Capturing both fields??

[thefox149]

I currently cap at 352x288 res but people having being saying to cap at352x576 I have compared the 2 and the only difference I have seen is so far file size (intial capture). The end result seems to be the same (quality wise) as when I cap and encode at 352x288... any comments

[fmctm1sw]

I currently cap at 352x288 res but people having being saying to cap at352x576 I have compared the 2 and the only difference I have seen is so far file size (intial capture). The end result seems to be the same (quality wise) as when I cap and encode at 352x288... any comments

Good for you! My stuff at 352x240 (NTSC) was horrible. You can find an explanation of the fields thing (and many other things) at lukesvideo.com

[thefox149]

thanks fmctm1sw

I have checked it out and they say what I am doing is fine although capping higher would add more detail it can also cause interlacing probs later. I will continue capping at 352x 288 (25fps over here in PAL land) cause I get great result and a decent file size you know what they say "if it aint broke don't fix it". Pretty interesting site that "lukesvideo" not as good as this site> I reckon I vist this site 50 times at day.

cheers

[flaninacupboard]

i think single field capping is fine in the UK. a lot of tv shows within the past five or so years are shot progressively (so an extra field doesn't do much) and all films are shown progressively (unlike NTSC systems where 24fps film is strtched out to 30fps, it can look very nasty!) a good example is the league of gentlemen. shot on lovely anamorphic progressive video. personally i do cap both fields, but onle because i make them into dvd's, as opposed to vcd's. they'll look great once i've saved enough for that plasma......

[labrat99]

It may well be something to do with PAL vs. NTSC because until I started capturing both fields, the VCDs that I had made looked terrible! Now, they are quite watchable on my TV set and excellent quality on a computer monitor.

But, as was said in an earlier post, If you're happy with the results your getting there's no real need to change. Good Luck.

[willy_annand]

It may well be something to do with PAL vs. NTSC

I think so too, here in Canada we have NTSC. I need to capture 640x480 to get good quality. 352x240 gave me almost unwatchable results.

[thefox149]

have been trying to look into this but all I can find is that newer PAL vids and recordings don't require capping both fields.....maybe it's only benefical capping both fields with older tapes as I only cap from newer tapes...will definalty give older tapes a try....

[flaninacupboard]

as i said in my previous post, feature films played back in PAL are progressive, they are not interlaced, and do not require de-interlacing, hence a cap at 352X288 will look just as good as a cap at 352X576 reduced to 352X288. in fact if anything the resized cap would look slightly softer. the reason americans (and indeed any NTSC country) have trouble is because the 24fps film is stretched to 30fps. this means one frame you see on screen is comprised of 2 fields from two different frames. hence if you only cap one field (352X240) then you will miss entire frames and it will look choppy.