External Capture - Canopus ADVC-100 vs. DataVideo DAC-100

[dc91gt]

I'm in the market for a capture card and narrowed it down to these two:

Canopus ADVC-100 and the DataVideo DAC-100.

They are almost identical in looks and features. The only difference I
note is that the DataVideo doesn't have locked audio.

I'm going to be using this mostly for capturing video/audio off TV -
basically a replacement for my VCR.

The Canopus I know is top notch stuff, a friend has one and I've played
around with it.. pretty slick.

My real question is about the quality of the Datavideo DAC-100. It's
about $75 bucks cheaper on average - so it's tempting.

Anyone used this piece and/or have a recommendation as to which to
get? And how important is "locked audio"? the reviews are pretty good
from the capture card rating section on this site for both.

thanks,
-d

[Tommyknocker]

When you see your first captured video has an audio synch problem, you may begin to wonder if it was worth the $75.00 you saved. Those synch problems can be a bear.

[jmsams]

I recently got the DAC-100 and it has worked very well, no dropped frames or audio sync problems. Two vendors that sell both and that specialize in video products both recommended the DAC-100 to save money. One told me that if your using a MAC the Canopus is better but with a Windows OS there is really no difference.

[Michelle]

When you see your first captured video has an audio synch problem, you may begin to wonder if it was worth the $75.00 you saved. Those synch problems can be a bear.

Do you know of anyone that experienced sync problems with the DAC-100? None of the comments that I've seen on this site from owners mention that as a problem.

Consumer DV camcorders don't have locked audio either and it's not a problem.

[The village idiot]

It takes a very bad source to cause any kind of audio sync problems with DV. And at that it should be a very short problem.

[i_am_dave]

I have no experience with the DAC. I purchased an ADVC January of this year. NO REGRETS!!

It was worth every penny!

[FL350innh]

I'm in the market for a capture card and narrowed it down to these two:

Canopus ADVC-100 and the DataVideo DAC-100.

They are almost identical in looks and features. The only difference I
note is that the DataVideo doesn't have locked audio.

I'm going to be using this mostly for capturing video/audio off TV -
basically a replacement for my VCR.

The Canopus I know is top notch stuff, a friend has one and I've played
around with it.. pretty slick.

My real question is about the quality of the Datavideo DAC-100. It's
about $75 bucks cheaper on average - so it's tempting.

Anyone used this piece and/or have a recommendation as to which to
get? And how important is "locked audio"? the reviews are pretty good
from the capture card rating section on this site for both.

thanks,
-d

DC91GT,
I own the DAC 100 and have used the Canopus ADVC 100, I started a thread comparing the two a while ago as I was making my decision. The Canopus worked very well (A friend let me try his). But I was able to get the DAC 100 for $186.00 delivered to my door... That's a $100.00 savings... The DAC 100 does not have the "Audio lock" feature, But I've never had audio synch issues with my captures. The DAC 100 does not have macrovision support, So no macrovision to worry about... The Canopus ADVC 100 has a "HACK" that will bypass macrovision as well. So in Either case it makes no difference on the macrovision issue... I have captured VHS, L-Disc, DVD, Sat and digital cable all without any problems... Most of my long caps are about 120 mins, but on occasion I have gone 3hrs without a problem. Quite a few people have the DAC 100 and I dare to say none of them have problems with it. It all comes down to your source.... If you have a really bad VHS and use the Canopus ADVC 100's "Audio lock" feature, it will lock up during capture and you will need to reboot the ADVC100. If you read post about people Fast forwarding and rewinding while there ADVC is on it locks... Not a bad thing just a pain. So far the DAC 100 has not locked on me while I FF or rewind. I've had only one really bad VHS cap from a REALLY bad tape. It's in synch, but the picture is pretty bad... Again, it's all in the source. The Village Idiot and Michell are correct in what they say. No matter which you choose you will not be sorry, except for spending an extra $100.00 for one... :P

[reubenray]

I have been trying to decide between these also. I have decided to go ahead and get the DAC100 after reading the last post.

[VideoJockey2002]

I've had a DataVideo DAC-100 for well over a year or so. It works pretty well. However, I hear so many good things about the Canopus ADVC-100, I always wonder what I'm missing. I'm archiving precious 8mm analog home video to MPEG 2 DVD-R, so, to me, it's important that I lay down the best files possible for someone to view maybe 100 years from now. As time goes on, people in the family will have to convert this DVD-R stuff to the current format of the day as technology progresses and old formats are abandoned. The more "junk" I render to DVD-R, the more "junk" is rendered to future formats ... long after I'm dead.

Using the DataVideo DAC-100 for DV file capture, I have to tweak software MPEG encoders in various ways to reduce mosquito noise and dot crawl. It has been killing me wondering whether the Canopus product would avoid certain types of noise in the raw capture that would then result in reduction or elimination of the mosquito noise and dot crawl seen in the transcoded MPEG 2.

I've used TMPGEnc, CinemaCraft, and MainConcept MPEG encoders. In each, I have to adjust for multi-pass and utilize other extreme high-quality settings in order to reduce or eliminate the noise. It does, after all, produce a nice looking authored DVD-R. I still wonder, however, if it could be better using the Canopus for initial DV capture.

So, my Canopus ADVC-100 has shipped to me today from the vendor (Monday 29 March 2004). I expect it within 5-7 days via ground shipping.

Within a couple of days after receiving it, I'll be able to report on the raw DV capture quality of the Canopus. It doesn't take long to capture and export back to TV.

Within the following week (after I receive it), I'll have time to do some capture and transcoding to MPEG 2 for DVD-R using the Canopus ADVC-100.

Of course, I'll report on both experiences.

I have read some user reports here in this forum about something described as bit crawl in DV files captured using the DataVideo product. I see the same in my captured files. I am strongly suspecting that this bit crawl is responsible for the noise problems in the resulting transcoded MPEG 2 files. I'll know in about 1½ weeks from today.

I purchased the DataVideo product before Canopus had released its product. I had no other choice at the time. Formerly, I had used the Dazzle Hollywood DV Bridge (HWB). The Dazzle HWB was a true waste of money because it randomly shut itself down during capture ... usually between the 10 and 20 minute marks.

I've opened both the DataVideo product and the Dazzle product. They both use the DiVio codec chip www.divio.com . The DataVideo product does capture a somewhat cleaner video image compared to the now defunct Dazzle--even though they both use the same DV chip.

The Canopus product? I don't know what chip is used, but, I know that the Canopus site maintains that a propietary Canopus codec is in the chip firmware. Someone has mentioned that the Canopus product uses a Philips TV decoder chip.

So, I think I can say one thing for sure at this point in time even before the Canopus product arrives at my home: The DataVideo and the Canopus products are entirely different when hardware and firmware components are compared.

I have quite a critical eye. I'll post critically objective results. I don't plan on selling or returning either product. It won't make a bit of difference to me which product comes out on top.

I do hope to be able to answer one of the big questions that keeps popping up in this forum: Is the Canopus product worth the extra money? I wish someone could have definitively informed me of that bit of information a long time ago. I'll let you know my opinion soon.

--vj2k

[Michelle]

I look forward to reading about your comparison.

[VideoJockey2002]

So, my Canopus ADVC-100 has shipped to me today from the vendor (Monday 29 March 2004). I expect it within 5-7 days via ground shipping.

According to FedX tracking, it should be delivered tomorrow Wednesday 31 March 2004. I should have some time to play with it on Friday.

--vj2k

[VideoJockey2002]

...I hear so many good things about the Canopus ADVC-100, I always wonder what I'm missing.

Just got the ADVC-100 a few hours ago. Is the Canopus ADVC-100 better than the DataVideo DAC-100? Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely yes.

So far, I've only had time to capture several clips of a few minutes minutes duration each: (1) a clip from my standard 8mm home video tapes, (2) a clip from on-air analog cable television, (3) a clip from a DVD.

I then transcoded each DV file to MPEG 2 elementary streams with CinemaCraft using the standard settings for one-pass VBR. I then used TMPG DVD Author to create the DVD-R. I viewed the raw DV captures and the *.ifo files on the computer and I viewed the DVD-R on my televisions. I also viewed the raw DV files scrubbed to a television through the Canopus ADVC-100.

In all stages, the Canopus exceeds -- by far -- the performance of the DataVideo:

1. The Canopus captures are "pristine and clean" compared to that which the DataVideo captured. I realize now that the DataVideo product was injecting a lot of "snow" which obscured the raw DV capture and also wreaked havoc with my software MPEG encoders.

2. The analog output of the Canopus is much, much better than the DataVideo. In other words, if you fire up your software to play back the raw DV captures from the hard drive and output it to a television, there's an overwhelmingly precise and colorful image on the T.V. DataVideo's analog output is grainy and the colors are weak compared to the Canopus. This means that if you plan to edit and output to VCR, you'll get much, much, much better tapes if you use the Canopus.

3. Using the Canopus captures, I could, for the first time, use the "standard" settings of an MPEG encoder to obtain a quick transcoding with an absolutely beautiful DVD-R output to the television screen. Using the Canopus, the mosquito noise that had comprised object outlines is totally gone! Using the Canopus, the dot crawl is gone! That junk that had been injected by DataVideo is just not there. It's beautiful.

4. Yes. The MacroVision control is still present in this unit. I used the composite connections from the DVD player to the Canopus and it still looked great. I suppose it would be darned near impossible to tell the difference between original disc and DV transcoded to MPEG 2 if I had used S-VHS connections.

Over the coming weekend, I should have some time to do further evaluations. I hope to post some screen shots of the raw DV captures to provide examples of the difference between a DataVideo capture and a Canopus capture.

Now, I realize that the Canopus ADVC-100 probably isn't perfect. I haven't had time to discover its possible glitches in severe circumstances. I'm critical enough that I can find fault with just about anything. For those novices who haven't felt the pain of thousands of dollars wasted on video devices over the years (as I have), let me say that you shouldn't read this and suppose that any product with the Canopus name is perfectly excellent in every case just because you read good things here about this one particular Canopus product. Utilize DVDRHelp.com for information that is vital before you buy--no matter what you intend to buy. Hold your horses and fight the impulse to buy until you read lots of things from many different sources.

However, I will say that a head-to-head comparison of the DataVideo DAC-100 and the Canopus ADVC-100 on my particular desktop through my eyes places the Canopus product in a definite position of exceptional superiority in my estimation.

The most exciting part for me is that the Canopus ADVC-100 captures are clean without the noise and snow injected by the DataVideo DAC-100. This means that I can, for the first time, utilize the default settings of software MPEG encoders and obtain output that is absolutely impressive.

Truthfully, the Canopus captures and single pass VBR default settings of CCE gave me better output than when I used 3-pass high precision settings in CCE on the DataVideo captures. No lie. I'll bet it's going to blow my socks off when I transcode some of these Canopus captures using some tight tweaks in CCE.

If you were my best friend ... someone who I really cared about ... and if you asked me whether to spend the extra $70 or so to get the Canopus ADVC-100, I'd have to say: Yes. Yes. Absolutely yes.

Now, you have to wonder when you read this, is he telling the truth or does he work for Canopus? I know I would surely be looking for evidence one way or the other. VCDHelp.com was revamped in the recent past to transfer over to a new server along with its name change to DVDRHelp.com, and, it seems many of my former postings were lost in the process.

If only those postings were still there, you'd have the evidence you need. For a couple of years now, I've raved about the DataVideo product. It was certainly a step up from the dam*ed Dazzle Hollywood DV Bridge that I still have sitting on the shelf.

However, I've got to say, now that I've used the Canopus, I can see no reason to bring the DataVideo off the shelf any more.

--vj2k

[LRD]

I would also consider the Compro VideoMate Live USB2. Please check it out on the capture card list.

LRD

[Bondiablo]

I have been trying to decide between these also. I have decided to go ahead and get the DAC100 after reading the last post.

I wouldn't decide based on that post. He's the only one who's ever claimed the ADVC locks and the DAC doesn't. Every post I've seen and personal experience with both says the DAC is far more likely to lock and doesn't always recover well where, on the rare occasion the ADVC will lock when fwd or rew, it recovers immediately after returning to play. One negative for the ADVC though, I think they removed the macrovision hack from the latest version.

[alenhard]

One negative for the ADVC though, I think they removed the macrovision hack from the latest version.

Where did you hear that? It would be a bummer if they did. Good thing I've already got mine!

[Bondiablo]

I know someone who got one recently and the hack cleared up the video on the computer but they were still getting static in the audio and even with the hack, trying to record on a 2nd VCR from the analog outs, the picture would go in and out but I'm not 100% sure the ADVC was the problem.

[fourthquark]

Videojockey2002,

Thanks for the great info, please post more of your results. Nice to have the opportnunity to see the results of a direct comparison with "all other things" truly being equal.

If you look real hard through previous postings and Capture Card comments, you will come across several that suggest that:

1. ADVC captures tend to be darker than the original source material.

2. DAC-100 produces colors that are more natural and realistic and true-to-source, ADVC-100 colors are more vivid and saturated, sometimes overly so and deviating from source.

Could you comment on these points, based on your observations of captures from the same source?

[Capmaster]

Just got the ADVC-100 a few hours ago. Is the Canopus ADVC-100 better than the DataVideo DAC-100? Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely yes.

The extra $75 gets you a Canopus product, locked audio, and a better picture. It's a no-brainer

Why anyone would want to chance it with unlocked audio is beyond me. Especially with marginal source material like VHS. Just to save a few bucks ....sheesh

[Bondiablo]

1. ADVC captures tend to be darker than the original source material.

2. DAC-100 produces colors that are more natural and realistic and true-to-source, ADVC-100 colors are more vivid and saturated, sometimes overly so and deviating from source.

That seems to only be true of early versions of the ADVC, with recent versions the colors and brightness appear the same as the DAC.

[MickB]

I'd like to butt in here if I may. I just borrowed a DAC100 to test capture to AVI vs. my ATI AIW 9700 card but had the same poor results. No difference between the two, so it's something else that is causing my problems.

My question is why can only Studio 8 recognize this firewire device and Virtual VCR and TMPGnc both will not? Thank you.

[VideoJockey2002]

To: fourthquark

If you look real hard through previous postings and Capture Card comments, you will come across several that suggest that:

1. ADVC captures tend to be darker than the original source material when viewed on a television set.


2. DAC-100 produces colors that are more natural and realistic and true-to-source, ADVC-100 colors are more vivid and saturated, sometimes overly so and deviating from source.

Could you comment on these points, based on your observations of captures from the same source?

Response to your number 1: Definitely not darker than the original source material.

I'm sure some see a dark image when viewed on a computer monitor ... but this often relates to problems with the monitor and its software driver and the IRE setting (discussed later) of computer monitors. I know that in order to properly evaluate the Canopus capture, we must output to TV ... or we must adjust our computer monitor gamma settings to correspond to television standards.

This problem is tantamount to viewing DVD's on your computer. Notice how any good DVD player software has brightness and/or gamma settings? Or, as with the newer NVidia drivers, there is a gamma adjustment for hardware overlay (known as DirectX in Windows). If you don't make those adjustments, you'll see a really dark DVD movie on your computer monitor.

I think that some who report the Canopus captures as "dark," are possibly referring to the image seen on the computer monitor without proper compensation for the problems mentioned above inherent in all computer systems when viewing video--whether DV captures or DVD video.

Response to your number 2: I absolutely prefer the Canopus captures over the DataVideo. I don't have any "pro" equipment, so, I can't give an objective measurement of color rendition. Whether or not the color rendition is actually true to some NTSC format standards? I don't know.

All I can say is this: I find the Canopus captures much more pleasant. The Canopus captures look more like the source material than captures done with the DataVideo.

That which I want is beautiful color. The Canopus does it. If the source material has it to offer, the Canopus captures it.

This past weekend, I didn't get around to the comparison testing as I had planned. Know why? It's because I was too busy enjoying Canopus captures and transcoding stuff to MPEG 2 for DVD-R.

It's going to take me a while to settle down from the thrill of being able to use standard settings in MPEG encoders to get a rapid transcode from DV to MPEG 2.

With the DataVideo DAC-100, there was so much objectionable junk in captures, I had to tweak software MPEG encoders to the highest precision settings in order to get a file that looked good. This, of course, meant that the time required was multiplied 5 to 10 times normal.

With the Canopus ADVC-100 captures, I don't have to filter out all that junk--because it's not there !!!!

I can just use the standard settings of things like MainConcept MPEG Encoder 1.4 or CinemaCraft SP 2.5 and let the software convert in less time than I ever thought possible on this old and slow 733MHz computer.

It's funny. DataVideo captures required special MPEG encoder settings in order to avoid motion blur. With the Canopus? Motion is not a problem. Even using standard MPEG encoder settings, Canopus captures result in smooth non-blurred motion after transcoding to MPEG 2.

Why is that? I don't know. I guess it's just because there's so much less noise in the signal when processed by the Canopus. All that noise introduced by the DataVideo passed so many tiny moving bits of junk to the MPEG encoders, there must have been too much for algorithm evaluation in each macroblock to determine the true outlines of moving objects.

I have read the postings about the Canopus product and its "over saturated" color. For myself? I cannot see it.

What I do see is beautiful color. If there's too much red, it's certainly not objectionable to me. To me, it looks just like the source material.

If there is some variation from NTSC norms for color reproduction--I just don't care--because of all the wonderful things that the Canopus does.

I also wonder if those who complain about oversaturation might also have the Canopus switches set incorrectly.

There's an IRE setting. That stands for Institute of Radio Engineers. (An IRE = 1/140 volt ... for whatever that might be worth.)

In our discussion, however, IRE is used to refer to the lowest signal voltage that shall represent true black.

In the U.S., we use 7.5 IRE units to represent true black. In many other countries, they use 0 IRE units to represent true black.

The incorrect setting for "IRE" on the Canopus or the DataVideo, will affect not only "black" but all other "colors." So, I wonder if those who complain about "oversaturation" have actually set the IRE to the incorrect setting?

A problem occurs when you capture DV (Digital Video)--which refers not just to anything captured in a digital format, but, DV refers to the specific format used in the Canopus ADVC-100, the DataVideo DAC-100, and most of the consumer level digital video cameras.

Some believe that the DV format should, by definition, use IRE 0 for black. As I understand it, however, not all DV video cameras use 0 for black.

I guess that it is possible, those who choose 0 as the IRE setting for the Canopus are doing so because they believe that the DV format corresponds to IRE 0 with no exceptions. When capturing from most analog sources, however, we should use 7.5 IRE ( I think). Overall, however, changing the IRE setting will affect all colors.

I dunno. These are just my guesses based on incomplete information.

All I can say is ... whether or not the Canopus color is technically accurate ... I see it as purely beautiful. Reds are red. Greens are green. Yellows are yellow. Blues are blue. Black is black. White is white.

Add to that the fact that the signal is so much more pure than the DataVideo DAC-100 ... and I have to choose the Canopus ADVC-100 output as the more enticing and pleasantly viewable.

--vj2k