PC or Mac?

[vwcrusher]

I am about to begin a project of capturing, editing and then burning DVDs from about 20 old VHS and 8 mm analog tapes.

Is there any advantage of one platform over the other?
I am not a pro and quality (vs slickness) of the output is most important.

Thanks

[sacajaweeda]

You can get just as crappy results on a Mac as you can a PC if you don't know what you're doing.

[vwcrusher]

Yes, but I am also told that the applications supplied with a Mac are far superior to the packages apps that come with...say a Sony.

I bought one to do this and 'learned the hard way.' It only captures in MPEG2 (compressed); I had to purchase Screenblast MS 3.0 for editing and TMPGenc for authoring.

Again, I am told and am really looking for validation if what I am told about the mac is true.

Thanks

[loughary]

I would go with a PC there seems to be a lot more available software options for the PC, based on the totals from the tools sections (Mac video tools 19). As you have stated you’re not a pro, so you definitely would have more available guides and forum search help from this site for a PC. That’s just what I would do, but I could be wrong.

[offline]

The Mac has a superior platform. The PC has more flexibility.
Both produce great video.

Have you considered a third option? - a standalone DVD recorder
with a Digital camcorder (as an editing tool.)

[vwcrusher]

Thanks for the reply; I did consider your suggestion, but I was told that it would not have been as flexible for editin and authoring as the PC I purchased.

When you say that the Mac is a superior platform, in what way?

Thanks

[sacajaweeda]

Mac > PC is a purely subjective claim, as is the argument to the contrary.

[Capmaster]

This thread ought to be interesting ......

[vwcrusher]

Look guys, I am not trying to pick a fight....I am just a confused and frustrated newbie who is trying to find a solution that fits the best......

I do not know if it makes any difference whether I capture in MPEG2 or not since the media quality is relatively poor....or maybe it does..

I am assuming the more processing steps I use (like editing using MS 3.0 AND TMPGenc author) the more quality I will lose.

thanks

[sacajaweeda]

I am assuming the more processing steps I use (like editing using MS 3.0 AND TMPGenc author) the more quality I will lose.

Regardless of which platform you go with, or number of "steps" you use in your process, you are only physically altering your source once -- durring the conversion/encoding process, be it post-capture or on-the-fly. The rest of the "steps" (ie; multiplexing/adding subtitles/authoring/burning) has no effect on the quality.

[Capmaster]

Look guys, I am not trying to pick a fight....

Not your fault. You're just looking for answers. But putting a post up asking which is better will undoubtedly cause flames and hurt feelings. One's platform preference is like religion .....you'll get everyone's opinion and everyone is convinced theirs is the best.

[vwcrusher]

Let me ask this then: will I see a noticable difference in quality if I capture analog VHS in MPEG2 vs. AVI?

Regarding you reply, sacajaweeda, I do not understand why then the quality of the image was so poor when I took the same mpeg2 file and editied it using MS 3.0 then authored it with TMPGenc vs. editing and authoring it using TMPGenc.....

[sacajaweeda]

Encoding/compressing video degrades quality. The more you compress, the more you degrade. If you're starting with an MPEG2 file that's already compressed and altering it then encoding/compressing it again, you're going to further degrade quality. If you're going to capture MPEG2 on the fly, make sure your incoming source video is nice and clean and all your video settings are correct so all you have to do is author the thing. If you have to re-encode it....

[vwcrusher]

sacajaweeda,

Yes, that is what I figured; which is why I am editing using TMPGenc Author and not using MS.....the transitions are abrupt and I cannot add slick effects, but the image quality is not as degraded.

So, I actually may be doing this correctly? Go figure.

Now if I was able to capture in .avi, would I see much of a difference in quality? I have previously been told that I would not....hence, why I purchased the Vaio PC.

[sacajaweeda]

You can get great results either way. Capturing to AVI as opposed to MPEG2 is just more involved and gives you more control over the whole process. Capturing MPEG2 on-the-fly via hardware encoding capture devices somewhat limits you to whatever your device outputs quality-wise. If your source isn't so great going in, it's easier to clean up with an AVI file that hasn't already been encoded to MPEG2.

[MpegEncoder]

You can get great results either way. Capturing to AVI as opposed to MPEG2 is just more involved and gives you more control over the whole process. Capturing MPEG2 on-the-fly via hardware encoding capture devices somewhat limits you to whatever your device outputs quality-wise. If your source isn't so great going in, it's easier to clean up with an AVI file that hasn't already been encoded to MPEG2.

It should also be pointed out that it's not because it's AVI that it's better. It's because when you do the AVI capture you'll want to use a codec that has less compression and therefore more initial quality to work with. AVI is just a container, whereas MPEG is a codec (almost).

[vwcrusher]

MpegEncoder,

I am sorry, but I don't really understand what you said, or what it means.

???

[MpegEncoder]

MpegEncoder,

I am sorry, but I don't really understand what you said, or what it means.

???

I just want to keep reminding everyone that an AVI file can contain any number of types of encoded video files. For example, an AVI file could have an mpeg file as the video format.

Whereas MPG files (mpeg-1 or mpeg-2) have mpeg encoded video in them.

The reason that many people capture video to AVI is not so much the AVI as the codec that they use to put the video into the AVI wrapper. Codecs like huffyuv or DV, etc.

Hope that helps.

[dwight55]

vwcrusher, . . . IF, . . . IF you only want to copy either 8mm or VHS tapes to a DVD format, take a look at the Sansui VRDVD4005 sold at Sears. It is a 1x burner, . . . What You See Is What You Get, . . . and is simpler to operate than a Tottsie Roll pop. I lurked, read, asked, and finally prayed about the decision, because it certainly is not the cheapest route (lists at $400). BUT, . . . it has done an excellent job. Both my cameras are Sony 8mm and take excellent images, . . . my DVD-R's I burned from them are absolutely every bit as good. It is a bit of a trick to edit the footage, and you have to go back to videotaping a cardboard sign for titles, . . . but all in all if you only want 8mm or VHS copies, . . . this is THE way to go.
May God bless,
Dwight

[Beavis]

The reason why someone like you would want to capture to DV format (as an avi file) is because the resulting video is basically all I frames and will suffer little or no perceptable degredation or generation loss upon re-encoding or rendering. In simple terms- That makes for the perfect situation for doing any kind of editing. You cannot do extensive editing or processing of an mpeg. The final product can then be encoded as an mpeg for burning to a DVD. If you won't want to do any sort of editing other than maybe a simple trim or cut here and there then you could look into a hardware mpeg encoder.

[offline]

When you say that the Mac is a superior platform, in what way?

The OS - operating system (in my opinion.)

OK - I'm going to copy this topic over to a MAC forum so that
you can get the best advice about what you need if going 'tosh.

NO FLAMES PLEASE

[AntnyMD]

The original poster was asking if Mac had advantages over PCs in terms of final output. Someone already answered you can get great output on both as well as crap on both.

Since this person clearly already has a PC, and is not directly asking for solutions on a Mac, why was this post dumped on the Mac forum?

[offline]

@ AntnyMD

One of his questions was:

but I am also told that the applications supplied with a Mac are far superior to the packages apps that come with...say a Sony.

and I thought, rightly or wrongly, that some kind person in the
MAC Video Forum might comment on the basic apps that are
provided as standard on a new mac. It seems he feels that
he has bought a PC in error and should now look at purchasing
a Mac.

If I'm in error will a Mac moderator move the forum back.

Thanks.

[galactica]

In my opinion......... the "standard" mac apps are shall we say.... sufficient for beginners..........

iMovie, iDVD etc hey they work and they are nice...... but if you want to go beyond the confinds of them you have to buy much better apps

FCP, FCP Express, DVD Studio Pro etc. None of these come standard

to answer the original posters question

Is there any advantage of one platform over the other?

Of coarse there are advantages and disadvantages of one platform over the other. Id suggest perhaps visiting a Apple Retail store if you are really intersted. Get some hands on with the "standard" apps and talk to the salespeople....... they know a HECK of a lot about this stuff.

Obviously, id say get a mac and do it. But its your $ and your project - your decision.

[cbkilner]

I thought I'd add my $0.02

Out of the box, any Mac with a DVD burner (SuperDrive) can capture DV in iMovie, edit in iMovie, and make a DVD with iDVD. Quality with analog converted to DV (with an A->D converter or the analog pass-thru of a MiniDV camcorder) will be decent, but the source will be compressed 2x, first to DV, then to MPEG2. As you've learned, most PC's don't ship with quality software that is easy to use...but more options exist for PCs...and most similar PC apps can do VCDs, SVCDs, etc. that iMovie/iDVD won't do.

Apple's advantage is in ease of use and integration (they make the hardware and software). But they usually limit their "free" software (so as not to compete with their pro apps)...although they would say that they only allow options that produce good results (hence no VCDs, no low bit-rate encoding, etc.), which in many respects is also true.

If you use an MPEG2 capture device (which costs extra) with a Mac or PC, the analog source only undergoes 1 conversion, but most MPEG2 capture devices have limits on the max bit rate. iDVD can usually encode to a higher bit rate...so ultimate quality is usually a wash.

MPEG2 capture has advantages in that you save encoding time. However, DV capture allows more editing options (especially on the Mac, since iMovie and Final Cut Pro won't edit MPEG2).

I personally prefer Macs. Although the options are fewer, virtually all the options are high quality...too many PC products are commodities where price or marketing is more important than quality...

[pusa]

I personally prefer Macs. Although the options are fewer, virtually all the options are high quality...too many PC products are commodities where price or marketing is more important than quality...

That's so true.

[galactica]

Ill 2nd that. Nicely said.

[vwcrusher]

All,

I appreciate all the comments and suggestions. As I mentioned earlier, my goal is to convert analog tapes with a maximum of quality, perhaps sacrificing slick-ness.

It seems that capturing in MPEG2 is acceptable (the Sony PC comes with capture hardware and an application that allows three levels of quality), but I give up the ability to go beyond simple cutting for editing (using TMPGenc Author).

The only alternative for a PC based solution may be to purchase an external capture device to avi...like a Canopus 1394, or Adstech Pro AV link, which I would have to purchase anyway if I went with a Mac. The question is if I opt to capture to .avi and use Screenblast movie studio 3.0 to edit then render to MPEG2, then author and burn with TMPGenc Author what can I expect for quality as compared to my present arrangement?

Again thanks for all the help

[cbkilner]

That question would have a better chance of being answered on the general video capturing or editing forums since Screenbast is a PC product.

In general, capturing in one compressed format (DV/.avi) and encoding to a second compressed format (MPEG2) will introduce more artifacts. However, a low bit rate MPEG capture can look worse than a high bit rate software encode....so it all depends on the specifics. At the same bit rate, MPEG capture will probably have higher quality.

On the Mac, the $180 ADS USB Instant DVD for Mac will capture MPEG1 or MPEG2 via USB and comes with software for I-frame cut-n-paste editing as well as for DVD authoring.

[cbkilner]

Also, you mention the need to get analog-to-DV hardware if you choose the "slick" route that allows editing. Most of these cost a couple of hundred dollars ... for a little more $ you can get a MiniDV camcorder with analog-to-digital conversion (and all macs already have Firewire ports).