IO Data GV-USB2 proc amp sharpness settings.

[baker]

Just wondering if anyone knows what settings should be used for the capture filter for this card. I wanted it as raw as possible in VDUB.

I have made a small capture with the sharpness at 128 (middle ground) and instead of being neither sharpening or softening the image, I felt like it added too much sharpness to it. To add extra confusion, the default is 16 (out of 256).

Has anyone examined these settings to see if there's an optimum to make them as raw as possible?

Image attached.


[Attachment 91165 - Click to enlarge]

[Sharc]

My "standard" settings:
Brightness: 128
Contrast: 90....100
Sharpness: 0 or leave at default 16.
For brightness and contrast settings use the histogram. Depends on your setup.

[baker]

Hey Sharc!

Thanks for the reply.

The fact that the default was 16 and not 128, made me skeptical that it's correct, it's good to know others are just leaving it as is.

I did some tests at 16, 64 and 128 sharpness, and all I really noticed was that at 128 sharpness, the bitrate went through the roof, presumably from all the noise that got amplified.

[lollo]

A comparison of sharpness settings here: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/418973-Info-IOData-GV-USB2-capturable-range#post2781651

[baker]

A comparison of sharpness settings here: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/418973-Info-IOData-GV-USB2-capturable-range#post2781651

Oh thanks so much for this! I did actually search the forum for a test similar to this and couldn't find anything.

I've actually done tests at 16, 64 and 128 sharpness. Unfortunatly this was done on a crappy VCR I just happen to have wired up and the only VHS was one with a test tape on it. I'll post them though in case anyone wants to comment, but it might be a bit futile.
(Also just noticed that the 16 one is not the same frame, but should still give an idea).

16:

[Attachment 91169 - Click to enlarge]
64:

[Attachment 91170 - Click to enlarge]
128:

[Attachment 91171 - Click to enlarge]

Also: Sharc I just noticed you talk a lot about different dirvers giving different results. Any recommended driver version for trouble free PAL results? I'm not going too mad on the detail for this setup. Best middle of the road settings is what I was aiming for.

[Sharc]

Driver for GV-USB2 is 1.1.0.93, dated 28.06.2010.

[Alwyn]

I'd leave it at default. "Middle" is not best, for example, the contrast on 105 is better than "in the middle" of 128. The default values have been chosen by IOData for a reason so there's probably a good argument for leaving them there for the Sharpness, at least. Brightness and Contrast are very different kettles of fish, where each tape may need adjustments.

Using Imgsli, you can see the difference between 64 and 128. 16 and 64 are much closer:

https://imgsli.com/NDQ5NzU0/1/2

[baker]

Thanks Sharc for the driver number!
Thanks for that comparison Alwyn!

I notice looking at the difference between 16 and 64 in that comparison, that certain parts that naturally blur together, have their pixels flug hard in one direction at 64. Like if you have a slow gradient, the pixel colour slowly changes, but at 64, you suddenly get pixels beside each other that are complete opposites and you lose the slow change in colour you'd expect. To me, this is an additional sharpness being added.

Long story short, I'll stick with 16!

[Alwyn]

BTW @Baker, here at VH you'll get a wider audience, more actual help and a more balanced view on life than you will at DigitalFAQ.

[lollo]

BTW @Baker, here at VH you'll get a wider audience, more actual help and a more balanced view on life than you will at DigitalFAQ.

I do not follow digitalFaq since years, but no surprize: that charlatan is still spreading his bullshit and lies in his forum.

Luckily he's not allowed to do that elsewhere without being exposed as a liar.

[lordsmurf]

BTW @Baker, here at VH you'll get a wider audience, more actual help and a more balanced view on life than you will at DigitalFAQ.

I do not follow digitalFaq since years, but no surprize: that charlatan is still spreading his bullshit and lies in his forum.
Luckily he's not allowed to do that elsewhere without being exposed as a liar.

I'm just going to leave this right here:

I saw your dupe/clone thread at VH.

The outcome was that you're now seeing what I've said all along: the card has flaws. Multiple issues. Not the worst card out there, but also far from best. All cards have at least 1-2 flaws (nothing is flawless), but the point is that GV-USB2 has a much higher concentration of issues (3-5 issues minimum).

VH is also where the meme was started (then parroted on Reddit), solely due to overly vocal users. Furthermore, I've never understood why lollo and Alwyn shill so hard for this card. You'd think they were getting kickbacks (or reach-arounds?) for the amount of aggressive defending they do of GV-USB2 (and by extension, AmaRecTV, the only software that really works with it, and an inferior software at that). Both of them were members of this site (lollo2, Hushpower), but left due to nasty disagreements over GV-USB2 and AmaRecTV. Essentially, I would not allow their false claims to go unchecked, I detest misinformation. I just do not understand their aggressive attitudes, nor their ignoring and down-playing serious issues. Note that neither of them do capturing at any volume (ie, not enough times to see/notice problems), nor with any professional usage. Most GV-USB2 lovers are just low-end home users with "beer goggles" to quality.

If you want a GV-USB2, fine, but do it for the right reasons: you have determined it's best for your needs.

But if you see flaws, and cannot fix those, then trust your instincts. Verify. And I've/we've verified it for you. GV-USB2 sharpness is crap. Your not wrong, you see what you see. The solution is (a) better card, or (b) live with the flaws.

Sharc is awesome. But he, lollo and Alwyn all speak from PAL experience. That card has less flaws on PAL sources. But for NTSC, you can essentially ignore anything they say, as the card far more mishandles NTSC footage.

Seriously, honestly, capture cards should not be this hard. GV-USB2 has too much friction. Even the PITA install process of AIW is not that bad.

~ from digitalFAQ.com thread on GV-USB2

[lollo]

I'm just going to leave this right here

A sequence of lies, dismantled by the facts:

for the amount of aggressive defending they do of GV-USB2

GV-USB2 is simply one of the best capture card, in pair with Pinnacle 710-USB and Ati 600 USB, and together with the Hauppauge USB-Live 2, as shown by many available comparisons. You do not want tme o repost the links for the umpteenth time, right?

fand by extension, AmaRecTV, the only software that really works with it, and an inferior software at that)

For modern cards with integrated audio/video capture capabilities, AmarecTV is simply the best software, as proven by many users experiments here and in digitalFaq forums, because its capabilities to keep a/v in synch and its accurate report.

ignoring and down-playing serious issues

There are 0 (zero) serious issues with GV-USB2. If you have some, just post it and bring evidences.

Note that neither of them do capturing at any volume (ie, not enough times to see/notice problems), nor with any professional usage.

Complete bullshit. As I wrote many times, I'm the head of the video activities in many fan's group of old sci-fi shows. As such, I captured myself hundred of tapes from many different specs, and succesfully supervised another set of hundred captures. And the very few example of my captures that I posted, talk for themself.

You should avoid personal attacks and bizarre theories about people you do not know, but rather provide facts.

GV-USB2 sharpness is crap. Your not wrong, you see what you see.

Another lie. There is no issue with the sharpnes in GV-USB procamp setting, as long as you stay at default value (16) or lower values (i.e. 0), as shown by the comparison linked in the threads. More or less the same as the Pinnacle 710 USB sharpness setting. Again, facts versus bullshit and useless blah blah blah.

That card has less flaws on PAL sources. But for NTSC, you can essentially ignore anything they say, as the card far more mishandles NTSC footage.

IOData GV-USB2 card is designed in Japan, for local NTSC market. That alone is enough to deny that false statement, together with the examples of capture in NTSC.

Once more, stop your biased and false comments to promote your sales, and post facts instead of useless blah blah blah.

I did not wish to talk again about you, but if you name me for free and attack me out of any contest, I will always be there!

[lordsmurf]

GV-USB2 is simply one of the best capture card, in pair with Pinnacle 710-USB and Ati 600 USB, and together with the Hauppauge USB-Live 2, as shown by many available comparisons. You do not want tme o repost the links for the umpteenth time, right?

- GV-USB2 is not worst, it's not an Easycap/Elgato/etc. But it still has some screwy/fiddly issues.
- Hauppauge Live2 is too touchy, and other issues. (I don't memorize all the problems for bad cards. I just need to know "bad card".)
- specific version Pinnacles and ATI 600 USB are mostly fine -- but nothing is 100% perfect. If nothing else, both tend to be idiot-proof to install, and instantly get excellent quality without driver/software problems. Workarounds are rarely needed.

Complete bullshit.
You should avoid personal attacks
I did not wish to talk again about you, but if you name me for free and attack me out of any contest, I will always be there!

I've tried to be friendly to you for years and years, and I will again now. But you continued to be very aggressive towards me, or just anybody that doesn't agree with you. And FYI, you've always "been there", and it's derailed too many threads here at VH. I've even tried to write a watered-down "I'm glad it works for you, but it may not work for others", in our conversations, but that still wasn't good enough for you.

I've always found you to be a great source for Avisynth topics, but I just do not understand why you get so venom-spouting defensive at the mere thought that GV-USB2 ("my precious!") has any faults at all. I'm not sure if this is a simple "defending your purchase" issue, or what it is. By contrast, I regret wasting money on GV-USB2, what a disappointment.

to promote your sales,

Again, you have it backwards. I'm not trying to "sell cards", but I do have the best cards "available for sale", to make life easy for others that are seeking highest possible capture quality. I never have more 2-5 cards at any time, because it's not easy to acquire this best hardware, properly functioning, and complete. (Same for 1-2 decks, 1-2 TBCs, at most, sometimes 0 of each are available.) Buy them, don't buy them, I don't really care. Hardware has slim margins, it's not some sort of "money maker" as some you want to think. For me, this is a "passion project" to help others.

Another thread derailed. Figures.

[Alwyn]

Another thread derailed.

Not really, your comments highlight what a sensible reader will quickly notice about the relative value of the two forums; on one there's ranting and raving about all and sundry but not much actually addressing the issue, on the other, practical advice and suggestions. The sharpness setting on the GV-USB2 is a recent example.

[lollo]

The sharpness setting on the GV-USB2 is a recent example.

Yes. This thread is symptomatic of the different behaviors:

- OP ask a specific questions about best GV-USB2 sharpness setting.

- He received from me a link to real captures performed with different settings and (my personal) conclusion on the comparison; in addition, he also get some hints on general procamp settings and drivers from others. Facts and real world.

- On the other side, he received just non sense comments about the quality of the card (hiddenly pushing him to change it and buy materials from that forum owner) and a general blah blah blah without any fact; in addition, the owner of that forum owner tried to belittling people like me, Sharc and Alwin writing about number of tapes captured and NTSC experience (all false concerning myself). Opinions, biased comments and just words.

Any further comment on my part is superfluous and each reader can form his own opinion.

[lordsmurf]

- OP ask a specific questions about best GV-USB2 sharpness setting.

Sometimes "answering the question" is best answered by not actually answering the question.

Patient: "Doctor, my weewee hurts, what should I use to cut it off?"
Doctor: "NO!"

or

OP: "Which setting should I use?"
Me: "None of them, that card has problems, no setting will ever be satisfactory to you, as based on your question and context."

Now, you may disagree with my answer. Fine. But that is my answer, and it is a valid answer.

belittling people

Nope, that's from years of observation. Alwyn mostly just converts and handful of airplane videos, and you dabble around with tapes as a casual user. You then do a lot of Avisynth-fu on them, and quite well at that.

Nothing wrong with that, not at all. But low-volume users miss things.

Any further comment on my part is superfluous and each reader can form his own opinion.

Indeed, the readers can form their own opinion -- and I want them to. I'm giving facts, beyond your scope, so they have a more well-rounded understanding of the GV-USB2 and it's supporters.

[lollo]

I'm giving facts

and you dabble around with tapes as a casual user. You then do a lot of Avisynth-fu on them, and quite well at that.

Stop your nonsense, charlatan, you're starting to look like a fool!

[rgr]

fand by extension, AmaRecTV, the only software that really works with it, and an inferior software at that)

For modern cards with integrated audio/video capture capabilities, AmarecTV is simply the best software, as proven by many users experiments here and in digitalFaq forums, because its capabilities to keep a/v in synch and its accurate report.

Well, it's quite the opposite -- AmarecTV is mediocre at best, mainly because of the constant dropped frames in every configuration.

I can't comment on the IO Data GV-USB2 because I don't have it.

[lollo]

Well, it's quite the opposite -- AmarecTV is mediocre at best, mainly because of the constant dropped frames in every configuration.

Completely false, as I proved on my side with hundred and hundred of captures under many different conditions.

[rgr]

Well, it's quite the opposite -- AmarecTV is mediocre at best, mainly because of the constant dropped frames in every configuration.

Completely false, as I proved on my side with hundred and hundred of captures under many different conditions.

Where can I find a sample comparative test? Yes, exactly...

[lollo]

Do you want me to send you links to captured files compared with dvd and dvb-s/dvb-t version of the same programs? Hundred of them? Just PM me. And while there, I can also teach you how to read and understand AmarecTV log reports, so you can understand its mechanism of inserting/dropping frames (altough I wrote about it in the forum some time ago). Yes, exactly…

[rgr]

I'm not interested in the files, I'm interested in the conclusions on the test tapes. AmarecTV logs are useless since they don't include information about drops, which are common in this program, and logging out
Just prove me (and Brad) wrong.

[lollo]

Brad already understood the mechanism (re read your thread), because inserted frames are later introduced when there is a drop (but the drop counter is not increased). Do the same!

[Alwyn]

AmarecTV is mediocre at best, mainly because of the constant dropped frames in every configuration.

No it doesn't. I just did another test, different config to last time, and over 90 minutes, AmarecTV did not drop or insert one frame. You need to stop making grandiose, sweeping statements that are incorrect. Probably a reinstall of Windows might help you because you obviously have a messed-up capture system or workflow.

[Sharc]

These days dropping / inserting of frames depends mainly on the condition of the tape and the condition of the VCR, IMO. Watch the analog signal delivered to the capture card with an oscilloscope (line sync pulses, field/fame sync pattern) and be surprised how ugly these can look and imagine how a capture card would handle these ....
In the past the hardware architecture of the PC often presented a bottleneck (video/audio clocking architecture, bus arbitration, mass storage writing speed, desktop PC vs notebook, etc) even when the CPU load appeared to be low. Vdub has settings to handle legacy audio/video PC architectures - which may unfortunately have an adverse effect on todays systems, especially if these many Vdub settings applied incorrectly.
There is little reason these days why frames (fields) should be dropped / inserted provided that the tape and VCR are in good condition. Performance comparisons would be more meaningful with mediocre/poor tapes. A comparison should also include the details and trustful indications of the capture tool's report (log).
Bottom line: Draw your own conclusions, valid for your actual case.

[lollo]

Vdub has settings to handle legacy audio/video PC architectures - which may unfortunately have an adverse effect on todays systems, especially if these many Vdub settings applied incorrectly.

Absolutely.

On top of that, Vdub was designed when the capturing was performed using two different cards (one for video, one for audio, with intrinsic relative jitter of the 2 clocks leading to embedded a/v asynch).
That's why you have that large set of options in the time settings.

And you also have an option, introduced later, to disable all those settings for cards with integrated audio/capture, at least in Avery Lee's (VirtualDub programmer) intentions.
Unfortunately, it rarely works.

There is little reason these days why frames (fields) should be dropped / inserted provided that the tape and VCR are in good condition. Performance comparisons would be more meaningful with mediocre/poor tapes. A comparison should also include the details and trustful indications of the capture tool's report (log).

Yes, and AmarecTV is detailing everything in its log, as I tried to explain in this post: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/419486-Dazzle-Capture-with-Wins-10/page2#post2787503

Bottom line: Draw your own conclusions, valid for your actual case.

Always!

[rgr]

AmarecTV is mediocre at best, mainly because of the constant dropped frames in every configuration.

No it doesn't. I just did another test, different config to last time, and over 90 minutes, AmarecTV did not drop or insert one frame. You need to stop making grandiose, sweeping statements that are incorrect. Probably a reinstall of Windows might help you because you obviously have a messed-up capture system or workflow.

But you haven't actually tested anything...
I tested both AmarecTV and VirtualDub in many possible combinations -- and only VirtualDub was reliable (certainly more reliable than AmarecTV).
AmarecTV, of course, reported 0 dropped frames, but unlike you, I had counted those frames and I know that in every case AmarecTV was simply wrong.
My reference point isn't the logs, but the source. I'm digitizing the analog source, not the logs...
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/416658-Nero-Video-Grabber-vs-Hauppauge-WinTV-USBli...00#post2765023
Reinstalling the system will definitely make AmarecTV work like VirtualDub

[rgr]

Yes, and AmarecTV is detailing everything in its log, as I tried to explain in this post: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/419486-Dazzle-Capture-with-Wins-10/page2#post2787503

"The best capturing software is AmarecTV, first because it does not generally introduce a/v asynch like VirtualDub do (especially with modern cards and modern OSs), and second because it provides a detailed report about what is happening during capture."

Three errors in one sentence:
1. VirtualDub does not introduce a/v asynch, it is exactly the opposite -- VirtualDub can resample the audio sample to fit the frame length -- that's why captures from VDub have better sync than from AmarecTV.
2. AmarecTV's logs are great, but what good is it if it reports 0 dropped frames, and a simple count shows that it dropped 22 frames out of 180,000? So where are they? I can see that these frames are there after capturing them with VirtualDub. And AmarecTV skips one frame every 8,000 frames with perfect regularity, "just because".
3. So AmarecTV isn't the best if it can't see what it should. A rare case -- it doesn't even "bother" with TBC enabled.
https://forum.videohelp.com/attachments/87807-1752419717/rating.png

[Alwyn]

But you haven't actually tested anything...

AmarecTV, of course, reported 0 dropped frames, but unlike you, I had counted those frames and I know that in every case AmarecTV was simply wrong.

Explain this then. The first frame of the capture is 545.


[Attachment 91380 - Click to enlarge]

It is pointless linking us to your old posts. They prove nothing.

[lollo]

Three errors in one sentence:

The only errors are in your flawed reasoning and your flawed test.

1. VirtualDub does not introduce a/v asynch, it is exactly the opposite -- VirtualDub can resample the audio sample to fit the frame length -- that's why captures from VDub have better sync than from AmarecTV.

False. In addition to my own experiments, there are many reports from different users in various forums about that. Just few examples because I do not keep all the links, there are many others if you search:

https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/13991-audio-sync-problems.html
https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/13502-vhs-capturing-glitches.html#post90733
https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/12986-amarectv-frame-inserts.html
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/415810-Rate-my-Setup-Capturing-Digital8-and-Analog...e2#post2750396

2. AmarecTV's logs are great, but what good is it if it reports 0 dropped frames, and a simple count shows that it dropped 22 frames out of 180,000? So where are they? I can see that these frames are there after capturing them with VirtualDub. And AmarecTV skips one frame every 8,000 frames with perfect regularity, "just because".

Once more, you do not understand the logging mechanism. Read and study again these posts:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/416657-Analog-Capture-inserted-and-dropped-frames
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/419486-Dazzle-Capture-with-Wins-10/page2#post2787503

When I compare real captures (not flawed tests) of TV shows and movies recorded on tapes with their DVD or DVB-S/DVB-T versions I see 0 (zero), I repeat 0 (zero) dropped frames on > 2 hours capture. The trusted source and the capture perfectly match!
And this is for hundreds of captures. Hundreds!

In addition, when AmarecTV reports a frame inserted or dropped, the comparison (again) between the different versions produces an exact match on frames captured/dropped/inserted and report.

In addition, the fact that a card drop a frame every a certain number of frames is not credible, because there are no scientific reasons for that, except a flawed test.

In addition, the fact that the nuber of dropped frames changes with the software has low credibility, showing in truth a weakness or a marginality of the capture (and record) system.

3. So AmarecTV isn't the best if it can't see what it should. A rare case -- it doesn't even "bother" with TBC enabled.
https://forum.videohelp.com/attachments/87807-1752419717/rating.png

Bullshit.

In addition, VirtualDub2 is not recommended by many as capture software compared to previous versions, because introduced a regression in the capture engine. I myself experimented that with VDub2 and a old OS (Win7) and modern OS (Win11) using an IODATA GV-USB card capturing an average quality tape, where Vdub 1.9.11 was performing better in term of dropped frames and a/v synch (as I reported in one of my recent posts about GV-USB2).

As Sharc properly pointed out in the general approach we all have about our findings (me included), you are just focused on your (flawed) test, and simply do not see the real world.