Which capture card does loseless capture now?

[HyperYagami]

I'm still on my ancient good old WinTV brooktree chipset card, mainly because:

1) Working with AVI_IO (which is a VFW app), which syncs up the video/audio pretty well
2) works with HuffyUV, since I much much prefer loseless and run things overnight rather than realtime lossy encode.

However later on I'll be upgrading my PC and obviously there will be no driver for those on (presumably) Vista. So now I'm asking...

1) Are all the newer capture cards these days support loseless HuffyUV if I want it to? Which one would you recommend?
2) Is video/audio sync issue a thing of past, given a lot of the newer cards have its own audio input?

(Does anyone still use AVI_IO these days? Just curious.)

THANKS!

[HyperYagami]

anybody?

[mark987]

I know LeadTek WinFast TV2000 XP Expert will capture uncompressed.
Yes, it would be nice to have a list of them.

[ronnylov]

I have a Terratec Cinergy 400 TV PCI card which works with VirtualVCR in WindowsXP. But in Windows Vista I have audio sync problems with VirtualVCR. However Terratec's own software does not have audio synch problems in Vista. This card does not work well with avi_io but I like VirtualVCR better nowadays.

Perhaps my audio problems is because of the lack of Vista drivers for my soundcard. Before switching to Windows Vista, make sure that you have drivers for all our hardware, including external devices like printers and scanners. My girlfriend can not use her printer in Vista because of no working driver available...

[jman98]

You won't like this suggestion at all, but I bet if you compared "lossy" capture properly done with what you are doing, you'd see that capturing AVIs doesn't really gain you anything. You'd have more options if you could live with MPEG-2 capture. At a high enough bit rate, I guarantee you that direct MPEG-2 capture re-encoded down to an appropriate bit rate (you're encoding anyway, so no big loss of time there) isn't really any worse that what you're doing. The best capture cards I have ever used don't do AVI captures period. They also don't have sync issues. MPEG-2 is lossy, you are right, but if you can't REALLY tell a difference between your AVI captures and a proper MPEG-2 capture that is then re-encoded, you're not gaining anything by sticking to this method. I doubt I'll convince you, but I felt like trying.

Keep in mind that eventually you are going to have to deal with HD captures and you can't do those in AVI right now. Since HD sources are lossy MPEG-2 anyway, but at very high bitrates, you gain nothing by capturing as AVI as it won't be any better than the raw transport stream, which you can capture directly through several ways.

[theewizard]

i have TV tuner card and a ADS-tech DVDxpress hardware capture device.

the DVDexpress does not have a tuner , therefore i have to feed it A/V from another source such as the output of my VCR tuner, DVD tuner to my dvd player,

BUT it does have hardware ( cirrus logic chipset ) mpeg2 encoding straight to DVD format/disc ( record to DVD disc ) or mpeg2 compatible files for editing, and it beats my tuner card hands down on the quality of the video, the difference between the 2 devices are undeniable

what i'm saying is don't worry about AVI , find a card with the best 'onboard hardware encoding' you can aford and i think you will be happy with the results

[thecoalman]

HyperYagami,

Most of your better capture devices are hardware based, either something like a hauupage for MPEG or Canopus for DV-AVI.

You won't like this suggestion at all, but I bet if you compared "lossy" capture properly done with what you are doing, you'd see that capturing AVIs doesn't really gain you anything.

I'll take that bet, Providing you have a DV cam we can compare, here's a 10 second DV-AVI clip: http://www.nepadigital.com/reencode/avidv.avi

Download then transfer it to tape. Capture via RCA from the DV cam. I'l do the same with my Canopus and I'll guarantee your results are worse. Note that I have already done this with another file but can't seem to find the thread, the resultant capture was nearly identical to the original DV-AVI file. If you're interested in comparing let me know, the Canopuis is packed away at the moment but I'll dig it out.

I've actually considered starting a thread for this because this is the best way I can think of for getting capture comparisons. Everyone would be working from the same source, the only thng that could possibly cause slight differences in the source would be the analog output performance of the cam.

[mats.hogberg]

the only thng that could possibly cause slight differences in the source would be the analog output performance of the cam.

That comparision would be cool, but slight? I'd imagine that'd make all the difference!
A fair comparision would be to:
1) Analog video to DV (using Canopus) reencoded to MPG (using softeware mpg encoder) at some bitrate
2) Analog video to MPG using hardware mpg encoder (like a Hauppage card) at the same bitrate

But perhaps that was how you meant?

/Mats

[thecoalman]

That comparision would be cool, but slight? I'd imagine that'd make all the difference!

I'm assuming analog performance is going to be basically the same from one cam to the next. It's the only solution that I've come up with for making capture comparisons. Nobody is going to have 10 devices to compare so it would be the only practical solution. It's not perfect but I can't think of any other way to do it.

As far as the comparison you could do both but i was referring to comparing the DV-AVI capture to a MPEG capture, the inference above was that you wouldn't see a difference between a AVI and MPEG capture. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. As for comparing a DV-AVI->MPEG to a direct to MPEG I've no doubt they would be pretty close.

If you wanted to compare a DV-AVI that's been encoded to MPEG against a direct MPEG capture I would think that the fairest comparison would be where both the DV-AVI and direct MPEG capture were reencoded to lower bitrate MPEG.

[edDV]

That comparision would be cool, but slight? I'd imagine that'd make all the difference!

I'm assuming analog performance is going to be basically the same from one cam to the next. It's the only solution that I've come up with for making capture comparisons. Nobody is going to have 10 devices to compare so it would be the only practical solution. It's not perfect but I can't think of any other way to do it.

As far as the comparison you could do both but i was referring to comparing the DV-AVI capture to a MPEG capture, the inference above was that you wouldn't see a difference between a AVI and MPEG capture. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. As for comparing a DV-AVI->MPEG to a direct to MPEG I've no doubt they would be pretty close.

If you wanted to compare a DV-AVI that's been encoded to MPEG against a direct MPEG capture I would think that the fairest comparison would be where both the DV-AVI and direct MPEG capture were reencoded to lower bitrate MPEG.

Three thoughs:

1. Analog output performance does differ for consumer vs prosumer camcorders. My lowest end Digital8 camcorder produces equal quality digital in and out to a PD-150 and ok analog import, but the analog output is off in levels and narrower in frequency response. I've also looked at JVC and Canon cheap DV cams and these also have marginal analog performance. Analog circuitry is expensive.

2. Seeing a difference depends on how you monitor the result. They will all look similar on a $200 K-Mart 27" TV, but may not at 1366x768 upscale.

3. There will be huge differences between DV-AVI and MPeg2 if you want to edit in Vegas or Premiere level editors.

[mz_]

I'm looking for the same thing. I have ALOT of VHS to capture, and would like to edit them to DVD and also to XviD. I used to have a ATI AiW 7200, but recently built a new system and no longer have a capture card.

I'd like to get a AVI or DV-AVI, and then be able to edit and to whatever I need to do to clean up the video. Some programs I use are CCE, TMPGEnc, VirtualDub, Sony Vegas, and Adobe Premiere just to name a few.

There's not much out there for decent AVI capture cards, alot nowdays seem to be MPEG2 Hardware based. The tuner card I'm interested in is the DVICO FusionHDTV5 RT Gold, but manily for the HD QAM tuner, and Digital Channels. (BTW, anyone know if this card Captures Digital Channels?)

I'd like to be able to capture some Analog channels (cable), but my MAIN thing is my VHS collection. So I was thinking, maybe something like the ADS Pyro A/V Link (API555 or 557), I think this would be able to do VHS(analog) -> DV-AVI, am I correct on this? And then I can edit in any of the various programs I mentioned?

[edDV]

...

...but my MAIN thing is my VHS collection. So I was thinking, maybe something like the ADS Pyro A/V Link (API555 or 557), I think this would be able to do VHS(analog) -> DV-AVI, am I correct on this? And then I can edit in any of the various programs I mentioned?

Sure it works but have you done this and experienced the personal and computer time required? This works fine for special material but doesn't yield to productivity.

Like you I have "ALOT" of VHS to go through some day. I'm looking for a process that can be semi-automated. It's easier to sort material in the digital domain so I am looking for a way to load hundreds of hours to hard disks and then use digital tools to sort the stuff. I know there are capture gems in that VHS ore.

[mats.hogberg]

If you wanted to compare a DV-AVI that's been encoded to MPEG against a direct MPEG capture I would think that the fairest comparison would be where both the DV-AVI and direct MPEG capture were reencoded to lower bitrate MPEG.

Please forgive me for disagreeing.
I have no doubt that a DV capture is better than any mpg capture. As a simple codec comparision contest.
But to me, the issue is what the end product will be. If Video DVD, the DV capture has to be reencoded to mpg, while hardware mpg captures does not, so why add an unneccesary reencoding of the mpg just to make things even?

/Mats

[thecoalman]

On the other hand what if the final product is for archiving? I archive all my DV captures as DV.

As always this debate could go round and round for ages... it's like the Win vs. Mac battles.

In the end you need to pick the tool for the job at hand. For archiving, filtering and extensive editing the choice is lightly compressed AVI. I include Huffyuv or other similar codecs in this category. DV IMO is the most practical.

If you want to get it to disc as fast as you can, don't have the time to work with it or space is at a premium then MPEG.

[HyperYagami]

thanks for all the replies!

Most of your better capture devices are hardware based, either something like a hauupage for MPEG or Canopus for DV-AVI.

BUT it does have hardware ( cirrus logic chipset ) mpeg2 encoding straight to DVD format/disc ( record to DVD disc ) or mpeg2 compatible files for editing, and it beats my tuner card hands down on the quality of the video, the difference between the 2 devices are undeniable

See that's the thing I'm not sure is that, when you have a hardware MPEG based encoder...is it going to give me CBR output? I use CCE to multipass + VBR the stuff to DVDs and I really don't mind running jobs overnight, and I'm still at the mindset where "lossless AVI + CCE -> MPEG" beats "realtime hardware encoded MPEG"...am I still right on that or things are so good these days that it doesn't matter anymore? Or is it because the hardware based stuff has better *hardware* that it captures the signals better to start with?

(btw, I only capture TV stuff off analog s-video.)

[thecoalman]

(btw, I only capture TV stuff off analog s-video.)

If you're just directly going to MPEG you'd be better off with hardware based encoder. The Hauppage cards get excellent reviews.

[ronnylov]

Regarding my earlier post with the sound issues in Windows Vista I have solved the problem by installing other drivers for my soundcard and conecting the audio output of the TV-card to the line inut of my sound card. So I can say that I am very happy with my Terratec Cinergy 400 TV PCI and lossless capture to avi with VirtualVCR.

[Haukedal]

I found this thread really interesting. Like so many others, I'm in the process of converting VHS tapes to DVDs and would like to do it in such a way that preserves the video without a lot of loss.

I have to admit, the jargon here is one level above my knowledge base. After a having done quite a bit of reading, I'm slowly catching on to all this video nomenclature. I'd be really appreciative if some of you might share your thoughts on my procedure for capturing analog video and perhaps answer a question.

Most of my VHS tapes are in pretty good shape. I'll be using a PC with a Pentium 4 processor running at 3 GHz,2 x 160 GB hard drives and windows XP Pro. Time is not an issue. I plan on buying a decent SVHS VCR (JVC HRS-5912, $140) to play of the VHS tapes. It doesn't have a TBC or DNR but I think my tapes are sound enough that it won't be a problem. I'll connect the VCR via S-video cable to a Canopus capture device and capture the video in the form of DV-AVI to my computer's hard drive. I'll then use something like Premiere Pro to edit the video and burn it to DVD.

What's's not clear to me is the codec issue. Does the Canopus device leave the file in a form that can be directly imported into Premiere Pro? How does Huffy come into play here? Is it something that needs to be used in conjunction with the capture device and if so, is it difficult for a novice to understand or use? Thanks.

[edDV]

...

What's's not clear to me is the codec issue. Does the Canopus device leave the file in a form that can be directly imported into Premiere Pro? How does Huffy come into play here? Is it something that needs to be used in conjunction with the capture device and if so, is it difficult for a novice to understand or use? Thanks.

Huffyuv and DV format capture are alternate techniques. The third major technique is capture to MPeg2 (hardware encoding) with a device like the Hauppauge PVR cards.

Huffyuv compression is applied during realtime uncompressed capture. The result is a 3x-5x compressed file that can be imported (and expanded to uncompressed) in programs like Premiere Pro.

Canopus type DV format capture devices encode the analog input in hardware to DV format (~5x intraframe compressed). The resulting DV-AVI file can be directly accessed by Premiere Pro type editors. Only frames that are altered by filters or effects/transitions are decompressed. The bulk of the editied frames are output to the MPeg2 encoder in first generation quality.

MPeg2 capture requires full decompression to uncompressed in most editors. Some editors (e.g. Womble products) can cuts edit MPeg2 with decompression only within the GOP (between I frames). There is an expensive plug-in for Premiere Pro that allows "smart processing and render" of MPeg2 files minimizing decompression losses.
(see http://www.mainconcept.com/site/index.php?id=7850 )

There is a cheaper $59 version of this plug-in for Premeire Elements.
http://www.mainconcept.com/site/index.php?id=6875

I'm not promoting any of the three techniques. They can each be appropriate to the task depending on workflow. A forth technique of course is the standalone DVD recorder.

[lordsmurf]

ATI AIW Radeon AGP cards.

[edDV]

ATI AIW Radeon AGP cards.

Yes, ATI AIW spans the Haupauge PVR and uncompressed capture segments.

AIW card can capture uncompressed (or Huffyuv) or hardware assisted MPeg2(hardware + some CPU load). Downside is software quality.

[Marvingj]

Haupauge is still good to me....

[thecoalman]

How does Huffy come into play here?

It doesn't , the Canopus is hardware encoder. Huffy is used for capture on cards that utlize the CPU for encoding.

is it difficult for a novice to understand or use?

The Canopus is basically plug and play, if you looked at the ratings under capture cards you'll find that the Canopus products occupy the top slots. One of the reasons for that is it's so simple to use. Providing you don't encounter the rare system issues that any DV device my encounter you can literally pull it out of the box, plug it into your computer and be transferring video in a minute or so.

[DarrellS]

Good to see a few people mentioning the ATI AIW cards. I was afraid to mention mine since most users on here don't like ATI.

I myself am still using an old ATI AIW 7500 and it does everything I want it to do. My brother and a friend both got the ATI AIW 2006 edition Radeon 9600 and neither have any complaints. The 2006 is down around $129 now. That's less than I paid for the 7500.

On one side you have cards that only do MPEG2 capture. On the other you have ATI AIW cards that capture MPEG2 and just about anything else you'd want to capture in.

[lordsmurf]

There are plenty of good ATI AIW Radeon AGP cards cheap on eBay.

[thecoalman]

Good to see a few people mentioning the ATI AIW cards. I was afraid to mention mine since most users on here don't like ATI.

I never got a chance to make a decision because it hated my tapes and I didn't have a TBC at the time.

[spectroelectro]

ATI AIW Radeon AGP cards are excellent and can be found cheap used on eBay, especially the older models which don't differ in any really meaningful way from new models. (I'm talking abotu the SD versions of the ATI AIW.) However, the ATI AIW Radeons have one drawback. They are notoriously oversensitive to macrovision -- even when there isn't any macrovision in the source, as with older VHS tapes, where the sync track may be wonky. This is called "false macrovision" and the ATI AIW will drop out or stop capture when that happens. This means that if you go the ATI AIW Radeon AGP route, you'll probably need either a Datavideo 300 or an AVT 8710 consumer-grade digital time base corrector if you want to capture from VHS.

That said, a used older ATI AIW Radeon AGP on ebay is cheap enough that even adding $200 for a TBC, it's still a pretty good deal. You will get a _lot_ more capabilities on an ATI AIW Radeon AGP card +TBC than you would by spending about the same amount on a Canopus external firewire DV capture box + card. With the Canopus DV capture box, all you get is DV. With the ATI AIW Radeon, you can capture to Huffyuv, MPEG-1 MPEG-2, divx, SVCD-format MPEG-2 using 352 x 480 (excellent for cartoons), H264 -- just about any format you've got a codec for. Some excellent MPEG-2 codecs, like the latest Mainconcept, will also do very good real-time Divx capture. So going the ATI AIW Radeon route really opens up your options.

One really significant advantage of the ATI AIW Radeon (or a similar card that gives you the option to change your capture codec in software) is that some folks like to capture HDTV in analog using huffyuv, then encode to divx or H264 and and burn to a regular DVD-R or dual-layer DVD-R and watch home-made quasi-HDTV material on their HD-capable DVD players via their home HD sets. Doesn't look as good as native all-HD pure digital disc, but remember that there's a vast amount of video material out there that will simply never appear in HD. We saw this with laserdiscs, where huge swaths of video material never became available on DVD.

[lordsmurf]

I don't think the ATI is any more or less sensitive to Macrovision than any average card. The only device on the open market that I would consider over-sensitive is a Toshiba DVD recorder.

[Haukedal]

Thanks for the thoughtful input.