging, cheaper the better) [$10-$15]
If it does a great job at that price, I don't know why I would buy a DV
converter, firewire card, etc, etc, for what I plan to do (VHS -> DVD). I
would have never been able to reach that conclusion without your post.
Thanks for sharing!
Carl
Simon Walters
> what about those super expensice cards? I've seen some for over $500...
> What's the difference between these and the cheap ones?
I believe that expensive ones come with software editors like
Adobe Premiere.
I'd hope they'd add a bit more screen but I don't actually know.
regards
Simon
U. U.
>> 1) Any BrookTree Bt848,Bt878 based TV-tuner card (doesn't matter what
>> it says on the packaging, cheaper the better) [$10-$15]
>
How does one find out which cards have these chips?
Thanks.
Ule
Chimera
no real definite way, maybe read reviews, or open the packaging on the card
before you buy it. Apart from the newer FlyTV cards, its pretty good odds
it will be a bt878 based card.
www.tv-cards.com might be good for research
Irn Mdn
Mattie
<Ca...@CarlRobitaille.org> wrote:
>Irn Mdn wrote:
*snip*
>> This should give you best possible DVDs on a consumer budget.
>> Only #8 has any bearing on the final quality of DVD.
>> Recommended encoders: CinemaCraft($2000) and TMPeg ($50)
>> Crappy ones are sometimes packaged with #1, #7
>>
>> DISCLAMER:All the above are based on over four years of
>> first-person amature experience in analog/digital video.
>
>Great info! For a newbie like me, this kind of personal hands-on experience
>is priceless. Especially:
>
>> 1) Any BrookTree Bt848,Bt878 based TV-tuner card (doesn't matter what
>> it says on the packaging, cheaper the better) [$10-$15]
>
>If it does a great job at that price, I don't know why I would buy a DV
>converter, firewire card, etc, etc, for what I plan to do (VHS -> DVD). I
>would have never been able to reach that conclusion without your post.
>
>Thanks for sharing!
>
>Carl
Carl,
A couple of things to consider before you invest time and money on
hardware/software that does what you want:
Just be aware that the Huffyuv codec will result in video files over
twice as large as DV AVI. You'll need a fairly current and
well-tweaked hard drive subsystem to sustain that kind of throughput
for capturing video. (BTW, what does Im Mdn mean when he says, "I drop
less than 1% frames when I capture"? If it means he's losing 1 frame
of every 100, I'd say that was problematic) Also, there is no
efficient way to archive those files once they are on your hard drive
other than going back to DV tape which defeats the point of going with
a lossless codec in the first place (you could burn the raw Huffyuv
AVI files to a data dvd but I believe you'd only get about 5 min of
video per 4.5 GB disk). And, you almost have to be running Windows XP
with NTFS to allow for the huge video files you're going to be
creating.
If you were capturing betacam analog, the Huffyuv codec might be a
good choice assuming you had the drive space to spare. However, if
you're starting with VHS as your analog source, I'd think that
capturing using DV compression is perfectly adequate and the resulting
files will be much easier to manage.
If you are truly new to this but have a little money to spend, I'd
still go with the Canopus ADVC-100 for digitizing your analog video.
It's relatively easy to set up and use, is versatile (you can use it
with your PC, Mac, laptop, camcorder for input & output of video,
etc), makes excellent quality DV files, no audio sync problems.... and
can bypass Macrovision.
I'm sure Im Mdn's system makes great quality DVDs but he's obviously
put much time and thought into putting it together. You might be lucky
and have your system come together easily and work as well as his...
but I wouldn't count on it.
Mattie
Irn Mdn
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:48:33 GMT, Carl Robitaille
> <Ca...@CarlRobitaille.org> wrote:
> A couple of things to consider before you invest time and money on
> hardware/software that does what you want:
>
> Just be aware that the Huffyuv codec will result in video files over
> twice as large as DV AVI.
Who cares? HDD space is cheap. $1/GB. $250 extra dollars you spend
on Canopus ADVC-100 would buy you at least 250GB - enough for all VHS
tapes you can hold with two hands.
> You'll need a fairly current and
> well-tweaked hard drive subsystem to sustain that kind of throughput
> for capturing video.
I just have a single 80GB/7200RPM/2MB Cache IBM HDD. 5GB for OS
partition,
40GB dedicated for capture. I can get a sustained write rate of 22MB/s
- plenty
fast for D1 capture with HUFFYuv codec.
>(BTW, what does Im Mdn mean when he says, "I drop
> less than 1% frames when I capture"? If it means he's losing 1 frame
> of every 100, I'd say that was problematic)
My bad. Usually it is 1-10 frames for every 10,000 or so.
The frame drops are mostly due glitches with the source video (old
tapes).
Never bothered to investigate further since they were not noticeble in
the
final output.
> efficient way to archive those files once they are on your hard drive
> other than going back to DV tape which defeats the point of going with
> a lossless codec in the first place (you could burn the raw Huffyuv
> AVI files to a data dvd but I believe you'd only get about 5 min of
> video per 4.5 GB disk).
My primary objective in using TV-tuner was not to avoid DV, but to
save $250.
In fact, I sometimes capture in DV using TV tuner and Mainconcept DV
codec,
for this you will need 1GHz+ processor. I also have Sony TRV-120
handycam which
will convert analog video to DV on-the-fly. These days I use Sony for
NTSC and
TV-tuner for some PAL tapes from overseas. 8000 Mbps TMPGEnc MPG-2
will give pristine video with a little over 1 hour on a single DVD.
Never archive AVI unless it is DivX.
> And, you almost have to be running Windows XP
> with NTFS to allow for the huge video files you're going to be
> creating.
Who hasn't got a XP/2000 on their PCs yet?
Huge video files true for DV as well. 1 Hr DV ~= 13 GB; no FAT(32)
partition can hold hour long AVI.
> However, if
> you're starting with VHS as your analog source, I'd think that
> capturing using DV compression is perfectly adequate and the resulting
> files will be much easier to manage.
This is wrong assumtion IMHO. Poorer the source, less compression you
should use. Compression makes noisy video look ugly, you do not want
to add any compression artifacts. Here is where VirtualDub filters
come handy. Someone has got even a VHS filter for VDub.
I recently put 3hr LP VHS tv recoding on a single DVD-R, output
*seemed* better than source thanks to the filters. Encoding was slow
as hell though, 1 hour in 28 hours.
>
> If you are truly new to this but have a little money to spend, I'd
> still go with the Canopus ADVC-100 for digitizing your analog video.
> It's relatively easy to set up and use, is versatile (you can use it
> with your PC, Mac, laptop, camcorder for input & output of video,
> etc),
I agree. TV tuner is not easier, it is just lot cheaper and output is
slightly better. If you need absolute ease of use, get a Panasonic
DMR-E50 which burns DVD-Rs from analog video in *real-time* without a
PC for only $100 more than Canopus ADVC-100. Quality in XP/SP mode is
fantastic.
>
> I'm sure Im Mdn's system makes great quality DVDs but he's obviously
> put much time and thought into putting it together. You might be lucky
> and have your system come together easily and work as well as his...
> but I wouldn't count on it.
My video editing system is hardly cutting edge
Shuttle MiniPC SS40G with onboard firewire
Athlon XP1700+
No-name 256MB 2100DDR
Single 80 GB 7200 RPM HDD with OS/Programs/capture on separate
partitions.
Pinnacle PCTV (works great as long as you don't use Pinnacle drivers)
I also have a 160GB WD with ATA100 contoller on an 5-year-old celeron
400Mhz PC just for storing video files. The motherboard controller on
this PC supports ATA33 only :) Can't belive I used to make VCDs
entirely on this PC not so long ago! Paid $175 for the CD writer that
burned $1 CD-Rs.
Simon Walters
> AVI files to a data dvd but I believe you'd only get about 5 min of
> video per 4.5 GB disk)
Its not as bad as that - I'd say more like 20G per hour.
> And, you almost have to be running Windows XP
> with NTFS to allow for the huge video files you're going to be
> creating.
No - capture software can split video over several files which
can then be manipulated as if it is one big one using VirtualDub
and/or Avisynth.
> However, if
> you're starting with VHS as your analog source, I'd think that
> capturing using DV compression is perfectly adequate and the resulting
> files will be much easier to manage.
The way I look at this issue is that VHS is a poor source. If you
use a compressor when capturing, the compressor will try
and compress the noise and you'll get artefacts due to the noise.
If you capture uncompressed, you can more easily remove the noise
before compressing it to MPEG.
If you had a clean source, then a light compression - such
as DV, is fine to use.
regards
Simon
Simon Walters
screening (not screen) :-(
M C Preston
card discussion.
Does starting from SVHS tapes make any difference to the issue?
I am looking to end up with dvd's after doing some very basic editing
(eg cut out the trash bits) after capturing to pc.
In message <aff6f0a1.03081...@posting.google.com>, Irn Mdn
<irn...@email.com> writes
--
M C Preston
Mike
"Irn Mdn" <irn...@email.com> wrote in message
news:aff6f0a1.03081...@posting.google.com...
> 9) DVD authoring software of your choice.
>
Any suggestions for the authoring software? My needs are minimal, just want
to author a DVD with a few chapters and a menu to jump to the chapters.
FLY135
"Mike" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kG_0b.214861$uu5.39682@sccrnsc04...
The Sonic MyDVD that comes bundled with burners should handle that. I think
it creates multiple titles (not chapters). It's very simple and from what I
can tell just does some basic functions like menu background and a thumbnail
like button for each title. Also you can have multiple menus when you have
too many titles for one menu page.
Dean Richard
I confess that when this discussion started I knew almost nothing
about capture cards, so forgive me if there is an obvious answer to
this question. But this discussion has piqued my interest, and I've
been reading up on them.
Elsewhere I have read about the 10-bit capture cards using the
Conexant CX23880 chip. A lot of people seem to like and recommend
them, and they say the quality is noticeably better then with the
8-bit cards. Is there a reason why noone here has recommended them? Is
it simply because noone in this discussion is aware of them? I could
be wrong, but I thought the CX23880 chip was a newer version of the
BT848, etc. series.
Comments are appreciated - I'm trying to learn here.
Dean
"Chimera" <nos...@thanks.com> wrote in message news:<znh_a.31570$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
cassy
wrote:
>I confess that when this discussion started I knew almost nothing
>about capture cards, so forgive me if there is an obvious answer to
>this question. But this discussion has piqued my interest, and I've
>been reading up on them.
>
>Elsewhere I have read about the 10-bit capture cards using the
>Conexant CX23880 chip. A lot of people seem to like and recommend
>them, and they say the quality is noticeably better then with the
>8-bit cards. Is there a reason why noone here has recommended them? Is
>it simply because noone in this discussion is aware of them? I could
>be wrong, but I thought the CX23880 chip was a newer version of the
>BT848, etc. series.
>
>Comments are appreciated - I'm trying to learn here.
Some say the CX video quality is better but it really depends on your
computer system and environment. These CX and BT cards are sometimes
very susceptible to RF noise generated by your computer (sometimes
meaning it depends on your computer/motherboard/powersupply/house
wiring). RF interference was bad in my system so I had to stop using
my BT card. I can't consider the CX either because they will be just
as susceptible to RF noise in my computer/environment according to
many individuals in the home theater forum.
When you have RF inference, the result would be faint hazy horizontal
grey/white lines throughout your video, especially in dark/black
scenes/areas. It's sometimes hard to identify until you see video that
has no RF interference and then you will be sicken by your
interference.
But some people don't have these RF problems and for these lucky
people, both a BT card and a CX card capture very clear crisp video
too. In these cases, the CX might be 5-10% crisper but it's hard to
tell from analog sources, and especially from viewing moving video (vs
still pics).
The main potential problem with the CX card is that it's specs show
that it will sense Macrovision signals in commercial VHS/DVDs and
theoretically won't record commercial copyrighted signals sucessfully
(e.g., it will capture fading pulses or purple horizontal lines over
the video). This is bad and I don't know if it's a hardware
restriction (or if a software writer can find a way to get around this
Macrovision burden). While the BT cards are older, they don't have
these copy protection hassles. So, BT cards are probably safer to
back up your old commercial VHS tapes that aren't on dvds and are no
longer being produced.
My advice is get an inexpensive BT card and look for RF by capturing a
black scene (e.g., beginning of a movie) or a single unchanging color
screen. If you don't see faint horizontal lines, you're in luck. If
you do see the faint lines, return the card and get a nontuner capture
card or an Analog to DV bridge as these do not have RF intereference.
Dean Richard
The comments about RF are very interesting. Does RF only present a
problem when using the TV tuner, or is it a problem when capturing too?
For example, I've seen a video capture card that does nothing else for
about $40, but another card with TV, built-in audio record/playback, etc.
with a similar Conexant chip for about $55.
If I understand what you're saying it might actually make more sense to
get the capture card if all I want to do is transfer video. Is that
correct?
Dean
In article <hg5dkv8k188h6olam...@4ax.com>, ca...@yahoo.com
says...
cassy
wrote:
>The comments about RF are very interesting. Does RF only present a
>problem when using the TV tuner, or is it a problem when capturing too?
>For example, I've seen a video capture card that does nothing else for
>about $40, but another card with TV, built-in audio record/playback, etc.
>with a similar Conexant chip for about $55.
>
>If I understand what you're saying it might actually make more sense to
>get the capture card if all I want to do is transfer video. Is that
>correct?
Even when I used the Composite or S-Video cables to capture from a VCR
(VHS tapes) or dvdplayer, I saw the horrible RF interference. I tried
different thicker wires and there was no difference. Since, I had no
way to avoid the interference, I had to stop using the BT card.
Many people experience the same thing on the home theater forums with
the BT and CX cards.
Hopefully, you won't experience bad RF noise but if you do, you have
to get a capture device without a tuner.
Irn Mdn
I never cared for the on-board Temic TV tuner on my PCTV card (Bt848).
For capturing live TV, I feed S-Video from a JVC S-VHS VCR's tuner - the
quality in just incredible. The encoded DVDs don't look too different from
live cable TV.