Playback Picture Quality - What beats VHS?

[Doctor_Zaius]

Newbie here. LOTSA reading during my 24 hr-post registration period. Fantastic site; awesome posters. Problem is, I now realize there are several different ways to tackle my problem - and now I'm not sure which ones are the best.

PROJECT: I want to 'record' an NFL game from DirecTV and play it back using regular speed play, frequent pausing, and most importantly SLOW MOTION, and hopefully slow motion reverse.

CURRENTLY: Am taping from DirecTV to SP VHS using cheapo VHS tapes, a cheapo VCR (analog) and replaying the VHS tapes with a cheapo TV set.

GOAL: Find an alternative to the above VHS method that affords NOTICABLY better picture quality, defined by being able to read/distinguish player jersy numbers in non-close up game shots.

I had previously assumed some sort of playback to my PC monitor would be an obvious improvement over VHS/TV...but now I am not sure.

QUESTIONS:
1) Which approach should theoretically provide the above goal, and
2) Would approaches that use my PC monitor (it's a good 19'' one w/a good Video card) necessarily be better than approaches using a TV (analog) for playback?

NOTES:
1) Let's assume file size (storage, bitrate) is not a problem; that I am willing to handle large files or multiple discs.
2) PIII-500, 256ram, 20Gb (will get another big HD)
3) I would prefer to edit out commercials, but would be willing to leave them in if it meant better picture quality.
4) I am leaning towards using the Canopus ADVC-100 to capture DV avi, then convert and watch and/or burn, but realize TIVO, DVDr, or other analog capyure card approaches are all possibilities.

Thank you

[Bob W]

You can do what you want with a capture card however I suspect a DVD recorder would be a lot easer plus result in better picture quality because most of the recorders have a built in TBC (time base corrector). Get one that records to DVD-RW then you could record and edit out whatever you want then burn a disc on your computer DVD burner assuming you have one.

[flaninacupboard]

for convenience the set top DVD recorder has it, for quality the ADVC-100 is the right way to be thinking....

The football games will be shot on video, interlaced at 30fps. this makes your TV a better display than your PC monitor.

The ADVC should suit you well. because it outputs DV you can watch recorded things right away (so use it just like a VCR) and of course once you've encoded your files to DVD you can do everything you can with a normal DVD.

[qpskfec]

A directv/tivo can be purchased for around $200. It's much better than screwing around with PC capture to watch a football game. It's also better than using my set-top dvd recorder, which I use mainly for archiving.

The satellite tivo writes/reads the mpeg stream to the hard drive, so quality wise, it cannot be beat. PC capture and set top dvdr both re-encode analog.

[Doctor_Zaius]

The football games will be shot on video, interlaced at 30fps. this makes your TV a better display than your PC monitor.

Thanks for the reply; thanks to EVERYONE for their replies.

From the replies I've done more reading on interlacing, de-interlacing, 'progressive' video, and TV vs computer monitors, and I must say this newbie's 'revelation' that certain video data (those data 'meant' for TV broadcast I guess) will just not look as good on a monitor is a real bummer.

Crap. I had foolishly assumed that Any video data (especially digital, including analog data converted to digital) would most certainly display higher picture quality when viewed on a monitor. I now see other newbies have written about making the same incorrect assumption.

I hope I have this wrong.

So can one say then that ANY video data (cable TV, sat TV) broadcast with the intention of being viewed primarily/solely on a TV will be "interlaced at 30fps" and thus forever doomed to never appear as good on a monitor as it did on TV? Regardless of the cost/sophistication of the monitor/PC/video card/software?

Thanks again. Having trouble accepting the harsh reality of this.

[Doctor_Zaius]

The satellite tivo writes/reads the mpeg stream to the hard drive, so quality wise, it cannot be beat. PC capture and set top dvdr both re-encode analog.

Thanks. Hope it's OK to talk a little Tivo in here.

Can I assume that if one could transfer the Tivo-captured mpeg stream to a computer's hard drive, and then play it back on the monitor, it Still would be of lesser picture quality than when replayed from Tivo to TV (due to the fact the original data was video meant for TVs, interlaced @ 30fps)?

Also, can I assume a codec would be needed to view the transferred data on a PC monitor?

Also, (if my limited understanding of all this is correct), do/will the cableTV/DirecTV/major networs/NFL broadcast a signal meant for viewing on a computer monitor? Theoreticavvly the monitor is 'better' than a TV, resolution wise, right?

Thanks again for your patience on this.

[nickerous]

I have finished one college football game using the ADVC-100 to capture, TMPGEnc to encode, Ulead DVD Factory 2 to author, and finally, DVD Decrypter to burn to DVD-R.

Quality is a major concern for me because some of my games are over 20 years old. I've found that the end result may look slightly better than the source, but not much better at all. I haven't tried zooming in on it (that feature is on my Toshiba DVD player and it's not hooked up right now), but I think the picture would get grainy fast. Same thing with slowmo. Not on my Sony PQ-1 (at least, I don't think it is.....maybe zoom is there....).

Chapter points are great for football games. I have around 20 games on tape and I don't sit through an entire game much at all. Mainly, I want to see the big plays. I can set chapter points on those big plays and skip right to it, instead of having to fast forward, check to see if I'm at the right point (rewind if I went to far), and then try and find the next big play, etc, etc. I'll play around with zoom and slowmo tonight and post back what I discover...

[cplevel42]

If you use a PC capture card you can capture as interlaced or de-interlaced. Your choice. The Tivo is a great option as stated above, but I would recommend the new models of DVRs that are commeing out from various cable companies. Time warner and comcast have new models that will do everything you need and in the next 2 months Time Warner is coming out with a model that links to you PC for editing and DVD-R burning of "Tivo-like" captured shows from cable TV.

You could just do what I do, and the quality is very good. I use the ATI All In Wonder 9700 Pro 128 MB DDR vid card. It has time shifting capabilities and capture progressive or interlaced at various bit rates, Avi, mpeg1, and mpeg2. Its was probably the best option for the money I spent. Oh yeah, this card has some great filters called videosoap. VideoSoap will clean up any snow or lines in the pic. I have used this with great success.

[flaninacupboard]

Doctor_Zaius,
no, not all things broadcast on TV are 29.97 interlace. As you've been busy reading up on the topic yourself (always nice to see!) another topic for you to read about is 23.976fps film teleclining. the telecline process adapts 24fps film to be shown at 29.97fps, and you can reconstruct the 24fps progressive video yourself, on the computer. a lot of your TV shows over there are shot on film (think sex and the city, friends, etc) and these, once the telecling process is revesed (this is called IVTC InVerse TeleCline) the 24fps progressive material looks better on a PC monitor. obviously a live football game can't be shot on film though......
Yes, Tivo captured MPEG's would be 29.97 interlaced. and yes, the codedc erequired to play back the files is an MPEG2 codec, so if you have a software DVD player installed, you're sorted.

Finally, yes. A monitor can support a higher resolution than a TV, and even higher than an HDTV. i'm not privvy to ehat networks transmit in what format over there, so you'll have to ask one of the locals

[cplevel42]

flaninacupboard Wrote:

Finally, yes. A monitor can support a higher resolution than a TV, and even higher than an HDTV. i'm not privvy to ehat networks transmit in what format over there, so you'll have to ask one of the locals

Everything will be going High Def and 16:9 (I think) by 2007. Correct me if I'm wrong. Comcast Cable, Time Warner, and Dish Network all have some shows that are already converted to HD, but I'm not sure which ones. I have no idea which ones will be broadcast in 23.976fps, except for the ones that flaninacupboard has informed us about.

[Gazorgan]

Not Correct. Everything is going Digital by 2006. Not the same thing as HDTV. Digital supports HDTV, but the resolution can still be NTSC standard. Digital refers to the broadcast method and frequency. The old TV channels are litterally worth Trillions of dollars to be re-sold for cellphones and all kinds of other uses.

The digital conversion will place broadcast TV on completely different frequencies (it will suck to live out in the country and not have sattelite). Some programs will be HDTV and some won't. This is very much like the conversion from blacka nd white to color in the 60's. It will happen very quickly. What won't change are re-runs, syndications, and a lot of older movies (until re-digitized).

As to you initial question? A DVD Recorder is the KISS principle. A Recorder and some editing on your computer (commercials cut out) can produce an acceptable result. Full Capture and edit on your computer can produce the best results, but you are talking hours of editing and authoring, not to mention a 2-8 hour encoding session,; but the results will be spectacular!

[Doctor_Zaius]

OK thanks again for the replies; good stuff.

BROADCAST TV:

Let's assume broadcast TV (USA) is the primary/only source one will be recording. From comments here it seems that broadcast TV can appear in different flavors, depending on whether it is being broadcast from film or a live broadcast.

1) Does one need to 'consider' the source of the TV broadcast in making a capture/record decision (broadcast form tape, how original film was shot, or live)?

2) Considering live TV broadcasts only, what flavor (fps, format, whatever) are they done in?

3) Are live sports broadcast (cable or DSS) at different bitrates, and if yes, would this impact the capture/record decisions?

DIRECT TIVO:

1) OK it sounds like IF one could capture the DSS stream (like Tivo does in a DirecTV DVR) AND get it to a HD or DVD, this simply trumps all other capture/record options in regards to quality. True?

2) If #1 above is true, wouldn't the DirecTV folks want to release a DirecTV TIVo that dumps data (w/no loss; the mpeg stream) to a customer's HD or DVD recorder? It'd be a helluva product?

Thanks again; still wrestling w/TIVO, DVD recorder (many flavers), and Canopus ADVC, as options. Ugh.

[Doctor_Zaius]

Apologies for the question, but which forum here would be considered the appropriate forum for further discussions of:

Recording broadcast TV/DSS to DVD recorder, especially discussing the record flavors (-R, -R/W, RAM), and discussing any subsequant 'editing of commercials' of said disk on my PC?

Thanks

[qpskfec]

Directv/Tivo/content providers don't want consumers to be able to get the mpeg stream directly to a PC hard drive for copy protection reasons. The only way to do this would be to record on the Tivo, then remove the hard drive, place in your PC, and hack the drive. (There's some protection on the hard drive so you can't just copy files. It's also linux.) Even if you could do this, you will need to reencode to a dvd resolution if you want to save it as a DVD as directv does not usually transmit at full or half D1.

An easy way I get video to the hard drive, is to record programs from the tivo to the set top dvdr. Then I can watch the dvd on the PC or copy the vobs to the hard drive if I want do something with them.

You can use mpeg2vcr to edit the vob/mpg to cut out commercials, then burn back to dvd. However, I find it easier to just pause/unpause the set top recorder for archiving tv shows that are 30-60 min long.

Quality wise, I don't spend a lot ot time watching my recorded discs on the PC, but they look ok to me when I do. Watching a 27" TV is much better than a 17" PC monitor.

[lordsmurf]

Three options better than VHS:

1. Analog. Super VHS. About twice the resolution and quality of VHS.
2. Digital. Direct capture with a computer tv tuner. Like an ATI AIW card.
3. Digital. Use a DVD recorder or a PVR method (like the Tivo one).

I use them all myself, depending on how I feel that day.