Any good LOW RESOLUTION recording software out there??

[leaglebob]

I've been doing low bitrate mp3 capture/conversion for years. I carefully sampled at high rates and low rates and neither my friends nor I can hear a difference in the final product until about 30 kbs is reached. I therefor incode at 40 kbs and am very pleased with all the space I save. While oscillators may show this is a "very bad" signal==I don't think most people can tell==or if can tell, the difference is not worth the space/storage advantage.

Now on to video and I have the same issues. I have a 46 inch rear projection Panasonic 12 year old TV which gives a faded but acceptable picture. Standard VHS tapes in long play (6 hours per tape) provide me with all the clarity I need. ((I sit at my computer 16 feet away)).

6 months ago I got a Liteon 5005 Table Top DVD recorder and I find its lowest recording setting to be the same quality as the original cable tv image and the same as a good vhs tape ===> all at 6 hours long play. On average, the TV and DVD are exactly the same--no one can tell which is playing and the VHS tape reveals itself only if there is tape jitter.

1 month ago I got the Liteon 5045 160GB Hard Drive recorder and it is consistent with all the above. Very poor editing program so I want to use my computer.

1 week ago I got the WinFast TV2000 XP Expert to go with my computer. The pass thru video to the monitor is consistent with all the above. There is a color shift and a brightness shift but the quality of the pixels is about the same--or quite acceptable to me.

Now the issue==when recording on the Winfast, or Nero, or ulead or 3-4 other packages, the picture quality is "noticeably" inferior to my referenced experience until bit rates 6-8 times higher are reached--ie only 2 hours recording time per blank DVD. What I'm seeing is pixelation and blockiness that simply is not present in the Liteon's.

MY questions and need for help:

1. Am I right in thinking that because the pass thru video from cable tv rf cable to the monitor is "good" that the card is good and that any other issues are all software related? In other words, getting a different card will not address my issue and I should just keep this one? ((RMA has 7 days to go!))

2. Is there software for the computer that will match the quality of results that I get from the Liteons at the LOW SETTINGS?? ((I plan on recording 1000's of DVD's and must save space. High Quality full DVD's will be saved for my Top Ten List of Greatest Movies ((BladeRunner, TErminator, Alien, What Dreams May Come (for images)---and yes, Citizen Kane)) If not, why not??

3. If there is this quality issue at these low settings--are the same issues present in the higher quality settings too?==meaning DVD's will "look fine" on standard tv's but will start to look pretty bad when upcoded to a high defintion tv? ((that will be about 3 years out for me. Got to let new product/high price intro settle down before I buy))

Sorry for long set up but I want to avoid advice that amounts to "upscalling" what I actually want to do. The Mpeg-1 352x240 at 1150 bps from the Liteon's is just the quality I want and I would like to replicate with a computer based system. Any advice and counter rants are welcomed.///bobbo.

[reboot]

Set your capture software to cap VCD then.
If you want the best quality, capture to avi with mjpeg or huffyuv codec's, then encode to mpeg1 or 2 as you like.
On-the-fly mpeg encoding doesn't always give the best results, depending on which encoder is used by the capture card.
If you have different software installed, you can sometimes choose which encoder to use.

[solarfox]

I've been doing low bitrate mp3 capture/conversion for years. I carefully sampled at high rates and low rates and neither my friends nor I can hear a difference in the final product until about 30 kbs is reached. I therefor incode at 40 kbs and am very pleased with all the space I save. While oscillators may show this is a "very bad" signal==I don't think most people can tell==or if can tell, the difference is not worth the space/storage advantage.

With respect, if you and your friends can't hear the difference between a 40kbps MP3 and a 160kbps or 192kbps file, all I can say is you guys must either be listening to them on the most gawdawful low-quality cheapa$$ equipment on the planet, or you're as tone-deaf as the proverbial fenceposts. IMO, 128kbps is the bare minimum for acceptable listening -- and even then, just listening to it on the PC with a basic set of $30 amplified speakers, I can often hear slurring of the high-frequency components, especially from cymbal hits and other percussion instruments. Anything below 128kbps is horrific; the only time I would ever encode anything that low is for monophonic voice-only recordings (books-on-tape, etc.)

[Cornucopia]

Yeah, I was gonna rant something similar, but "to each his own". Granted, I have gotten some quite acceptable mono, voice only encodes at the 20-30 kbps range, but that was with lots of Dyn Range adjustment, BandWidth prefiltering, etc.

My suggestion to the original poster is to go find an old Broadway board (or something similar). Does MPEG1 or AVI-MPEG capture (editable MPEG I-frames in AVI wrapper) in realtime. The AVI-MPEG can have a later 2nd pass that compresses the appropriate I-frames down to P & B.

Scott

[lordsmurf]

<shakes head>

6-hour deinterlaced DVD looks the same as the original? Low kb MP3 sounds good? No way. Blind and deaf. Or some really small cheap crap equipment.

You can get an ATI AIW card and turn all the setttings down, and it'll look and sound equally like crap. But if that's what you want, I guess that's what you want.

But don't expect any of us to understand or agree with it.

[leaglebob]

Thanks guys. == So indeed no one has any suggestions?? Maybe "you all" have the curse of good vision?? and good ears?? and probably know what side of the moutain that ''88 Bordeaux was grown on too? ((I love mixing the red and whites together at up scale wine tastings.)) Have you all "actually" blind tested yourself on your conclusions??==Have someone else play sections to you that you haven't heard or seen before at different resolutions and see how you rank them?====>Blinded by Science. I did this very seriously for the mp3. Not so rigorous for the video thing.

I agree higher video bitrates "have to" give a better picture but does it matter much when "most" of my stuff is slow panning nature shows and bobble head talk shows all shown through a standard fading tv? No==it doesn't matter because all I am looking for is a soft ware package for the computer that "matches"===MATCHES===the poor quality recordings I am getting with my Liteon's.

I have read a criticism of the Liteon's that they have a "soft focus" and maybe that is what i like so much--it reduces the pixelation, stairstepping or macroblocking effect which I do notice.

Finally==lets say I do have crap for eyes and ears. Still--the Liteon's produce a picture with less artifacts than any computer based program I have tested at the SAME bitrate/frames/lines of resolution===it seems the arguments about higher resolutions being that much better while true are actually still "irrelevant.?"

I will "guess" that there is some circuit, comb filter, or "something" in the stand alone boxes that for whatever reason is not being used in the computer solutions. I would have thought "everything" would be on a single chip but that looks to be wrong.

Given I have tried about 10 different software packages all with the same result, my next approach will be the Plextor hardware Divx encoder. Picture should be adequate, low bitrate, and good for brain surgery on less than primates.

Thanks for the responses, I do infer there is no comparable "on the fly" computer based solution. Anyone with additional/contrary thoughts is invited to add in. Thanks///bobbo.

[guns1inger]

Good luck to you. VCD and even 160mbit mp3 are crap to my eyes and ears. I have always found mp3 to be a very rough encoding format, in that distortion is noticable even at relaltively high bitrates.

I'm sure you could use mainconcept to capture and encode on the fly. Set the framesize and bitrates to the "Cataract" settings of your liteon and you would get similar results.

[proxyx99]

Never used it but Panasonic MPEG 1 encoder was praised for best VCD quality as well as CCE if I remember correctly. If on the fly is your preference then Mainconcept Enc., as suggested, will be one of the better options. It has capture tool and does all resolutions.

Leaglebob, I'm with you on some issues.
No 1. I do like high quality stuff but remember listening to music and watching movies several years ago. I was elated that I could watch and listen to this stuff at all. If someone needs Krell, B&W and other high end stuff to truly enjoy music then they know little about music. You listen and watch with your heart and if VCD is enough to deliver the emotions to you, I'm with you on it.
No 2. I used to watch my very first broadcast movies in B&W on a 23 inch (was considered "hot") and still remember them. You don't need an HDTV to understand and enjoy "Million Dollar Baby".
No 3. Some members portrait themselves as "movie freaks" in a good sense of this expression. To those who share some points of view expressed above all I can say is I feel sorry for your brainless, empty lives. Ever read a book (sorry... they don't come in HD)?
No 4. I love full spectrum sound, high res. and full color but I can equally enjoy the message without it. It just adds to the experience, that's all.
No 5. Ever seen "Citizen Kane" or WW II stuff, Buster Keaton and similar? If the only criteria you go by is screen res. then you have missed a lot. No matter what I say, you probably won't understand anyways. That requires imagination which you have shown you lack.

[leaglebob]

I found Mainconcept elsewhere on this site and downloaded it. Unfortunately, I get kernel32.dll errors which prevent me from recording to check its quality. I did get rapid email response from their support but all it said was to reinstall all the software. That "might" work but when other similar programs work I kinda think theirs should too.

I will look for the panasonic mpeg-1 software. BTW for us Newbies--I have noticed that mpeg-1 at 352x240 is often "called" VCD which can be confusing to folks who record using a VCD setting and then find the final result can only be burned on a CD!! I've also read ((on this site I think)) that the same frame and data rate from an mpeg-2 software will not be as good as from an mpeg-1 program. So many variables!!!!

I am absolutely convinced that some people have the sensory acuity to make the judgments referenced herein==however I'm sure many more have deluded themselves aided by the experts coming mostly from the former class and because it is pushed by "the industry." I will have to recode my mp3 if I ever move up to a portable mp3 player. Seems few will read files less than 64 kbs. Their solution??==buy a bigger more expensive unit. Who benefits and who loses??

Cognitive bias and intentional fraud abounds on these subjective evaluations. Whats funny is that the few that will actually allow themeselves to be tested by samples created and presented by others ((use your best friends==just not yourself!!)) do it in a quiet room with no distractions===>but 99% of the time music is listened to while doing something else. Even when "testing" is done--its not real world.

That was my "studied" conclusion re mp3. For video--I just looked casually at the same show recorded at different rates and really--I cant tell the difference. Now--take a still from the video stream and notice the color smear on the pant legs??? Yes, I see that but while the video was playing, I was looking at the womans---face---and that was perfect. You can look at the defects, or look at the movie. In fact, thats how this whole issue came up. Comparing computer image to Liteon images, the faces around the eyes (and worse with glasses) was NOTICEABLE and irritating from the computer==and not so with Liteon.

Sorry to mix issues--they are only tenuously related.

So===inferential consensus that expensive video cards can't match cheap stand alone units?? ((Liteon 5005 at Costco for $159--earlier models cheaper elsewhere.)) More suggestions/comments are sought and welcomed.///bobbo. (cataract eyes was a good one!!)

[steve2713]

Your standards are either incredibly low, or your eyesight and hearing are in very poor condition. Have you been exposed to Nuclear fallout?

It sounds like 352x240 at a decent bitrate should more than satisfy your standards. I can't understand how you've gotten to the point of being thrilled with the 6 hour mode on your liteon but then stumble over the quality of similar captures on your computer.

If your post isn't just a troll thread to stir up amusement (and I'm leaning that way at this point), I'd suggest you strongly consider upping your standards for what is acceptable quality. If you are honestly questioning what kind of picture you're going to have with a 6 hr mode capture on a Hi Def TV, you REALLY need to consider capturing at a MUCH higher quality than you currently are. At the very least, start capturing at 352x480 if you plan on viewing any of this content on a decent tv, and you really should be capturing at 720x480 if you want to view it on a hi def tv down the road.

I carefully sampled at high rates and low rates and neither my friends nor I can hear a difference in the final product until about 30 kbs is reached. I therefor incode at 40 kbs and am very pleased with all the space I save.

That's, that's, ........... ......You and your friends can't hear a difference between a high bitrate and 40kbs? That might be the most difficult to believe statement I've seen in a long time. April Fool's isn't for another week.

[leaglebob]

Thanks Steve===Yes, I am "satisfied" and trying to match the VCR quality of the liteon by using my computer. Thats the whole point. Do you know of any computer software/hardware that produces a poor quality video that matches the Liteon?

BUT==regarding moving to HD--I take your point. As referenced earlier==I think only my "top movies" will need higher bit recording OR--I think I can just wait a few years for the price of Blu-Ray to come down and record at cataract settings in that format (Mpeg-4 I think I have read will be the Blu-Ray standard??) I'm also hoping that "maybe" a good 2 hour recording for the best movies might play pretty well on HD with the upcoding algorythms that should exist by that time. I'm sure the purists will poo poo this as well but as usual, the cost of the storage media is more determinative for me than the "quality" of the final product.

Real Story==Had a beer tasting party few years back. Everyone brought a six pack of their favorite "best ever ale." The ladies went to the kitchen and poored out 2 ounce samples for everyone to taste and rate in writing. We had 14 entries to consider that evening but number 15 was the clear winner. Number 15???? Yes, the ladies had thrown all the left overs into a jug and served that at the end. Now--we were all drunk by that time, but evidence is evidence!!!!

[lordsmurf]

I have plenty of audio and video from about 1890-1959. The B&W era of early media. All of it looks and sounds better than low bitrate MPEG-1 and 30kb MP3. Even kinescope and audio cylinders are FAR FAR BETTER than the crap being proposed here. A century later, that's quite sad. We have the ability to maintain any quality we want, so it should be kept when possible.

Like I said, sure, it can be done. Open up ATI MMC with an ATI AIW card, and drop all the settings to nothing. It's going to look and sound like crap, but it's technically possible.

I also have a LiteOn DVD recorder. My EP mode mono 2-head VHS tapes from 1985 are far better quality.

[leaglebob]

You are saying any ATI AIW card can be tweaked to achieve my desired result?==I assume ATI MMC is how you access the configuration settings? === I don't understand why any settings would need tweaking. Wouldn't I just record at that lowest setting and get what I want? I don't mind a "superior" picture if it doesn't cost me storage space. ==== on reflection that means you are saying the Winfast TV 2000xp Expert is *not* a good card which leaves me with one of my original queries==this card produces a good picture on my monitor and a good picture at high recording settings. It is only the lower bit rate recordings that pick up artifacts. That sounds like some software issue to me so if ATI actually does fix that problem then they are using special codecs===or did they really expend engineering expertise to allow better recordings at lower bitrates and then not advertise that fact? That all sounds improbable==but possible. It will probably be a few months before I try another card--but I'll get back to you on my solution if any is found.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quite Sad???===that we don't all think the same?? True expertise will finally come to appreciate the fuller range of any issue's complexity. Why not just be amused that some people take pleasure in what you disdain??

I think it is sad that after 500 years someone actually looked at the Last Supper and saw that one dude was a woman!!!! Holy "all the apostles were Men" shit! ((Funny and informative whether or not this issue finally concludes)) Actually, if a woman is in that picture, it is only Leonardo's choice to do so and not otherwise relevant??

Just for clarity on the unrelated issues==I stated I could hear unnacceptable distortion at 30kps so I encode at 40 kps which is fine for me. I also stated that some VCR tapes could be spotted because of their jitter so that in fact I would agree that Liteon's give a better recording.

Too bad we aren't neighbors so I could learn from your expertise. Being in the same room looking at the same thing often clears up communication problems that the written word cannot avoid.////bobbo.

**How do you know what you know and how do you change your mind**

[reboot]

MC's kernel32.dll errors usually come from a corrupt or missing codec.

[leaglebob]

Thanks Reboot===thats already more than MC tech support has said. I googled kernel32 and got some good info ((http://aumha.org/win4/a/kernel32.htm)) but reread your email. It probably isn't a corrupt kernell32.dll as that file is working with all the other programs that use it==I "assume".

So it is a damaged or missing codec which may be why I have some bad recordings to begin with??? How to sleuth that when again==most other programs are not reporting any errors.

My system currently has 24 different video codecs installed. Don't think I'll fish in that pool just yet. I'll wait and see what MC comes up with and let you know anything interesting.

Thanks. bobbo.

[reboot]

MC just crashes with kernel32.dll
Kernel32 is used by every program you're running.
It's a general error, because the input file is not supported on your system properly.
A corrupt codec, a codec conflict from multiple versions (XviD is infamous for this one).
With 24 codecs installed, you probably have XviD, but have it set to decode with DivX. Instant problem.