Which is better

[thefox149]

Is it better to capture at 720x576 at picvideo 17 or caputure at 352 x576 at 20 picvideo then encoded to CVD which is 352x576 (PAL)

[andkiich]

Ultimately it will be your choice to whichever you think looks best.

Some say capture at as high a res as you can, then encode down to your desired resolution.

Some say cap at the res your target is aimed at.

Test both scenerios and see which one you like better.

For me, capturing at 352x480 for VHS is just fine, but for LD and Sat, I use 720x480, essentially capturing at the res I will be encoding in.

[fmctm1sw]

Is it better to capture at 720x576 at picvideo 17 or caputure at 352 x576 at 20 picvideo then encoded to CVD which is 352x576 (PAL)

Oh boy. Here comes the war again. You will find folks that say capture at the highest resoltion you can and convert. There are also other people (like me) that say capture at your final res because you can't tell the difference anyway. Try both and get on one of the these bandwagons!

[thefox149]

thanks guys ....i caped a vhs at 720 x576 at 18 picvid(dropped heaps of frams 20 frames for a 5 min tape).....I encoded it to VCD and was the best looking thing i have ever capped (the sources was average) ....i will be trying out different settings. I usually capp at 352x576 at pic vid 19 (i have only started capping at 20 cause i got another hd so i don;t drop any frames)....i don't wanna start a war just want opioions

[SquirrelXss]

TheFox19, what card you using?

[thefox149]

I have a leadtek A170DR graphics card with vid in and out ....so it's not capture card on it's own. I get really good results at 352x576 @20 (picvideo) but since i have gotten another hd i wanna be able to cap at the highest quality i can get ...since i am limited to my cpu (Celeron 1.1ghz) ,my card (which also has to do the graphics the same time i am cappping(which would account for the dropping of frames along with my cpu)...I am trying for a trade off that doesn't comprmise the quality.....

I am just going to have to experiment with more settings maybe i can squeeze 480x576 at 19 setting.

In the end result I am trying for is CVD standard and eventually DVD (hence why I am trying for bigger res) when I get a DVD burner. I am aware that 352 x576 is a legal DVD res ...So I may even make capped DVD's at this res......which if you think about it 352x576 @8000kbps is going to look better (could be wrong here) 720x576 @8000kps......so right now I am just trying to get the most quality

[thefox149]

some results for those that care

Capture Settings

Setting1

352x576 picvideo 20

Setting1
720x576 picvideo 16 (the highest setting i could get without dropping heaps of frames)

Encoded to VCD using CCE constant birate 1150 (obvious)

The 352x576 picvideo 20 is vastly superior.....will be using that ...as my end result is going to be CVD specs

[SatStorm]

The general rule is:
With NTSC, grabb the higher you can, add filters, encode
With PAL, grabb at the size of your target format, add the less possible filters (or not at all if possible), encode.

Some cards can't work that great with other resolutions than 720 X 576/480 or 352 X 288/240. They allow capturing at other framesizes (let's say 480 X 480) but the picture somehow suffers. Many users of Asus and Ati cards can confirm that they have good results only with 720 X 480/576 captures. But this is a hardware subject.

[thefox149]

Thanks satstorm as usuaul your post and replies clear up and add insight

I am able to cap at 480 x576 picvideo 19.

So i will be using that although i will be going down to CVD standards

Thanks for the advice guys

[MrKGB]

The general rule is:
With NTSC, grabb the higher you can, add filters, encode
With PAL, grabb at the size of your target format, add the less possible filters (or not at all if possible), encode.

Can somebody explain please why NTSC and PAL are different in this respect?

[thefox149]

thats a great question........

Just a few thoughts here

maybe it has to do with interlacing??? field size (althought Pal field sizes are bigger)

How about frame rate??? maybe this is also a factor....

I am just stating the known differences between the two....

[SatStorm]

No, it doesn't have to do with interlacing...
It is very complicated, I can't explain it easy 'cause I don't know good enough english.

With very simply words:
NTSC transmission includes the color info as is
PAL transmission included the color info inverted. The TV make it as we see it.

That's why PAL colours are better in practice. With DVD/LD even VCD you won't see this (if the device is hi-tech, low entry devices gonna saw it), but on a live TV Transmission and VHS/SVHS it is more that noticable (NTSC: Never the Same colour, SECAM: System even crapier american's)

So: Let's say we have a line like this:
----------

with NTSC, this line gonna end like this: -- - --- -
For TV the nothing is no info. With digital, a "no info" doesn't exist. So, we add filters to clear reconstruct this: -- - --- - to this: ----------
Also, we add filters to correct the colours, the luminance etc.

With PAL, this line: ---------- ends like + ++ + +++ and TV gonna reconstuct it as ------- (it is shorter the original info) and then gonna expand it somehow using technics to ----------.
But this is a fake!
But using CVS you have direct the + ++ + +++ info, before the ------- reconstruction inside the TV (PC gonna do the same thing during grabbing).
So, we play it "smart guys" and we grabb direct the + ++ + +++ sqeezed, like +++++++ and then PC gonna turn it correct -------. No colour adjustment needed, no filters to reconstruct the gaps! Some filters needed to remove tape or reception noise. But not "Gaps" noise, like we have to do with NTSC.

I don't know if this helped anybody, my english ain't good enough to explain it better....