What analog capture card would be ideal for my needs?

[ArianK]

So, I'm pretty close to completing my setup for video capturing. I have the best of the best hardware with one powerful PC to do it all with.

I'm only left with one last obstacle in my wake, the capture card. I've dabbled with many a card and none of them seem to fit all of my criteria consistently.

There's the internal Blackmagic Intensity Pro 4K, which was terrible because everything had to be as tedious as possible setting up and after all of my efforts, I can't connect S-Video to it anyway, so I'm just abandoning that one.

Now I have two other ones: The Hauppauge 1212 HD PVR and the Hauppauge Live2 dongle.

Each have their pros and cons. In my opinion the 1212 is worse because of all of the compression, video and audio-wise, but in my friend's opinion, the Live2 is worse because of all of the artifiacting that's apparent with that one's capturing process.

Now, I'm going to present two of the same clip captured on each device to get a 3rd opinion. Let me know which you think is the superior capture and why.

Hauppauge 1212 HD PVR - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VRWn7edASMbjv1MwclpHJmc1W24x80EU/view?usp=sharing

Happauge Live2 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-QVsdCQAwXi295r9Hfu-8kxsDCfEm1Pw/view?usp=sharing

Additionally, the true answer may be that none of these devices are for me, and that a distant unit of which I'm not aware of is the true answer. If any of you could set me in the right direction in such a case, I would be most grateful.

Thank you kindly.

-Arian K.

[babygdav]

Canopus advc-100/110/300
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/308864-REG/Grass_Valley_602050_ADVC_300_Bi_Dire...Converter.html

Avermedia
https://www.avermedia.com/professional/product/ce310b/overview

http://www.magewell.com/capture/pro-capture

https://solarisjapan.com/products/xrgb-mini-framemeister-compact-up-scaler-unit

...

Depends on what you're capturing and what quality you're after.
There's everything up to broadcast quality $$$$ capture cards that'll get you great captures.

Ideas from cheaper to $$$ presented.

[DB83]

I looked at your first example. Compression wise I see no issue - a decent enough bitrate - although you might hit problems when you come to editing.


I did not download the second sample. That is over 1 gb for 2 mins of video. It appears to be a transcoding to a more lossless format so kindly confirm that. A native capture for that Hauppauge would be mpeg2 at appr 44 mpeg per min (6000 kbps). I would also do a capture using the default software rather than what you used. It may well suit your needs.


What is the source ? You said 'analog' but this is not VHS surely or have you already filtered it with some TBC or pass-through.


Unlike the 'comedian' who has replied above, I have used both Canopus and the usb-live so I can write with some knowledge. There are many posts on the forum that dismiss the Canopus. But these only apply for NTSC and, of course, your sources are NTSC. Also to use one of these you would require a IEE1394 card since all current mb's do not cater for the firewire interface. And add to that the ADVC300 is no longer available new.


But I write 'comedian' since he dares to even suggest an item which is not even a capture device.


So that others can contribute can you also confirm that you only intend to capture animation. Live action video might create other issues and you might also wish to do some tests with that.

[ArianK]

What is the source ? You said 'analog' but this is not VHS surely or have you already filtered it with some TBC or pass-through.

I did not filter anything, I'm sorry to say. Both were captured in the most base ways possible. Of course with the first sample there is the unavoidable video and audio compression, but other than that, I have done nothing to misrepresent what the devices are outputting, though I can see why you get that impression at first glance.

And yes, in this case it is VHS, but I also plan to capture Betamax, 8mm, and Laserdisc with the same setup; Barring HD capture.


Unlike the 'comedian' who has replied above, I have used both Canopus and the usb-live so I can write with some knowledge. There are many posts on the forum that dismiss the Canopus. But these only apply for NTSC and, of course, your sources are NTSC. Also to use one of these you would require a IEE1394 card since all current mb's do not cater for the firewire interface. And add to that the ADVC300 is no longer available new.


But I write 'comedian' since he dares to even suggest an item which is not even a capture device.

Good to know, but what do you think of the Framemeister out of Japan? I see that it has USB but is pricey and would like to know more about it before I invest in it.

So that others can contribute can you also confirm that you only intend to capture animation. Live action video might create other issues and you might also wish to do some tests with that.

I specialize in animation, yes. But live-action captures are definitely on the horizon so I want to be prepared for anything here.

Thank you for your response, DB83. ^_^

[DB83]

I do not think about the Framemeister since your topic is about capture devices and this is NOT such a device. And why would you need it ?

[ArianK]

I do not think about the Framemeister since your topic is about capture devices and this is NOT such a device. And why would you need it ?

I have heard that it can sharpen the image of a VHS playback as well, but by the sound of your response, I guess it wouldn't be so useful?

[DB83]

I have no idea and I would certainly not recc anything on the off chance it would.


Capture is only part of the process. If you needed to 'sharpen' an image (did not see the need in the sample you sent) then you would do that post-capture and not part of the original process since get it wrong and you end up doing the whole thing again.

[lordsmurf]

Canopus advc-100/110/300

This is horrible advice for NTSC. That method will cause a 50%+ quality loss.

You need to stop randomly linking to BS in posts.

There's the internal Blackmagic Intensity Pro 4K, which was terrible

Yep, that's BM for SD (VHS). Terrible.

but in my friend's opinion, the Live2 is worse because of all of the artifiacting

Did your friend capture lossless? Doesn't sound like it. That's user error, not card error.

Looking at the clip, are you confusing interlace with "artifacts"? Because interlace is not an artifact.

[ArianK]

but in my friend's opinion, the Live2 is worse because of all of the artifiacting

Did your friend capture lossless? Doesn't sound like it. That's user error, not card error.

Well, I had showed him the 2 videos above before posting them here and that was his assessment.

How would you assess these two videos, lordsmurf? I am very intrigued in your opinion because your advice has worked out for me in the past, haha.

[babygdav]

Let's see.
Op is talking about a high quality capture card that can do 4:4:4 captures of video sources, but isn't willing to buy the svideo to hdmi converter to get the job done with the Blackmagic (besides the framemeister $$$ there are $ svideo to hdmi converters for $20~).

Instead, trying to decide between two choices that are "worse" for this or "worse" for that - ie. Open to suggestions about other analog video to digital converters.

...

This site has a search.
So op can easily research devices like the Canopus
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/390949-Canopus-ADVC-100-has-a-TBC-after-all

And alternatives
https://www.videohelp.com/capturecards?CaptureCard=&videoin=1&searchconnection=Any&pri...orderby=Rating

....

Yes, dv video out of a canopus is 4:1:1 quality, but easy to setup, capture as many have done and reviewed (above capture cards list). I've done the same as well - plug in firewire card, plug in canopus, plug in video source. Play on deck, start capture software record and walk away. Not hard at all, works.

...

Now, I did provide the alternative high end suggestion - Magewell - which can do 4:4:4 10-bit captures.

Up to the op whether to go for the high end, high quality capture, or give up and try a lower end, lower quality capture device. But given that the op has the "best PC" and wants to capture across a range of input devices, may need to get the Magewell working, possibly adding with external tbc given the age of the sources, if "best" capture quality is desired.
After all, "best quality capture cards" has been asked and answered before (E.g. https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/392839-pcie-capture-card-for-vhs).

[DB83]

I think I need to go back to the opticians.


Otherwise do point out in any of the posts, other than the one above, where 4:4:4 is discussed.

[babygdav]

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/intensitypro4k/techspecs/W-INT-05
http://www.magewell.com/capture/pro-capture

Product specs pages - 4:4:4 10-bit...

[DB83]

Well he has already discounted the blackmagic and the magewell is your suggestion. And neither are proof that he wants to go down that route.


And uncompressed is overkill for VHS sources even if his system can support it.

[ArianK]

Well he has already discounted the blackmagic and the magewell is your suggestion. And neither are proof that he wants to go down that route.


And uncompressed is overkill for VHS sources even if his system can support it.

Yes, to me disqualifying Blackmagic and Magewell, but I'd rather capture uncompressed than compressed, unless the compression is REALLY good.

[DB83]

Coming back to my very first reply and the unanswered part. What codec is that Hauppauge >> amarec sample in ?. 1 gig per 2 mins = 30 gig per hour which suggests lossless. Compressed, yes, but no where as much as AVC, Mpeg2 or even DV for that matter. A perfectly acceptable compromise against pure uncompressed which, if memory serves, is 2 gb per second.

[ArianK]

Coming back to my very first reply and the unanswered part. What codec is that Hauppauge >> amarec sample in ?. 1 gig per 2 mins = 30 gig per hour which suggests lossless. Compressed, yes, but no where as much as AVC, Mpeg2 or even DV for that matter. A perfectly acceptable compromise against pure uncompressed which, if memory serves, is 2 gb per second.

My apologies. AVC is the codec for the 1212 capture. HuffYUV for the Live2 capture.

[DB83]

As I thought. And lordsmurf addressed the 'artifacting'. That being said you may already have your ideal card.


Test it again but with live action.

[lordsmurf]

Product specs pages - 4:4:4 10-bit...

Let's see.
Op is talking about a high quality capture card that can do 4:4:4 captures

No. The source is 4:2:2,so why do you insist on discussing 4:4:4? Almost nothing is 4:4:4. That just wastes bitrate on nothing. Nowhere did the OP mention anything about 4:4:4, nor should he, nor should you.

HuffYUV for the Live2 capture.

I see nothing wrong with using this card.

Any artifacts your friend saw must have been from a post-lossless H.264 version, or some sort of in-hardware VCR/DVD processing. Because the codec is lossless. (Technically, yes, there are rounding errors, resulting in hard-to-see artifacts, but that was using a Huffyuv from 2 decades ago. I've not see lossy lossless Huffyuv in at least a decade now.)

It does likely clip illegal YUV sub-black black (0-15), but if not restoring underexposed footage, it should not matter.

[dellsam34]

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/intensitypro4k/techspecs/W-INT-05
http://www.magewell.com/capture/pro-capture

Product specs pages - 4:4:4 10-bit...

None of those cards are designed for VHS, It's like commuting to work with a Ferrari.

[ArianK]

------

[Cornucopia]

Pretty confident that both those cards are capable of 4:2:2 and 4:2:0, as well as 4:4:4.

Not trying to be contrarian, but both those cards COULD work well for vhs, *IF* supplied with a clean signal. Aka requiring TBC. Just sayin'.

Scott

[babygdav]

1. Absolutely nothing wrong with 4:4:4 10-bit capture.
It's identical to people wanting their music in 192khz 96bit WAV/FLAC recordings from their old tapes/LP/analog/8-tracks even though they could use 48khz/16-bit.
Simply recording to the BEST available uncompressed capture format leaves the user with no drawbacks short of using more drive space.

2. Editing.
Should any post-recording editing be required, uncompressed recording format at higher bits/color depth/etc. allows for a more nuanced representation of the original image.
This is because the original is an analog recording and the recorded file is a digital recording.

One can argue bits/resolution/etc. all day long, but there are those who hear the "difference" in a 192Khz/96 recording of an LP versus a 48khz/16-bit recording.

3. Analog isn't digital

https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colorcomp.jpg
Notice the loss in sharpness/detail going from 4:4:4 to the poorer quality chroma formats.
Digital does this to images when converted to 4:2:0 etc instead of the best 4:4:4 sampling.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkz2-JVaYDk
What does this mean?
Let's say you have an original image where 1 row is:
Pixel 1 is 100% red, pixel 2 is 90% red, pixel 3 is 60% red, pixel 4 is 50% red....

If you record to 4:4:4, it'll still be 100%, 90%, 60%, 50% no matter what.
If you record to 4:2:0, depending on the other pixels surrounding these 4, you might get 90%, 90%, 50%, 50% in the recorded file because of the "lossy" 4:2:0 chroma format.

...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yXYxp0UiVg

8-bit color only has 255 steps for each color Red, Green, Blue.
So you can have a red that is 255 (100%) bright, or 254 (99.6%) bright, but nothing in between.
VHS is analog, so it can represent color in a continuous manner from 100% to 99.9999999% to 99.999998% to....to 99.6% bright.

Going to 10-bit can help represent the small nuances between steps (between 100% and 99.6% for example) with 1024 steps.
So now, you can have a red that is 1024 (100%) bright, 1024 (99.9% bright), etc.

Again, one can argue about not being able to "see" the difference, but the broadcast level equipment is designed to 4:4:4 10-bit because there is a numerical difference in the recordings and actual difference in sharpness/details (using 4:4:4 vs 4:2:0 that is INDEPENDENT of the source - the chroma subsampling chosen alone can degrade a recording). There is no downside once again short of using more drive space, but if money and storage space are not issues, uncompressed 4:4:4 10-bit is perfectly fine as a recording format for analog originals, and all other formats like 4:2:0 8-bit will simply lose information (guaranteed because you can't even record color nuances as finely).

4. Hardware encoder
You can use a $20 video capture card that can do 4:4:4 10-bit and a $$$ card that can do the same.
Same thing?
Not necessarily.
Without testing, you won't know which has the better hardware, thus giving you the better uncompressed capture.
(eg. poor hardware can output a soft, fuzzy, less detailed capture even in 4:4:4 10-bit mode)

Broadcast level equipment may not be the ultimate best, but in general, they are designed to give you a very good to great capture.
$20 capture card? No idea - need to test, and you may get anything from bad to great captures.

Professionals choose the broadcast-level equipment knowing they don't have the time to waste to test equipment, and are generally satisfied with a very good minimum.
Home users can buy and test all day long given Amazon's return policies.

[dellsam34]

Pretty confident that both those cards are capable of 4:2:2 and 4:2:0, as well as 4:4:4.

Not trying to be contrarian, but both those cards COULD work well for vhs, *IF* supplied with a clean signal. Aka requiring TBC. Just sayin'.

Scott

They are known to have issues even with TBC, look up threads yourself.

[Cornucopia]

Having USED both device families successfully with VHS (always with a TBC), I take those threads with a grain of salt.

Scott

[dellsam34]

Again, It's a whole chain of components not just a TBC, A good VCR, a good TBC, the tape itself and how problematic is, the capture software...etc. Expensive capture cards don't do magic, it's a whole lot more than just a fancy capture card.

[DB83]

1. Absolutely nothing wrong with 4:4:4 10-bit capture.

(Verbal Diarrhea removed)


.

Keep taking the medication. I am sure a cure will be found one day.

[lordsmurf]

1. Absolutely nothing wrong with 4:4:4 10-bit capture.

If by "nothing wrong" you mean needlessly bloating filesize, and using pricey card NOT designed for the purpose, then sure ... nothing wrong.

What does this mean?

For the purpose of this topic -- OP's needs, consumer analog conversion -- not a f'ing thing. Meaningless random trivia.

VHS is analog, so it can represent color in a continuous manner

No. VHS is about 6-bit dithered color in digital terms.

Again, one can argue

And yet, some probably should not.

broadcast level equipment is designed to 4:4:4 10-bit

No, broadcast gear is also mostly 4:2:2, because broadcasts are almost always 4:2:2. Of course, broadcasters rarely capture footage, so not a lot of "broadcast gear" to talk about in this conversation. Studio gear can be higher, but it also expects 21st century sources.

Professionals choose the broadcast-level equipment knowing they don't have the time to waste to test equipment

Pffft... no. Only a damned fool "professional" doesn't test his gear.

Having USED both device families successfully with VHS (always with a TBC), I take those threads with a grain of salt.
Scott

The problem is that others haven't had success. And these are not random newbies, but people that I know who know their stuff. That's also the precise reason that I've not delved into Blackmagic/Magewell HD cards. Overpriced, HD was the target (SD was seemingly an afterthought feature), known issues. Add to that how BM employees have been known to outright state VHS was not the target (and therefore probably not even tested during device R&D), but pro sources like BetacamSP were. And even then, the main focus was HD ingest, not SD ingest.

I wish this wasn't the case. But it is what it is.

Every time I've been tempted to get a BM card -- in the unlikely even that all users with problems are having PEBKAC errors -- I then read something even more damning. And so I just say "NOPE!" to myself, already doing enough testing/dev as it is. I don't need more aggravation. Maybe later, if I can find one for my $50 gambling limit.

[babygdav]

Well, good points on both sides.

Sadly, no one site has a full comparison of a vhs conversion through a. Cheap usb converters b. Pro converter cards c. Hdmi from vhs to hdmi capture cards. With and without tbc, and comparing a few vhs decks.

E.g. Would be nice to know whether a dmr-ez48's hdmi output can give a better input image than s-video out of another good deck into a good capture card using a well-recorded vhs in good condition.

[dellsam34]

HDMI is a display port, it is not a streaming port like SDI, iLink or USB, Although SDI and iLink display panels do exist, it's for the mere monitoring purposes of the actual video stream. So SDI, iLink and USB can be captured but not HDMI.

Why do HDMI capture cards do exist? It's a workaround for video gamers where there is no other high quality port exist on game consoles for raw video streaming due to copyright purposes, companies saw profit in those capture devices so they made them in masses. and because scalers do exist for scaling purposes from composite/S-video to HDMI, people thought well we can marry the two and make a VHS capture device, while it works to certain extent, that is not how a low resolution analog video source should be captured.

[Cornucopia]

That last comment was bunk.

SDI has much more in common with HDMI than Firewire & USB. And both hdmi and sdi and displayport can all be easily captured, as long as the streams are not encrypted. That's a different ballgame and a different conversation.

Scott