Is Analog Capture Card Really Needed?

[lbeck]

I've got a fair video editing setup.... Mini DV camcorder, DVD set-top recorder, internal PC DVD recorder, and video editing software. However, my camcorder which had analog inputs crapped out. I'm considering replacing it with one that has most of the features that I want but it doesn't have analog inputs.

The way that I'm used to going from analog tapes (VCR) to DVDs is to record from the output of my VCR onto digital tape (using my camcorder inputs), then use my video editing software to edit and burn to DVD in my computer.

What will I lose if I:
1. copy my VCR tapes to DVD-RAM or DVD-RW media
2. Copy the resulting MPEG data to my HDD
3. Convert the MPEG to AVI or edit as-is
4. Burn to DVD-Video.

I'm thinking that with the equipment that I already have I may not need a camcorder with analog inputs.

[kuranuk]

Ultimately, the cost/benefit analysis is up to you, but here are some issues to consider:

a) The hardware Analog conversion & MPEG compression of your standalone.
-I personally have never seen the results of a set-top DVD recorder, but if the results you've seen are comparable to results you were getting from your PC (or simply acceptable for your purposes), this shouldn't be an issue.
Additionally, unless you can specify resolution on your standalone, it may force full D1 resolution, which in my opinion is a huge waste of bitrate for VHS sources and may result in a lower-quality encoding. If I had a choice, I would encode any analog source as 1/2D1(352x480), or at most 640x480, since you really can't gain any quality above ~352 horizontal resolution from VHS recording.

b) editability
-MPEG is notoriously bad for video editing, as it was never intended for anything other than playback. There are issues not only with the speed, but also editing within a GOP may result in playback issues. That being said, it can be done if you have the time/patience, and you don't have to transcode (you just want to clip) this shouldn't be too significant an issue.

c) transcoding
-if you have to do any sort of editing that requires manipulating the image at all, or if you want to go to AVI afterwards, obviously you'll get better results working with a DV stream than with MPEG. Again, however, if you're satisfied with only manipulating the video sequences.

In my opinion, it would be worth the little extra that it costs for the analog inputs in the time you'll save and the quality you'll keep. $.02, =)

[The_Doman]

I had a choice, I would encode any analog source as 1/2D1(352x480), or at most 640x480, since you really can't gain any quality above ~352 horizontal resolution from VHS recording.

I personally can REALLY see the difference in capture quality of Half of Full DVD resolution when i make captures from my TV/VCR. Even my VHS captures surely look better in FULL resolution.
Ofcourse a lot depends of the quality of the tape/VCR.

[sacajaweeda]

Capture VHS at whatever resolution you want, just resize it to half D1 when you encode it. Bitrate wasted filtering out noise is dramatically reduced using a smaller frame size. You don't gain anything by encoding to a frame size over half D1 because the original VHS source just doesn't have those extra lines. Half D1 is even overkill for VHS.

[kuranuk]

I personally can REALLY see the difference in capture quality of Half of Full DVD resolution when i make captures from my TV/VCR.

Personally, I have a SVHS deck with S-Video that I use to capture, and with this equipment I do find that there is some noticeable signal loss when capturing at 1/2D1. Also remember, TV directly off-the-air is often going to be notably better than a VHS source. I therefore capture from TV/SVHS at 480x480 and resize upon encoding to 352x480 which preserves a slightly clearer image. This does result in some small loss of quality, but MPEG is lossy anyway, and I'm not willing to waste the bitrate required for the extra 160x480 pixels you'd need to maintain standard resolution.

Most people, however, don't use SVHS or S-Video, so for any source from VHS, particularly any transferred using a composite RCA cable, I would strongly reccomend nothing more than half D1.

[lbeck]

Thanks to kuranuk and the rest of you for your input. I'm thinking that I'll go ahead with the Panasonic PV-D73 (no analog inputs) to get the higher resolution (1.3 megapixels) and some other features that I want. The video that I'm transcribing is really bad (VHS/EP) taken when I was a lot poorer and tapes ran $7-8 each. I can't envision using the analog inputs for anything other than transcribing VHS tapes since I go directly from the camcorder to IEEE for anything that I do now, and have archived my really important DV tapes. Going on your advice, the set-top DVD recorder delivers exceptional reproduction-- I can't tell any difference from the original.

I found your discussion of MPEG very interesting. I have had lots of problems editing MPEG and from now on I think I'll transcribe it to AVI prior to editing. Even though this takes an extra step and the file sizes are huge, I've wasted more time with poor editing results (sound out-of-sync, etc.) and redoing projects than the extra step and rendering time necessary to MPEG->AVI->edit->burn back to MPEG.

I would encode any analog source as 1/2D1(352x480), or at most 640x480, since you really can't gain any quality above ~352 horizontal resolution from VHS recording.

I found this and the discussion about D1 interesting. I think that this needs to be my next wave of learning about all this video stuff. Some of the software that I use provides a choice of bitrate and resolution but I generally use the default or the recommneded values. My video-editing skills may be well-served by learning more about differences in encoding and advantages of choices.

Thanks again.

Lee