Video capturing through pci tv tuner, stucks

[karib]

I have purchased a new video capture card, the avermedia tv go 007 plus.
My problem is that I cannot capture video properly.
I installed latest software from their site, it displays tv channels with sound. This is ok.
I want to be able to capture to mpeg4 video.
The default application captures only in mpeg1 or 2, but also gives an option for capturing .avi.
So I have installed several codecs in order to capture .avi file with mpeg4 codec(there is a 'configure' button in avi mode).

When I capture video in mpeg 1 or 2 I have no problem. The only problem is the big file size and that's the reason I want mpeg4 video.

When I try to capture in .avi file, whatever codec I use(cinepac, windows, indeo etc-not only mpeg4), the video stuck after a few seconds or minutes.
So something going on here. It does not seem to be a specific mpeg4 problem but maybe it is about these non-internal(to the avermedia application) codecs.
I have also tried several third-party applications for video capturing, many of them have received good reviews from users here in videohelp. None of them

worked properly because almost all of them require the use of a cable to connect audio out of tv tuner with line in of sound card. But avermedia tv tuner

does not have audio out port so I had no luck.


Is it something about installed codecs? I have not installed many codecs. Every time I installed a new one, I uninstalled others, in order to have not many

codecs simultaneously in my pc. But soomething goes wrong, like a conflict. Is there any other problems I cannot imagine?


What should I do in order to be able to capture video in the video mode I want(mpeg4-but it has same problems as the other codecs) without problems?

[jagabo]

Most codecs aren't fast enough for full D1 capture in real time.

Try HuffYUV, or PicVideo's Motion JPEG.

[mikiem]

Mpg4-type video takes a lot more processing (cpu horsepower) then encoding mpg1/2, or mjpeg as jagabo suggested. If following guidelines posted in forum doesn't help, try capturing at lower quality settings, frame sizes, fps, & reducing # of key frames. Couldn't hurt to try DivX as suggested on Aver site -- may even have special version or some integration. Read the Aver docs.

That said, the folks developing mpg4-type codecs advise [with decent source] to capture D1 in something else & re-encode, usually multi-pass.

Also read the aver docs, help files etc re: audio -- & shouldn't matter to many (most?) capture apps how sound get's in system (just select proper audio). Stay away from ancient codecs like cinepak & indeo -- so as John posted use HUGGYUV or Picvid or one of the newer codecs avail for avi.

FWIW, somewhere around a 2 gig cpu should easily capture into something like wmv or real at 1/4 frame sizes. A 3 gig should be able to do D1 if that helps at all.

[jagabo]

FWIW, somewhere around a 2 gig cpu should easily capture into something like wmv or real at 1/4 frame sizes. A 3 gig should be able to do D1 if that helps at all.

Keep in mind that the codec settings will make a difference. For example a computer might be able to capture with Divx at the codec's "fastest" setting, but not at the "insane quality" setting.

[karib]

Mpg4-type video takes a lot more processing (cpu horsepower) then encoding mpg1/2, or mjpeg as jagabo suggested. If following guidelines posted in forum doesn't help, try capturing at lower quality settings, frame sizes, fps, & reducing # of key frames. Couldn't hurt to try DivX as suggested on Aver site -- may even have special version or some integration. Read the Aver docs.

That said, the folks developing mpg4-type codecs advise [with decent source] to capture D1 in something else & re-encode, usually multi-pass.

Also read the aver docs, help files etc re: audio -- & shouldn't matter to many (most?) capture apps how sound get's in system (just select proper audio). Stay away from ancient codecs like cinepak & indeo -- so as John posted use HUGGYUV or Picvid or one of the newer codecs avail for avi.

FWIW, somewhere around a 2 gig cpu should easily capture into something like wmv or real at 1/4 frame sizes. A 3 gig should be able to do D1 if that helps at all.

I forgot to say that I want to make capture in 170-100 pixels resolution!
As small as possible!
So, is there a problem remaining about processing power?

I will try the Huffyuv codec but is it suitable in my case (small size video capture)?

What if the video stucks again? Are all codecs problematic?

[FulciLives]

MPEG-4 is a very poor codec to use as a capture format.

If you want quality then you should capture MPEG-2 or one of the other AVI formats made for capture purposes ... this includes HuffyUV and PICVideo MJPEG ... but for quality and small size you are best using MPEG-2 as those 2 AVI codecs make files even bigger than MPEG-2 captures.

That's just the way it is. As for the small size you can always convert to DivX/XviD after the capture then delete the capture file OR buy more HDD space by upgrading to a large HDD.

In short what you want to do is not going to work with any level of real quality.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
When you said:

"I forgot to say that I want to make capture in 170-100 pixels resolution! As small as possible!"

I sure as hell hope that you are joking and/or don't understand that statement correctly.

Here is a standard size capture (resolution is 640x480):


Here is that same image but reduced to 170x128 resolution:

[jagabo]

I had forgotten about it, but I have that same capture card in one of my computers (a 2.8 GHz P4 with HT).

The included software can capture full D1 with Divx if Divx's quality mode is set to "Fastest" (~50 % CPU usage). At "Balanced" it drops about 50 percent of the frames. At Fastest, with 4000 kbps CBR the video was better quality than with MPEG2 at the same bitrate.

With 320x240 and 160x120 frame sizes it was able to capture with Divx at "Balanced" without dropping frames.

I had no problems with lockups.

[karib]

After a lot of hours trying the codecs to work, I finally make the xvid codec work.
But if i try to move the slidebars/settings to different values, then the capturing stucks again. I have to use specific values in order to have the capturing fine. Why the codec have such strange behavior? Whether it stucks or not, depends on the values on its configuration?

Except from this, one hour of 170-140 pixels recording with low quality setting (i just want to capture, no matter the quality of moving image), takes about 500mb. I hoped with latest high-tech codecs like xvid-mpeg4 etc to have better compression and smaller file sizes. Any ideas to have proper capturing(without stucks) and very high compression?

To make sure I have the right codec, please give me a url to specify if the file is the same with mine.

[flemming kristiansen]

I suggest you try Nero Recode. There you can predefine the size of the outputted file and in this way set the compression level.

[unclebud]

You might want to try WinVDR for capture.

[jagabo]

After a lot of hours trying the codecs to work, I finally make the xvid codec work.
But if i try to move the slidebars/settings to different values, then the capturing stucks again.

Try the following settings for Xvid:

On the main Xvid configuration dialog press the advanced button. Set Motion Search Precision to "5 - very high" (or lower, but lower values don't get much faster). Set VHQ Mode to "0 - off" (higher settings slow the codec down a lot, but do not deliver much more compression).

Back on the main configuration dialog set the encoding type to Single Pass. If you need a specific file size use Target Bitrate mode. (Use a bitrate calculator figure out what bitrate you need.) If you don't need a particular size use Target Quantizer mode (constant image quality) -- the lower the quantizer the higher the image quality and larger the file size. Try somewhere between 2 and 10.

Except from this, one hour of 170-140 pixels recording with low quality setting (i just want to capture, no matter the quality of moving image), takes about 500mb. I hoped with latest high-tech codecs like xvid-mpeg4 etc to have better compression and smaller file sizes. Any ideas to have proper capturing(without stucks) and very high compression?

This is probably because you didn't select the proper bitrate (single pass, target bitrate mode), or because you selected too high a quantizer (single pass target quantizer mode). Also, remember the audio. If you're capturing uncompressed 16 bit, 44.1 Khz, Stereo audio that's about 600 MB/hr.

To make sure I have the right codec, please give me a url to specify if the file is the same with mine.

Divx at it's fastest settings is faster than Xvid. You could try that.

[karib]

These settings seem to work fine!
The sound setting is mpeg-layer3. It is the best for compression?
I did not installed this audio codec. It exists on my system. But it does not give any chance for configuration, I can just select it. But, there is another window in avermedia application that displays sound is 44000khz 16bits stereo. So this is a problem because I think it would be ok to be 8bits or mono. How can I configure this?

Is there a better alternative?

[karib]

Any help about sound?

[redwudz]

You could try the Lame MP3 codec.

[RabidDog]

As somebody else said.. capture ur video in mpeg2 .. then compress it afterwards to your desired size .. using something like gordian knoT .. this will give best quality of capture and best quality of compression.. but it is a two stage process

[Nelson37]

Answer to sound problem is same as I posted in your other thread. RTFM or find different software.

Posting your PC specs would be helpful in determining if you have the horsepower available for real-time Divx capture. Most likely not, from your current symptoms.

As for the codec problems, try this - say you have a tire on your car that is slightly out of balance. At 60 mph, no real problem. At 125 mph, horrible crash, death, blood, and destruction. MPG2 drives your PC at 60 mph. Divx/Xvid is going 125. Not the fault of the codec, the problem is that more horsepower is required. Capture with less compression and encode later is best solution for highest quality.

[karib]

My pc is an athlon 2ghz with 512mb ram. Is it powered enough to make the things work fine?

[jagabo]

My pc is an athlon 2ghz with 512mb ram. Is it powered enough to make the things work fine?

It depends.

Some codecs are designed for high speed, not for the most compression or for the best image quality. Others are designed or maximum compression and/or maximum image quality, not for speed.

When you compress while capturing the computer has a limited amount of time to perform the compression. Every 1/30 second a new frame of video and audio arrives. The computer has to compress both of them before the next frame arrives. If the computer isn't done before the next frame arrives the next frame may be dropped. With poorly designed software, the computer may even crash or lock up.

Windows XP ships with an MP3 codec. The first version had limited abilities (96 kbps was the upper limit if I recall correctly). SP2 (or at least WMP10) includes a more functional encoder.

Your best bet is to capture with fast encoders and then convert to your desired format with slow encoders that will optimize sound and video quality. This usually means video codecs like HuffYUV or PicVideo's MJPEG, and uncompressed PCM audio.

When the capture is completed go back and compress with whatever codecs and settings you want.

If you want to continue compressing while capturing I would think your computer is fast enough with the small frame size you're using. For the best (fastest, higher quality) results you should set your frame dimensions to multiples of 16. for example 176x128 will work better than 170x130. That along with LAME for MP3 encoding for the audio should work fine.

[karib]

Jagabo, thanks for your detailed reply.
I understand the technical matters you say.
But I think there is one missing point: what does the producer say about the product? It says that minimal requirements are x for example.
My pc surpass these requirements and I think I am right when I want a product to work as advertised. If it is needed a supercomputer to just capture(&encode) a small window of low quality video, then they are big liars and our systems are garbage.
Back to time, I have also buyed a tv tuner-capture card in 1998, a Lifeview. Never really worked. I always wanted one tv tuner-capture. That time I put the blame in a not-mature techology.
Now, in 2006, I also buyed this one. Not even this one can really work?
I am not as expertised as most people are in this forum, but how difficult is to capture & encode in just 170-140 pixels with 15fps and quality set to low? Come on, I do not want mpeg-2 full screen and full motion video. All these in an athlon 2ghz. Is it impossible mission again?
I love computers and their apps but these things make me sick.
I also have desktop dvd recorder for recording tv programs but I wanted a solution through my pc, because is even more flexible.
It is a pity that I cannot have success in doing a minimal tv capture.
I appreciate all answers to my problem.

[FulciLives]

Your problem is that you are trying to use an MPEG-4 codec for capture purposes. Both XivD and DivX are MPEG-4 but MPEG-4 was not created as a capture codec.

DO NOT CAPTURE USING MPEG-4 !!!

The kind of capture card you have is best suited if you use the HuffyUV codec or the PICVideo MJPEG codec. You can capture direct to MPEG-2 but generally this is best done if you have a 2.4Ghz or faster but it all depends on the program used for the MPEG-2 capture and the specs you use such as resolution etc. but truth be told the capture card you have is not really designed for MPEG-2 capture but it can be done.

There is an excellent guide on analog TV capture over at the doom9 website so I am suggesting you read this guide to better understand the process of capturing with your type of PCI TV Tuner Capture card.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Steve Stepoway]

But I think there is one missing point: what does the producer say about the product? It says that minimal requirements are x for example.
My pc surpass these requirements and I think I am right when I want a product to work as advertised.
...
It is a pity that I cannot have success in doing a minimal tv capture.

From your first post:

When I capture video in mpeg 1 or 2 I have no problem.

It does work. It just doesn't work as fast as you would like. That's like bitching because a VW won't go 200 miles per hour. Want to go 200mph? Buy a Ferrari. But the VW still gets you to the grocery store. Don't claim it "doesn't work".

Steve

[karib]

I expertised a lot about this.
Do you believe that I made a defragment to disk and it seemed to help? It stucked but not so many times.

How could I have imagined this?

Another question: is it possible to set the capture to be in black and white, and have many possibilities of a proper capture(not stucked)?

[jagabo]

Defragmenting your hard drive often helps with video capture. Remember when frames arrive from the capture card they must be processed right away. If the CPU gets too far behind frames will be dropped.

Read this thread if you haven't already:

"Why does your system drop frames?"

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=157660

Are you running a RAID configuration? Even though RAID should be faster than a single drive there are some RAID implementations that cause problems with video capture.

I don't know of any capture programs that let you capture only the luma channel. You can try setting Xvid to encode in black and white but I don't think it reduces CPU usage.