What's the difference??

[gymnastgirl]

I just started reading this thread:
https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=321598&highlight=ati+aiw+9600xt

and am wondering if I am way off. On the 1st page about 3/4 of the way down, others seem to like the ATI 9.03 close up of the lady better than the Ulead 10 pic but I like the Ulead 10 pic better than the ATI 9.03 because you can see more detail in the eyes like more white between the iris and her nose, more color/detail in each eye and more definition in the outer rim of her iris on both eyes. The Ulead pic LOOKS much nicer but that softness or bluring of the picture is not worth it to me because it blurs out detail. I would like to see every color variation in my eyes in my home video conversions not to mention every possible detail during my athletic performances. For example, with ATI 9.03 I might not be able to capture the thin blue outline of my iris or my finger placement filmed at 20 feet away during one of my sports events that I would with the Ulead 10.

[thecoalman]

On the 1st page about 3/4 of the way down, others seem to like the ATI 9.03 close up of the lady better than the Ulead 10 pic but I like the Ulead 10 pic better than the ATI 9.03 because you can see more detail in the eyes like more white between the iris and her nose, more color/detail in each eye and more definition in the outer rim of her iris on both eyes.

I'm wondering if we are looking at the same picture? :P The reason everybody like the ATI one is because if you look around the cheek area and others you will notice what looks like blocks of color or noise. Whatever the case those are MPEG captures, if quality is your goal use the guides here to capture to AVI instead, that will undoubtedly produce better results.

http://www.digitalfaq.com

For example, with ATI 9.03 I might not be able to capture the thin blue outline of my iris or my finger placement filmed at 20 feet away during one of my sports events that I would with the Ulead 10.

Fingers maybe, a thin blue ouline around the edge of your iris taped from 20 feet away is never going to show up unless your zoomed in someones face. It's beyond the ability of the recording format.

What is your source, what cam?

[jagabo]

The one that looks most like the original is the best.

[thecoalman]

The one that looks most like the original is the best.

That's one of the reasons I provided him that DV-AVI file in that thread but he never captured it full fullscreen , only letterboxed. Even full screen wouldn't be perfect but there's really no way of telling what the original is supposed to look like as far as analog is concerned. At least not with any of the tools available to most of the people here.