352x480 capturing from TV

[Yirkin]

Hi, I have a quick VHS to DVD question.

The guides I have read on capturing seem to suggest capturing at 720x480 using a lossless codec like huffy as the best way to do it..

I just read another guide by LordSmurf (http://lordsmurf.hypermart.net/conversion/dvdguide.htm) where he says that the maximum tv resolution is 352x480 and if I capture at anything higher then that then it is a waste. In the guide he also captures directly to mpg2.

Should I stop capturing TV at 720x480? Is 352x480 going to look just as good?

Thanks,

Howard

[Tommyknocker]

I would say capture at the highest resolution you can. When you convert, you will lose quality regardless. The highest resolution will lose less quality.

[txpharoah]

LS is correct. That information actually came from myself (though I'm sure he double-checked my facts as he always does).

The most resolution your wires (coax, composite, s-video) can possibly put out is a 352x480 signal (actually, an analog equivalent to that digital resolution, and the analog is a little lower to be truthful). Capturing at higher rates serves zero purpose. Commercially-made DVDs only come at higher resolution because they have access to the high-quality ORIGINAL source. That's the difference.

So yes, capture at 352x480. It more closely matches the source, and you can enjoy using lower bitrates and use more disc space. A 352x480 4.0 MP/S capture is the same quality as a 720/704x480 capture at 8.0 MP/S.

Some people swear by the higher bitrates/resolutions, but it's more their perception than the reality of what is in front of them.

Just be sure to keep a 4:3 aspect ratio!

[ImaWeTodd]

I've read the debates and the facts. But I swear, if I cap and output at full D1 vs 1/2 D1, guess which one looks better? Try a test with some credit text. If you see no difference, go with 1/2 cause you can certainly fit more on a disk.

Here's one for you.... Should I buy a Conexant CX23881 capture card or stick with the old BT8x8? I only cap analog CATV and svhs.

[Tommyknocker]

Here's one for you.... Should I buy a Conexant CX23881 capture card or stick with the old BT8x8? I only cap analog CATV and svhs

Although I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague TxPharoah (sic), ImaWeTodd, you cannot hijack topics here.

[txpharoah]

Although I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague TxPharoah

And much respect back to you too.

I think the issue here may be some cards refuse to capture decent quality at Half-D1 when they probably should. In general, on almost all cards I use or have tested, the Half D1 352x480 yielded equal-quality results, when coming from VHS or tv source.

For our original poster:
The key? Test. That's the only way you'll know what works best for YOU.

[ImaWeTodd]

Here's one for you.... Should I buy a Conexant CX23881 capture card or stick with the old BT8x8? I only cap analog CATV and svhs

Although I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague TxPharoah (sic), ImaWeTodd, you cannot hijack topics here.

Sorry for the bad etiquette. My brain was thinking more than I said. Here's the connection. CX23881 chip card supposedly process at 720x480 due to their 10-bit architecture. BT8x8 cards process at 640x480 due to their 8-bit architecture. Many claim the newer chip captures are much sharper. Are these people caping DVDs?

But ... does it matter if the source is at best brodcast tv? The big state Pharoah says no, because you aint getting better than 1/2 D1 really.

I dooo strongly believe in the answer (test, test, test). So many things to play with ... so little time.

[pijetro]

I also used to cap 720x480 with Huffy. Since I've switched over to 352x480, I can afford to use uncompressed YUY2, which of in theory, should get you better quality, regardless of the Huffy compression. The quality of my caps has greatly improved, and bitrate doesn't have to get swallowed up by such a high resolution.

I look at it this way. Since 352x480 is generally accepted as getting enough of the analogue signal on the H.D., then it's gonna be the bitrate allocation that's gonna determine your end quality (excluding filters).

As stated earlier, you'll get less pixelization woes since now your encoder doesn't have to fill in all those bitrates to a 720x480. The encoding time rocks also. I'm able to get 1.4 speed on a P3 1ghz, with YUY2. It drops by about a third using Huffy.

With a 60gig H.D., I can squeeze an hour and a half of uncompressed YUY2, which is plenty for my purposes. I believe Huffy will get me three plus hours...Perhaps when I cap a documentary I'll use this again someday.....

[SatStorm]

Because of the nature of NTSC and because of the hardware we can use today (including cables) it seems that in practice is better to grabb the higher you can, add filters, resize and encode to your final target format.

In theory ~400 X 480 is the best you can do with mainstream technology. But since the capture cards, the cables, the hardware we use and other variables manage to add noise in most capures and filtering is neccessary, then proccessed results from a 720 X 480 capture might look better....
A practical rule for NTSC users could be like: The more mainstream/entry hardware you got, the higher you capture, filter and encode to your target framesize... The most high quality hardware you got (4 time the price at least), the less capture size is needed. The ideal for NTSC could be a capture using S-Video cable at a framesize about 380 X 480 (which is a framesize that simply don't exist!)

As you see, is Practice vs Theory once again.

PAL, follows theory better, so you need PRO equipment to grabb from an analogue source beyond ~ 400 X 576 for real. Only with SECAM a higher capture could do for real a difference, but this terror is history now, thanks God !

[Heavensent]

just test for yourself, try to capture something with subtitles
and compare the two resolts.

you will find that the lower resolution is not the best way to go.
the subtitles seem worse in a lower resolution capture.


which meens that the qulity IS lower.

it MIGHT NOT APEAR that way if you dont capture with subtitles,
but there IS a differnce in qulity.

[housepig]

it MIGHT NOT APEAR that way if you dont capture with subtitles,
but there IS a differnce in qulity.

if I have to have subtitles on to see the quality difference, and I don't watch much subtitled material, then who cares?

If I can't see the difference, does that difference matter? I don't capture and encode to win technical awards - I don't sit with an oscilloscope hooked into my signal path to check levels - I capture to watch the video.

[Heavensent]

subtitles just make the difference BIGGER,
but it is there, once you know what to look for it will catch your eye
even without subtitles.

the main thing is that you like the resolt.

i dont really care how you do it, as long as you are happy

[Yirkin]

Hi everyone. I am testing different setups to see what looks best to me but with so many choices, I think I could capture and encode 24/7 for a week and still have new options to try so I appricite all the advice.

I have an ancient Hauppauge bt848 tv card. Using the Hauppauge driver, VirtualDub will only allow me to capture at 320x240. I installed the Conexant's BtPCI WDM driver and now VirtualDub allow me to capture at whatever resolution I choose. I'm not sure why the Hauppauge driver did not allow me to select 720x480 or 352x480.

Would I gain anything by buying a new capture card? Is there any difference between my old Bt848 from the mid 90's and the new ones I see at Fry's like the AverDVD PCI card which seems to get good reviews in this forum? Sometimes I have sync issues in captured video which I read is because the capture card and the sound card where the audio is captured get out of sync because of framerates. Do the newer capture cards capture the audio on the same card so there arn't sync issues?

Thanks everyone,

Howard

[txpharoah]

I have an Aver card. It's a cheap piece of crap, at least in terms of "which is better". It's not much difference than what you have. An ATI AIW card would be a step up for you (about $120). There are better cards than the ATIs', but you're looking at $$$ at that point.

[SatStorm]

Your card is Okey for mainstream / typical use.
Is it ISA (win tv cinema) or PCI? If it is PCI, you are more than OK with it. You can even try a program like PowerVCR for realtime capure to mpeg 2 (software based)

[ImaWeTodd]

So... Since we have strayed a little, are CX23881 chip cards really any better than BT8x8 cards? What is a big $$ card/device outside of the mainstream?