Canopus ADVC-100 supporters - make your voice heard !!!

[BV2001]

First,

Great post for all concerns.

Here are my opinions. I haved used
- ATI TV Wonder VE
- ATI TV Wonder PCI
- ATI VIVO
- ATI AIW 8500/7500
- Hauppage TV Tuner
- Hauppage WinTVR Hardware based card
and now, the lastest Canopus ADVC-100

To tell the truth, capture same VHS, Canopus is the best, ATI never come close, it doesn't say that ATI is bad, but the picture is not as sharp and color is not as good as the canopus. I have no drop frames / sync issues with either ( ATI or canopus ). The disadvantage for Canopus is it take a lot more space and only transferred at the resolution of 740x480 , ATI , I love it because it can do 1/2 D1 which is very good for VHS capturing. Of course, re-encode 740x480 will take longer maybe twice the time of 1/2 D1. I do have a very powerful computer to handle all of that. To me, it worth every penny to buy the canopus , trust me, encode to VCD is excellent and encode to low resoultion DVD with TMPGEnc make people jealous. I mean it.

[DaveS]

Point 1, camcorder doesn't cost that much more, but does a ton more.
Someone mentioned wear and tear on one in another post, I don't think anything on this one is in use other than the eye viewfinder and electronics, speaker if volume is turned up. He was wrong about motors and tape loaders ect.., they do not have any use in converting and don't run, at least on this one

One thing to add in contrast to the above is that the cost of the a/d components in the camcorder don't compare to the cost of the advc100. That is, 100% of the advc-100's $300 is dedicated to a/d conversion, whereas only a portion of what you spent on your camcorder is for the a/d conversion. I think that canopus does charge a bit of a premium for use of their codec in the advc100, but for me, the results have always been very good, and well worth the cost of the unit (incl the locked a/v sync). Better than I got w/ my canon camcorder a/d chip (which is only an add on feature to the camcorder which for its primary function, doesn't need a/d).

One advc feature which was mentioned but I think needs a bit more highlighting are the uses of the d to a conversion. I've used mine for true preview of my project output (from Vegas) (and, you guys can probably say why the DV output on 1394 to d->a converter --> monitor is more true in nature than an analog video out display card --> monitor). The other thing I've used my d to a for on the advc100 is for printing projects to VHS tape.

Overall I'm a big fan of this device. Throw in the macrovision defeat feature if you like to help equalize the price a bit to capture cards; still a great product for the $ imo.

[lordsmurf]

it doesn't say that ATI is bad, but the picture is not as sharp and color is not as good as the canopus.

COLOR:

While defending the ATI in this statement, I'm actually defending all capture cards accused of being lower in color saturation as compared to the Canopus.

This is an interesting point, as it actually holds no truth.

Color controls are often found in most capturing software. I can under- or over-saturate color all I'd like. I use these controls quite often, changing them to suit the final output clarity and saturation I desire.

As FulciLives has pointed out, and as a recent Matrox study revealed (a paper I read at matrox.com), the Canopus DVstorm and a few other products that use the Canopus DV codecs (as does the ADVC) suffer from an over-saturation of color. It reacts quite badly to pure green, red and blue colors, and is subject to noise and bleed/spread. It's also guilty of color issues with interlace, something hit on at www.100fps.com.

SHARPNESS:

As far as sharpness... that depends on several factors of the encode, including resolution and interlace. The Canopus may very well be a sharp device, sharper than most. I personally don't know either way.

I will say at 720x480, there's not much "sharp" you can get, depending on the source. Anything analog is less, and the digital-generated foortage depends on several factors of the render also.

The Matrox study looked a this too, and had some interesting results for the Canopus. The Matrox study was done in response to a horribly biased Canopus "study". Matrox re-created all the tests, and was honest about which was better at performing which feat, both at the software and hardware level. I saved the PDF on my computer, you'll have to look for it on www.matrox.com if you're curious. Canopus had some serious issues, but I forget what and under which conditions.

[alenhard]

I CAN'T BELIEVE NO ONE MENTIONED THIS YET:

THE ADVC100 DEFEATS MACROVISION!!!!!

[alenhard]

By the way- I think the advc line is one of the best ever for any type of capturing.

Someone earlier mentioned set-top DVRs (digital video recorders) taking over the market and replacing the advc. NOT TRUE. They serve completely different purposes. And as stated before- if you do any editing of any kind then capturing to mpg is a complete waste.

[lordsmurf]

I CAN'T BELIEVE NO ONE MENTIONED THIS YET: THE ADVC100 DEFEATS MACROVISION!!!!!

That's really not anything spectacular. Not even worth all caps. Even the cheapest $40 TBC can remove it (Macrovision is just an artificial video error inserted onto the tape) and there are known hacks for the few cards (like ATI) that actually obey the Macrovision.

[alenhard]

you totally missed the point- an entire page of posts about this and no one said anything about it. Despite what you say about only a "few" cards obeying macrovision, the truth is that there are hardly any. But sure, spend $300 for the ATI and another $40 for a cheap TBC- great idea!

[lordsmurf]

spend $300 for the ATI and another $40 for a cheap TBC- great idea!

Price range on ATI cards stretch from $75 for a ATI AIW PCI 7200 up to $500 for a ATI AIW AGP 9800. Spend as little or as much as you like.

A TBC can range from $40 to $4000. Again, spend as much as you like.

Bare minimum is not quite $125, and is not too much different from the $4500 setup if the end goal is VHS/cable/analog/broadcast source and purpose of defeating Macrovision.

[NightWing]

Another good intersting topic!

Was wondering on the shot from SW. I know there is a small problem in the inital setting of MS DV codec. Its set the resolution at 1/4 of what it should be. Could the "break" line be caused by this?

Some one on the Doom9 had posted a sample DV video shots using a Canopus 100 to capture a single and multi frames test pattern. It looked pretty good esp on diag.

Be nice if a test could be done with a easly to get standard like one of the std DVD test disk with a calibration test pattern. Then a true comparason could be run between systems.

[Bondiablo]

QUESTIONS REMAIN:
1. It was mentioned once or twice that the Canopus DV stream can be converted on-the-fly by the input computer system, thus giving the effect of MPEG or other AVi codec-based captures. Which software?

2. Heard nothing on MainConcept 1.4 front... neither here nor there... so I'm guessing it's a dud as I expected.

The more I read of this thread the less it appears you have any interest in hearing from supporters of the ADVC and just want to try and bash it even though you seem to have no personal experience with it whatsoever so, I don't think you really care about the answers to your questions but...

1. As I said before the ADVC will work with any software that accepts DV input, basically any software that says it supports DV cams. I've tried PowerVCR II, WinDVD Recoder and NeoDVD which all work and taking a quick look at the tools section it appears ArcSoft VideoImpression would work as well.

2. Same as above, looking at the new features on the first page for the MainConcept MPEG Encoder you'll see "Realtime capture to MPEG from analog and digital sources". I downloaded the trial version and tried capturing straight to MPEG VCD and DVD NTSC, the software worked quite well and the quality on the few short tests I did seemed very good, much better than PowerVCR II.

[lordsmurf]

The more I read of this thread the less it appears you have any interest in hearing from supporters of the ADVC and just want to try and bash it even though you seem to have no personal experience with it whatsoever so, I don't think you really care about the answers to your questions but...

No, I'm trying to shed light on what this thing really does. The questions I asked I truly want answers for.

There are lots of followers of this device, but when asked why they like it, the answers are often empty. Ever seen Crank Yankers on Comedy Central? It remind me of that character. I can hear it now: "Yay! Canopus ADVC-100. Yay!!!"

I truly like the ATI, but I'm not ignorant to the fact that other cards can be good too. But given the recent volume of Canopus vs ATI vs other card questions I get in e-mail and see on the boards, I figured it's about time we cut out the "yay, I like mine, yay!" mentality and get to the meat of the situation.

Since the DV stream is a transfer of device-captured material, and can be "re-captured" by the computer with codec-based AVI or MPEG, I'm curious how that functions, and given that, how the CPU load is.

The point of this thread is that there is more than meets the eye when discussing the Canopus ADVC-100. It's not a heaven-sent divine toy as many want it to appear. I think I'm being fair as possible. For once, I'd like people to analyze it, without all the fluff. And, as I said, I had some questions myself. Thanks for answering them.

One of the pages on lordsmurf.com will have buying advice. This device was up in the air for me. I'm getting a better handle on how to describe it and what it can really do.

[Bondiablo]

It still seems to me you've been awfully dismissive of the devices positives while occasionally creating negatives where there really were none, like making it seem the ADVC is somehow lacking because you can't find a VCR with a decent TV tuner and suggesting there maybe issues with software setup that can compare with getting an analog card setup and working properly when in fact capturing to DV AVI with the ADVC can be as simple as connecting your VCR to the ADVC, connecting the ADVC to your computer, starting a program like DVIO and clicking capture. Also, continually referring to it as nothing more than an expensive DV AVI transfer device makes it sound like it's just a glorified firewire card which couldn't be further from the truth.

However, assuming you really are curious I went ahead and did a few more tests. Using MainConcepts default settings and watching the processor usage in Windows 98's system monitor, during a short 5 minute capture processor usage on my system stayed steady between 70-75% for NTSC DVD, 50-55% for NTSC VCD and there was no noticeable change in processor usage when capturing to "Native Device Format" from the 5-10% I was seeing when doing nothing at all.

[lordsmurf]

How'd it look?

The MC capture I tried looked good, but since I'm on all internal cards, it dropped many frames. The MC 1.4 is not friendly with internals, only externals... or so many have reported.

The 75% isn't too bad, though I'd wonder how it fairs on others. You've got a pretty good CPU/RAM combo going for you.

I'd like to hear tests from others too. Surely others have tried this.

MPEG capture on this device would be nice. PowerVCR and WinDVR don't really count, though I'm looking into some settings for those programs too. Got a good one today for WinDVR, gonna test next week. MC looks to be the first real viable option to compete with ATI MMC (though MMC does benefit from hardware assist).

[trhouse]

The first comment on the link to the MainConcepts page does not exactly raise confidence about its press,

"I have similar experience to some of the previous postings. The speed improvement from MC is not as great when the mpeg file is large.
I ran 1/2 hour worth of mpeg file into TMpgEnc and MC and the result is:
TmpgEnc: 29 minutes.
MC: 23 minutes. "

[rhegedus]

Why would you want to capture to another (MPEG 1/2) format first? I presume most people capture video to burn onto CD or DVD. If you're going to do this then you're going to have to start working out bitrates in order to fill the whole disk - and you can forget about true VBR on the fly!

I capture VBR all the time with my ATI card, and have no problems filling the disc or coming close. (Actually, filling the disc isn't important as long as quality looks good and I meet my mark on time.) I put about 7 cartoons episodes on a disc, filling up between 3.7 and 4.2 GB depending on how the encodes went (some can be smaller than others). If I had to capture AVI first, I'd never get anything done. I'm crunched for time as it is.

My point being that VBR 'on the fly' is probably no different than CBR - VBR is only effective if video can be compared over time.

Can't you batch process some encodes whilst you're asleep?

[lordsmurf]

Can't you batch process some encodes whilst you're asleep?

I already do. The restore projects are done overnight. PLus I burn overnight (-RW test at 1x) and perform system maintenance and remote server maintenance. Very busy already.

Only normal quality video is done with direct capture. Without this, I'd never have discs being made at the rate I do now, and the look fine.

The VBR captures are actually about 10-20% smaller than the CBR. Quality is better on the VBR (higher max for same target size file). It appears to be like CQ mode though, and no way to estimate size.

[rhegedus]

The VBR captures are actually about 10-20% smaller than the CBR. Quality is better on the VBR (higher max for same target size file). It appears to be like CQ mode though, and no way to estimate size.

Meaning that your average bitrate is 10-20% smaller?

Over what period of time / number of frames does the ATI compare the video for VBR? i.e. normally, when using VBR it compares the whole of the video - but 'on the 'fly' you can't do this.

[lordsmurf]

The VBR captures are actually about 10-20% smaller than the CBR. Quality is better on the VBR (higher max for same target size file). It appears to be like CQ mode though, and no way to estimate size.

Meaning that your average bitrate is 10-20% smaller?

Over what period of time / number of frames does the ATI compare the video for VBR? i.e. normally, when using VBR it compares the whole of the video - but 'on the 'fly' you can't do this.

0-4500VBR compared to 4000CBR is my comparison. The file size on a 24-minute cartoon ot tv show is about 10-20% smaller. I've seen similar results on movies, about 15-25% smaller.

Again, it may work like 1-pass VBR or CQ modes, which also do everything in one pass, and do not analyze much temporally, merely the image on screen.

Lots of people are in my shoes when it comes to time. There are other things to do, cannot wait hours and hours just for a movie. Especially when quality differences are minimal at best (using good setups). And our overnights are already used for other things. Heck, some people merely turn them off overnight because it uses too much electricity and makes the room hot.

[dun4cheap]

While this has been a great topic, the bottom line is I personally will utilize both devices. Unfortunately, even with great posts and re-posts nobody has been able to list a reliable working environment for the AIW nor PCI Wonder scenario. This setup simply relies on to many other devices to function without headache. I am happy that Lord Smurf is able to get perfect captures with his. But most users are not as lucky. By the way while doing your captures have you tried moving your mouse around on the screen over the capture box? This also has an effect on your captures.

I have always battled 60cycle humbars on the coax, audio sync problems, frame drops and at other times decent captures with my cards. No real rhyme or reason. It certainly has been even more disappointing that ATI has not released a stand alone TV card with the Theater chip on it, as I do believe its a better chip than the latter BT chip.

You did make an interesting remark about costs for each product, every time I have updated my video card I have moved to the next best AIW which typically is $100 more. I will no longer throw my money away like that. The canopus will move with any video card update I do and save me the $100 and yes the macrovision defeat is a definite plus in my book.

BTW Lord, your web page looks great, but like my AIW captures sometimes they work and sometimes they don't, some of your links were broken.

[rhegedus]

Sorry, maybe I mis-phrased my question:

When you are capturing VBR 'on the fly' how does it compare the frames to decide which ones need more data, and over how many frames does it do this?

[BV2001]

I hope this can clear some as I had owned ATi and Canopus.

Canopus is only superb if capture to AVI ONLY. Capture to MPEG2 is ATi's strenght. ATi did a great capture with MPEG2 or 1/2 D1 resolution.

[lordsmurf]

By the way while doing your captures have you tried moving your mouse around on the screen over the capture box? This also has an effect on your captures.

Why would you do this? But anyway, on one system, doing that will make me drop frames. On the other one, nothing.

I have always battled 60cycle humbars on the coax,

I have this too. But it's the system causing it and is present on all coax, not the card. I have it on both systems, one is bad (cheap motherboard), one is almost unnoticeable (good system). A quick hiss removal filter in Sound Forge 6 takes care of it. Switching to composite audio removes it.

It certainly has been even more disappointing that ATI has not released a stand alone TV card with the Theater chip on it, as I do believe its a better chip than the latter BT chip.

The VE cards do.

You did make an interesting remark about costs for each product, every time I have updated my video card I have moved to the next best AIW which typically is $100 more. I will no longer throw my money away like that. The canopus will move with any video card update I do and save me the $100 .

Yeah, no way around this. If you have a need to update your graphics card frequently, find another alternative. This is why I'm taking a strong look at other cards, for the buying guide I'm creating. The Canopus is still basically what I thought, but probably a decent alternative, especially for those wanting AVI only. Drawbacks, yeah, advantages, sure... trying to get a handle on this overwise-mystically-described device.

But updating the graphics card is normally due to video games, and nothing more (even extensive video, render, and photo don't need too much). There's many people that don't play games on the computer (prefer PS2/etc for games). Maybe the occasional CAD user or Maya user, but those are not typically home users anyway.

BTW Lord, your web page looks great, but like my AIW captures sometimes they work and sometimes they don't, some of your links were broken.

Yeah, site not done until 24th. Last update was unannounced and not an official one. Moreso for testing, have about 10 errors to fix.

[lordsmurf]

Sorry, maybe I mis-phrased my question:
When you are capturing VBR 'on the fly' how does it compare the frames to decide which ones need more data, and over how many frames does it do this?

I believe it is intra-frame, and probably the nearest relative to MJPEG (if you also made it an I-frame only VBR MPEG). The compression is for image on screen or GOP, not temporal compression (not to be confused with natural temporal I-P-B mechanics of the MPEG system).

This is my guess. This short answer is "I don't really know, but I have a darn good guess".

[EricB]

Well to add my experience to the pile....

When I looked for a capture card and read all the reviews, I could never find a card which had more or less universal positive reviews. Either system problems or audio sync problems with users of each model. Having had audio sync problems, there is nothing more frustrating.

DV capture has been completely bulletproof starting with a 500mhz computer. No frame drops, no sync problems, the magic bullet!

The other issue that I don't believe has been mentioned is the ability to backup your material to a DV camcorder. I have a lot of VHS and Hi8 home video. I like the fact that I can capture, encode to DVD and still backup the original in DV format on my camcorder. Then as my methods change or maybe a disk goes bad, I can go back to another copy of source material on DV.

[Bondiablo]

How'd it look?

I only did a few short tests but they looked surprisingly good. No glaringly obvious difference in quality from what I might normally get after converting a TV capture using similar settings but I don't get the best reception (still using rabbit ears) and this was only a few minutes with very little action. I'd have to play around with it some more to really say how good it is.

[ToddB]

I originally got the the ADVC-100 for some old home VHS video conversions to DVD. I had allot of problems with video/audio sync (but later found that using Scenalyzer fixed the problem with the DV500 from Pinnacle, so not always hardware, could be your software).

Personally, I will probably never get an all in on video card again. Seems like every time I update the drivers it fixes some problems and makes others. Besides, you got to update your video card every 6 months to stay up with the current games.

The macrovision is not just for dubbing over your copyrighted VHS collection (which it works great for, I use my Canopus Storm2 software to capture to MPEG2 on the fly and it works great). My families older vhs home videos where in such bad shape, that the capturing device I was using thought it was macrovision, which is why Canopus put this hidden feature into the ADVC-100, not for coping over copyrighted tapes.

I think the point I would like to make is that the ADVC-100 works very well for what it was meant to do (flawlessly from what I can tell). This is a very specific solution that I think is pointed toward people who edit video and then send the finish product back out to tape or what ever. That is what Canopus's market space is. Is it worth $300, yes.

Key benefits for me:
1) I can move it from computer to computer easily.
2) Never drops frames, never loses sync no mater how many breaks in the tape (which is what caused all my sync problems).
3) Can be used to defeat macrovision (see I mentioned it)
4) If I use it with the Conopus Storm2, I can capture three source at once, two which can be analog all going to DV for my editing use (note you must have a RAID drive to achieve this).
5) It's a neat little black box, how cool is that!
6) Canopus makes it, what a cool company.
7) See 1 and 2
8) ...OK, I don't have anymore reasons. But even though I have a real capture card like the Canopus Storm2, I still use this and I think it works great!

P.S. For those of you who just got the ADVC-100 and think the capture looks a little washed out, check the dip switch setting to make sure your IRE matches your source. Mine was defaultly set to the Japan NTSC IRE 0 and the US is IRE 7.5. This made a world of difference in the color of my capture.

[Metaluna]

You did make an interesting remark about costs for each product, every time I have updated my video card I have moved to the next best AIW which typically is $100 more. I will no longer throw my money away like that. The canopus will move with any video card update I do and save me the $100 .

Yeah, no way around this. If you have a need to update your graphics card frequently, find another alternative.

I believe the AIW VE is designed to coexist with an AGP graphics card (it goes in a PCI slot, and modern OS'es shouldn't have a problem with a second VGA display card in the system). So, you should be able to just buy the AIW VE once and then get a regular non-AIW graphics card and change it out as often as you want.

[dun4cheap]

No this is not a bump. Here is another product similiar to the ADVC 100. ADS USB Intant DVD+DV 2.0. It offers hardware mpeg 1,2 encoding and audio link. I was looking at it at a trade show Sunday in Costa Mesa. Looked pretty good. Has anyone tried this yet?

www.adstech.com

[FulciLives]

No this is not a bump. Here is another product similiar to the ADVC 100. ADS USB Intant DVD+DV 2.0. It offers hardware mpeg 1,2 encoding and audio link. I was looking at it at a trade show Sunday in Costa Mesa. Looked pretty good. Has anyone tried this yet?

www.adstech.com

I remember somewhere reading a post from someone that had the original version 1.0 of this device and paid a less-than-retail price to upgrade to the 2.0 model and found that like the 1.0 model is was garbage.

I heard mostly negative stuff about the 1.0 model and I've heard very little about the 2.0 model but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also crap.

If you really want a hardware MPEG-2 encoding option that doesn't cost an arm and a leg then maybe you would be interested in the WinTV PVR-250 which is a PCI card that does realtime hardware MPEG-1/MPEG-2

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Coopervid]

I haven't read thoroughly through all the posts but just want to let you know about some 6 years history:

1) ATI software always sucked and maybe it's better now - but i just gave up.
2) The ultimate card / remote & functionality for video recording if you don't want to do anything else is the Creative Video Blaster Digital VCR (availabilty only in the US). Sound is 32kHz only and the MPEGs are not comliant for anything else and need lengthy conversion.
3) The best - IMHO - is the Hauppauge Win PVR250. But only the card - the SW sucks. You need Womble's MPEG-VCR to edit the result. Ulead's Movie Factory is acceptable but TMPGEnC DVDAuthor is much better. Video quality is awesome. Blows away anything i have seen. The SW shipped with the card is crap, however. And very important- this card doesn't bother at all for Mr. Minivision - or was his first name Macro. Can't remember...


Just my 2 cents....