Best TV (image) Capture Card?

[pasa]

Hi,

I have been using Win TV to capture images from an Analog source. However it only capture 800 x 600 true res and even then the pic is not as good as the video stream being viewed.

The reason I like this program and am not capturing through DV into premiere or something is that it offers a nice "hit space bar" to capture method, and we are capturing probably about 50 images an hour.

Does anybody know of the quality of any other capture cards for Still image capture without having to go through the rigmorale of first capturing some video, and ideally as easy as hitting space bar, even if it means buying a new card. Moneys not really an issue unless we get to stupid prices...

Also is it worth mentioning that I am using windows XP and have a Flat Panel monitor(does this make a difference), could this be to do with the pixelation I am getting on the pic as show below.....

Thanks in advance

Pasa

[pasa]

As I expected it seems not many people need to capture images and if they do they take them from video which is why no specific apps are built for still image capture......

so if there are any budding developers out there who can add this functionality to something like Showshifter or similar that would be great....

Thanks

P

[txpharoah]

Analog video inherently offer low resolutions as compared to photographic standards, even with the best SVHS or Betacam cameras or tapes. And the quality of each frame is not that great. Only when in motion does it look good, as you are not able to view the imperfections of 30 photos per second.

If you need to capture images from video, then you MUST invest in digital video. And even then, it is not great. It will only be half quality at best as compared to even a cheap 2.0 megapixel digital camera, which is already not all that great as compared to film.

The general rule is use still photography when you want still photos and use video when you need motion. Because slapping stills together to make a video or ripping still images out of motion will always result in sub-par results. This is more apparent in consumer digital photography and any analog video.

Your 800x600 is already on the high side, many will only go up to 640x480, and even then, this is all interpolation anyhow. Your source will only be 500 pixels at best. Unfortunately, garbage in, garbage out. I wish I had a better answer for you, but that's the dirty truth of it.

Basically what you see if already as good as it will get.

[pasa]

Thanks thats great to get these things confirmed but when you have "big people" asking why the quality of grabs is soo low, I just needed to hear it from an expert.

like you say, I think I will go digital and try to find a package which offers easy image capture.

I have tried a couple of them which enable to you to just grab, but they dont offer previews before you save - which is unfortunate. And basically the Picture Editor is capturing from live video so he really doesnt want to have to mess around with capturing a bit of video first....

Can you recommend the most trouble free package that could do this in your opinion?

It is such a shame because the video feed we get in is fed by some very high quality Co-Axel at broadcast quality, however I am then running it through a Panasonic HS2 in order to time shift, then into a swithbox (loss less) in order for the Pic and video editor to use and I guess by then I havent really helped my own cause.

Thanks for your and any more in the future.

Thanks

P

[txpharoah]

Broadcast quality is also analog, just in the form of an aired analog signal. So if you are capturing stills from tv source, you can never hope for better than what you are already getting. But yes, running it through a handful of devices first will hurt more than help. But again, the differences between original image capture from the analog broadcasts and captures from your DVD-R or VHS or whatever will still look bad as compared to normal photography, even lower than consumer digital (which falls in the sub-2.5 megapixel range). You'd need to actually have access to the film or digital source that the broadcasters used in order to acquire usable images. Captured analog images look okay at a printed size of about 2x3 or about 25% screen size. Any bigger, and you'll start to notice all the errors.

The best example is often provided by newspapers when they have alliances with broadcasters in their area (normally you only see this in large cities). When a huge event unfolds, and a print photographer is unable to make the event, but a broadcaster was, the newspaper will run a still capture from the video. However, it will be small, blurry, and have LOTS OF TIME spent to touch it up so that it can merely be presentable. And even then, they normally try to acquire the original source for the capture, only on a rare occasion will the newspaper capture the tv news, but I do know it happens.

It will never be very good, just usable, but it sure won't win an image or photo "beauty" contest, that's for sure. Those kinds of grabs are only made when video examples are needed or when print material is entirely unavailable. It should never be a primary means of acquiring material for print or display.

Again, what you have now is about as good as it will get. I myself wish it were better, as it sure would make things easier from time to time, but it just isn't.