How would i do this?

[dazco]

Actually, i do know how i can do this, but i wanna know what the best metod would be. I want to capture VHS with a AverMedia EZMaker PCI, edit the audio, then burn to SVCD.

I have cool edit pro and know a lot more about audio, so thats not a problem. But i'm pretty much a noob to video so i want to know the best method to use as far as formats are concerned. If it were left to me, the only way i'd know to do it would be capture avi, then save the wav as a seperate file with virtual dub, edit the wav, then add it back to the video via virtual dub, convert to mpeg 2 with another app and burn.

Tell me how i SHOULD be doing it. Capture as mpeg2 in the 1st place ? Or is it not possible to seperate the audio, edit it, then add it back with a mpeg2 format? How would you do it?

[lordsmurf]

This is all covered in various guides.

Capture to MPEG or AVI. Here's how to decide:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/capture/avivsmpeg.htm

It is often suggested to encode audio and video separately.

You said you wanted an SVCD. Well, there are not many choices on "format type". See this: https://www.videohelp.com/svcd#tech

[jimmalenko]

If it were left to me, the only way i'd know to do it would be capture avi, then save the wav as a seperate file with virtual dub, edit the wav, then add it back to the video via virtual dub, convert to mpeg 2 with another app and burn.

Tell me how i SHOULD be doing it. Capture as mpeg2 in the 1st place ? Or is it not possible to seperate the audio, edit it, then add it back with a mpeg2 format? How would you do it?

I would capture to AVI, save the WAV out w/ virtualdub, edit the WAV, Save WAV again, then add the new WAV back to the AVI in virtualdub, convert to MPEG-2 with favorite encoder via frameserving and burn. That's just the way I *have* to do it with my setup.

You could probably do it by capturing to MPEG-2, and you'd just demux the audio to a WAV, edit WAV, save WAV, remux new WAV.

Either way is much of a muchness, really, because essentially, you're doing the same thing each time - separating the audio stream, manipulating it in whatever way you want, the rejoining video and audio. as LS's website says:

so if you're not touching the video stream, MPEG is probably the way to go.

[dazco]

Thanks. I never saw that SVCD requirements in my travels here. Copied and pasted. But there are a couple things i'm not sure of. One is that the encoder i'm using, bbMPEG, had the option to encode as SVCD and mpeg2 among a few others. Everything i've read tells me you must encode mped2 to burn SVCD. So why the 2 options and which one should i use?

Also, the specs for SVCD in that first link say 480x480 res. I don't understand whether that means it must be 480x 480 or if it means thats the maximum, or what? And am i correct in assuming that since any aspect ration that takes up the entire screen w/o padding, when burned to svcd will then have padding since the aspect ratio of svcd must be such that height and width are the same? This doesn't seem right, but i can't see how it could be otherwise if svcd requires a symmetrical aspect ratio. I know i'm missing something here.

By the way, i know it seems like i'm not reading enough articles, but i have read quite a bit. It's just that a lot of it is worded in a way that leaves me with as many questions as it answers. Not because it's not written well, but because this is all so new to me that i'm extremely confused at this point and i seem to find 2 more questions for everything that gets answered! So asking here helps me fill in the blanks that i'm missing after reading the articles because in asking forum members, my question is targeted exactly, while articles may leave certain details out that leave me confused such as the question above about the aspect ratio.

[jimmalenko]

One is that the encoder i'm using, bbMPEG, had the option to encode as SVCD and mpeg2 among a few others. Everything i've read tells me you must encode mped2 to burn SVCD. So why the 2 options and which one should i use?

SVCD must be an MPEG-2 file, but an MPEG-2 file doesn't have to be an SVCD. So there needs to be two different options.

Also, the specs for SVCD in that first link say 480x480 res. I don't understand whether that means it must be 480x 480 or if it means thats the maximum, or what?

SVCD is 480 *480 for NTSC, 480 * 576 for PAL, EOS. No debating this. That's what the standard says. All SVCDs must be this frame size in order to be compliant.

[dazco]

OK, but if thats the case then the sides will be padded with black, correct? It just seems wrong that you can't make a svcd that takes up the entire tv screen just as the original source does. Granted, i'm a total idiot as far as video is concerned. But itn seems crazy that you can't burn a disc that looks like the VHS does. Or is this just a limitation of svcd and you need to burn dvd to see the same result that you do when viewing the vhs itself?

I guess this is all moot tho because i got the avermedia card today and the results are so bad it's going back if i can't find a flaw in my use of it. And i don't think it's me since i've tried every setting in the softwares i've tried for capturing.

[jimmalenko]

EDIT :


Incorrect answer removed

[vitualis]

Umm... no.

480x480 with a display aspect ratio of 4:3.

That means, as long as you have full frame video, there will be no black bars.

The horizontal information fills the 480 across and the vertical information fills the 480 down.

On the PC, the video image will look long and skinny.

On the TV though, through a DVD player that understands display aspect ratios, will take the 480x480 and stretch it out to fill the entire frame; and thus, the picture looks right.

Regards.

[dazco]

On the PC, the video image will look long and skinny.

There ya go ! i've been asking this and looking thru the articles for 2 days to get this answer and finally someone simply tells me in one simple sentance. You win the prize sir !

I never even thought about the possibility that the video is not supposed to look right on the PC and that the TV itself knows to stetch it back out. Thanks for the help.

[dazco]

Hmmm.........actually, it just hit me that you said on a PC it would look long and skinny. Wouldn't it be just the opposite? I mean, lets say i capture a video at a normal aspect ratio. Then i encode it to the final file for burning with 480x480. Basically thats squeezing the width. So that should make it the opposite of long and skinny, right? Or am i missing something?

Also, should i capture at 480x480? Or since i will be capturing avi, possibly doing some splicing, then encoding to mpeg2, does it not matter since in the final encode to mpeg2 i can then set the correct ratio?

[vitualis]

      |---------------------|
      |                     |
      |                     |
      |      640 x 480      |
 -->   |       DAR = 4:3     |   <--
      |       PAR = 1:1     |
      |                     |
      |                     |
      |---------------------|


         |---------------|
         |               |
         |               |
         |   480 x 480   |
         |   DAR = 4:3   |
         |   PAR = 0.75  |
         |               |
         |               |
         |---------------|

People look "tall and skinny" (sorry if I wasn't clear before).

DAR = display aspect ratio (the relative width of the frame by the height of the frame)

PAR = pixel aspect ratio (the relative width of each pixel by the height of each pixel)

Regards.

[dazco]

People look "tall and skinny" (sorry if I wasn't clear before)

Whew !! I was worried i was missing something that would lead to more confusion !

Again, thanks. I can now burn SVCD and begin experimenting with settings. (at tha cost of a bunch of discs, but WTF)

[dazco]

Actually, i still have a few questions.

1)-When you make a svcd from a 480x480 video, can i assume that the TV simply stretches it till the video fills the width of the screen? In other words, lets say you made some VCDs which were be burned with different ratios with varying proportional incorrectness. Will the TV display them all by simply stretching it to the screen edges and therefore display correctly ONLY the one which was burned at a proportionally correct ratio?(ex:640x480)

2)-now, assuming that IS the way it works, wouldn't capturing at a non proportional ratio like 720x480 result in a non proportional look on your TV? If you capture proportionally (640x480, 320x240, etc) then squeeze it to 480x480 for the burn, the tv stretches out the final picture and your in proportion, right? Then why do people capture at ratios like 740x480 which would lead to an ill proportioned picture in the 1st place that would never look proportional as a file or after the burn? I don't understand that at all !

[vitualis]

You have to understand the concept of display aspect ratio or DAR.

Digital video all essentially have a "DAR" of 4:3 which is the display ratio on your common TV. DVD video can have a "DAR" of 16:9 as well.

Think about it. A DVD has a "framesize" in pixels of 720x480. That isn't 4:3 is it?

The MPEG video has a flag that tells the DVD player "play me at a DAR of 4:3" and it stretches out the video to do just that.

Unfortunately, for computer minded people, it is very hard for them to understand "DAR" since pixels on the computer almost always have a pixel aspect ratio (PAR) of 1:1 (i.e., pixels are square).

The framesize in pixels is completely separate from the display aspect ratio.

When you capture video, the capture software also assumes that there is a DAR of 4:3 / or actually, it just doesn't interfere with the DAR. That is, if you capture a full frame video clip at 720x480 or capture it at 480x480, the result on the computer is always that the picture FILLS the frame right? As long as you don't start trying to inappropriately put in black bars, the end result will be fine.

Just divorce the concept of the framesize having anything to do with the display aspect ratio and it all makes sense.

Regards.

[dazco]

that is, if you capture a full frame video clip at 720x480 or capture it at 480x480, the result on the computer is always that the picture FILLS the frame right? As long as you don't start trying to inappropriately put in black bars, the end result will be fine.

Ok, so if i capture at a ratio or whatever you wanna call it that is not proportional looking on PC like 640x480 is, then the result is that the frame is fully filled as you said. But the video looks proportioned wrong...IE: skinny or fat depending on whether width or height is larger or smaller than a proportional video. But thats normal because no matter what i capture it as, this flag you mentioned will be there telling the DVD or SVCD how to display it correctly buy stretching it to the correct width which will make it look proportionally correct. Is this what you mean? So if i capture at ANY ratio i choose, then bring it down to 480x480 for burning it'll turn out fine on the DVD/SVCD? I think i get that...seems a lot simpler now.

If thats the case, then when people capture at the max res it's to get the max amount of data in the video for a better quality, right? So i should capture as large as my card allows as long as i have the HDD space, processing power, and there are no other bottlnecks to cause frame dropping. And if it does drop frames i should either reduce the size or what? Bitrate? Would any of that be correct?

Did i follow you correctly? I tried to understand your post the best i can, but this video stuff still crashes my brain. But thats what i got from it, so what did i miss if anything?

[vitualis]

Ok, so if i capture at a ratio or whatever you wanna call it that is not proportional looking on PC like 640x480 is, then the result is that the frame is fully filled as you said. But the video looks proportioned wrong...IE: skinny or fat depending on whether width or height is larger or smaller than a proportional video. But thats normal because no matter what i capture it as, this flag you mentioned will be there telling the DVD or SVCD how to display it correctly buy stretching it to the correct width which will make it look proportionally correct. Is this what you mean? So if i capture at ANY ratio i choose, then bring it down to 480x480 for burning it'll turn out fine on the DVD/SVCD? I think i get that...seems a lot simpler now.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

If thats the case, then when people capture at the max res it's to get the max amount of data in the video for a better quality, right? So i should capture as large as my card allows as long as i have the HDD space, processing power, and there are no other bottlnecks to cause frame dropping. And if it does drop frames i should either reduce the size or what? Bitrate? Would any of that be correct?

Pretty much.

Though you may not necessarily get much more "data" out of capturing at a higher resolution, will often reduce the amount of visible noise.

I think you've got it!

Regards.

[dazco]

Thanks vitualis. preciate it.