Why is converting VHS to DVD faster on a standalone unit?

[squidchief]

Hello all,

I'm fairly computer literate but new to copying VHS to DVD. I have connected my 8mm camcorder to my canopus ADVC-50 analog to digital converter and have tried to make DVD's out of the copied video. I have used programs like Pinnical 8, Ulead Video Studio 7, and VideoWave Movie Creator.

Converting a short period of video takes about 6, 8 or more times longer than the time length of the original video to convert it into a DVD format. I borrowed a Pioneer DVR-220 standalone unit and it takes the raw analog video and in real time converts it and burns it onto a DVD. For a straight copy, it could not be easier.

My PC has an Athlon thunderbird 1400mhz and 640m of ram. I know it's not the fastest machine but from what I've read, it's supposed to be good enough to do what I'm trying to do with it.

Can somebody explain why excessive processing time or am I missing something?

Thanks.

Squidchief

[Cobra]

Hi squidchief,

First of all, welcome to VideoHelp!

I am afraid that video encoding does take a long time. I am running an AMD Athlon64 XP3800 (2.4GHz) and encoding a DVD often takes about 5 times the length of the actual clip. It is a slow process.

You can speed it up by sacrificing quality, but this is inadvisable if you have a keen eye. You may want to try dropping certain options and encoding a one minute long clip, noting each one down. Author and burn to a DVD, and see which clip strikes your perfect balance between speed and quality.

Personally, I leave my PC on overnight to encode some video - I prefer to go very slowly but get crystal clear results. It is really personal preference!

I hope this helps!

Cobra

[mats.hogberg]

You can do the same on your PC with a capture card with hardware mpeg encoding (like the Hauppage PVR cards). With a faster CPU, even cards without hardware encoding can produce DVD spec mpeg in realtime. Todays "standard" is > twice as fast as your current box.

/Mats

[gshelley61]

Software encoders are slow, but offer total control over all the parameters and options (like filtering). Hardware encoders (like DVD recorders) offer real-time speed, but are limited in encoding quality control.

FWIW, I do nearly all my capturing directly to MPEG2 with a DVD recorder because of the speed and the excellent results I can get at the higher quality settings.

[squidchief]

Thanks for the replies. It just seems like doing it on a pc is harder than it should be. I've been contemplating upgrading my system based around either a Intel P4 3.2 or an AMD Athlon 64 3200 and increase my ram to a gig. I'm still researching for a good motherboard on either platform.

Would this type of setup significantly speed up the encoding?

I have an ATI TV wonder pro that I could use instead of the Canopus ADVC-50. I was under the impression that using the Canopus to convert the video to digital would simplify the process.

One other question:
What would I need to do with the completed DVD burned from the Pioneer standalone if I wanted to use one of the programs I mentioned earlier to edit, make chapters, etc .....

Thanks again.

Squidchief

[mats.hogberg]

You could reauthor with TMPGEnc DVD Author, that allows you to create menus, chapters and cut parts out.

/Mats

[Cobra]

squidchief,

I'm sorry - I was in a rush when I replied, and I did not fully read your question.

As Mats says, you could use (as the standalone DVD players do) a special hardware capture card that will compress your video down right away.

If you are capturing right onto your PC and don't want to invest in a capture card, I have always had great success using an XP2600 Thoroughbred using an MJPEG codec set to quality setting 90. This seems to strike a good balance between hard drive space and quality - your PC captures to a largely uncompressed format (or lightly compressed, depending on how you look at it) so it is not too intensive on your processor.

As far as upgrades are concerned, a newer Athlon or an Athlon64 would serve you extremely well. However, if video encoding is the dedicated and sole purpose of the machine then you would do well to look at an Intel CPU - they tend to do a lot better with predictable tasks such as video encoding. I am an AMD man myself - the CPUs are a lot more cost-effective for people on a budget like me!

Hope this helps at least a little,

Cobra

[squidchief]

Cobra,

Thanks for the reply again. I'll be looking into a faster machine shortly but for now my main goal is to get my old and very old VHS tapes copied onto a digital format (DVD) before they start to degrade. After I've got them on to DVD's (DVD-R), then I'll try to figure out how to put it on my hard drive so that I can edit them and re-burn at a later date.

Squidchief