Anything I can use that's between AVI and MPEG2?

[happydog500]

When I capture video in AVI, the motion looks very good. In MPEG 2, it's not so good. AVI files are like 20GB, where MPEG2 is 3-5GB. Is there anything I can use that's not as big as AVI, but better then MPEG2?
Thanks,
Chris.

[guns1inger]

What do you want to do with them ? If you want DVD then you have little choice, but if you do it correctly the quality should still be very high.

If you want to watch it on the PC then Xvid or Divx is probably the best alternative. It is a codec in the avi container, so it has the avi extension, but the compression is much higher than DV avi (which I assume is what you are using at the moment) or mpeg 2.

Try looking into Dr. Divx to begin with.

[jimmalenko]

It's all about settings - you should be able to tweak your capture settings for MPEG-2 so that it uses a higher bitrate, and this should result in a higher quality picture, provided your other settings are correct.

... but it also depends on the type and running time of your source, and what your end result is going to be. For example, if your end result is going to be DVD and if you need to do editing then I'd stick with AVI, as it's much easier to edit (especially DV-AVI). You can then convert to MPEG-2 once you've sorted the editing out. If you don't need editing, then it may be time-saving to go straight to MPEG-2. Then you may face the conundrum of frame size - you need to use a bitrate that is sutiable for the frame size you're capturing at.

Then there's the $64K question - what's more important to you - file size of the capture, or the quality of the end result ?

[happydog500]

I captured an hour long motocross race to watch on my PC. Anything that moives is blocky. If the camera is following the motorcycle, the people and background is messed up. Even when the sponsors emblem comes up when going to a comercial, it's blocky when it moves.

This looks nothing like droped frames. I would discribe it as this; Think of a screen with a stright line going down from the top to bottom, in the middle. One side is blue, the other is white. When it moves, the line would not be perfectly stright, but it would go down with a block of blue on the white side. It goes stright, then another block of blue, all the way down.
What causes this? I captrued it at 8000kbs.
This makes it, at 8000kbs, not as good as the same race recorded on VHS, with a very chep, poor quality VCR (The parts where it's not moving, the digital is better).

[mats.hogberg]

I'd say, you have a noisy signal. 8000 kbps should be more than enough to be indistinguishable from the live broadcast. Video noise "eats bitrate" bigtime. See if you can get a better video signal to your capture card.

/Mats

[vhelp]

This seems to be a real-time MPEG capture setup. Thus, if you are capturing
to MPEG-2 in real-time, then there is your first problem. Certain things
are given up (within the algorithem of things) in the MPEG capturing for
this setup. This is pretty much for everything else out there that operate
in this mannor (real-time capture) of setup. And, expect variation in
quality from one setup to another, and one capture card brand/make from
another. In other words, you can't meaure comparitable, two brands and/or
setups.. you'll end up with variation in your results. Anyways..

Assuming you are planning for re-encoding of capture MPEG ...

If you are considering MPEG as an alternative route, to your other capture
processes (ie, analog captures to AVI) I would suggest something along the
hardware route. These do not skimp on anything during the capturing and
maximum quality will result. However, *quality* will be subjective
according to your setup; source; hardware min/max features; etc.

When you use an MPEG as the codec for your final video source, two things
have to be utilized for a maximum represenation of the original source.

* Encoding mode
* Bitrate

And, the settings for this should be the maximum bitrate your setup will
allow.

For instance, in some hardware MPEG capture devices, you may have a
maximum bitrate setting of 12mb/sec. The best setup for this, to maintain
maximum represenation, is to use an Encoding Mode of CBR and birate of 12mb/sec.

In another instance, are some hardware MPEG capture devices that might go
a little higher than that, like 15mb/sec. Again, the best setup for this, to
maintain maximum represenation, is to use an Encoding Mode of CBR and in this
case, the birate should now be set to 15mb/sec for even better results because
this is the maximun that (this) hardware MPEG capture device will allow.
So, you it.

Other possible issues w/ your given problem ...

You other issue with your capture problem has to do with the sour type.

You mentined that your source was Motocross Race. This is an all Interlace
source type. Every frame will be interlaced. There is not much you can
do with this type of source, other than to encode it Interlace, but with a
high enough bitrate. I have made the determination that (especially for all
Interlace source) the bitrate should be min at 9000 and CBR mode encode, for
an hour per dvd disk. You do not want to select VBR for this type of source,
especially since it will be fast actions and lots of panning, and to make
things worse, its all Interlace. That's why recommended (suggested) setup
above.

Then there is the Encoder of choice ...

Encoder also has a play in this too. Some encoders do better with certain
source types than others. Procoder is a good example of this theory. In
my experience with it, it does a pretty good job of producing good quality
MPEG 's when the source type is all (pure) Interlace.

But, when the source type is based on a Film background, then IMO, it's
TMPGenc for me. That would be my recommendation/suggestion. But, your
mileage (of your final product) will vary (from all this info) per your
experience/knowledge with all these tools.

If you are serious with the video processing and stuff, then the best
suggestion would be to practice practice practice. Otherwise, you will
not get very far in this endeavor.

-vhelp 3515

[mats.hogberg]

We might have different views on this, but I do real time mpeg captures using analog (antenna) input to my Hauppage PVR250 card, and already @4000 kbps, there's no difference (to me) between what I see if I watch the same source directly on the TV, and what I see when I play a DVD authored with the capture as source material. If I have a good signal to capture. If I use long extension cables, or have the station badly tuned (noisy picture to start with), the quality rapidly goes down in the capture.

/Mats

[Cobra]

I haved always captured using an MJPEG codec and VirtualDub, using the quality setting 90. Seems to take up a reasonable amount of space but it also pretty decent quality for most purposes. You can, of course, fiddle with the capture quality to boost quality and space required or vice-versa.

[vhelp]

Actually, I ment that there is a difference between real-time for:

* Software vs. Hardware.

And, in the case above, I was speaking about hardware devices.

Going the software route leaves for problems, on account of the
areas who's corners are cut to meat a certain (accepable) level
of quality.

With hardware MPEG captures, there is no cutting of corners, because
everything is done on super fast hardware chips.. not sofware interpreted
instructions on slow computers.

Sorry for the confusion.

-vhelp 3520

[happydog500]

I captured jay leno last night at 9000kbs. His hands when he moves them are that blocky thing again. I will do it again tonight at 10,000kbs to see if it's any better.

My cable TV Tech said I have a "strong signal" and I am using a only a foot long cable from my cable wall jack.

[jimmalenko]

If it's only where there's movement, I'd say it's either your field order or just interlacing artifacts.