VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 102
Thread
  1. Member akbor75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Netherlands (Europe)
    Search Comp PM
    i can capture at 720x576 without lost frames, when i use pinnacle studio 8 and save as mpeg2 at 8000 kbps.
    but when i use iuvcr i can only go as far as AVI at 384x288...
    (my system is 2 GHz cpu and 256 MB ram.)

    so the software you use may be the 'problem'.

    btw: it may be useful capturing at high resolution when you're capturing from vhs tape. you can then resample to e.g. 480x576 and improve the quality, cos the noise will be averaged.
    Music was my first love, and it will be my last
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wantage, UK
    Search Comp PM
    In reply to proxy99, I'd say he's answered both of your questions.....
    1) he's (so far) proved he can't do it, which has answered point 2 in that it isn't mechanically sound.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Americas
    Search Comp PM
    @clanger
    @marvel2020

    Sorry guys, beside empty statements from you I don't see anything to comment on. I tried to make it simple for you, can't go any lower than that. Try to be constructive instead and read the original posting that started this thread. If you have "0" expertise, watch and learn, I won't live forever for you to catch up.

    No dropped frames here, with any format.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Originally Posted by Matteo693
    Ermm...yeah OK I figure "svchost.exe" ain't a virus but an integral part of Windows, heh... So that ain't the problem.

    I opened up task manager & started capturing...the only things eating up CPU was Virtual Dub (~10-20) and System Idle Process (~90s).

    System Idle Process looks pretty high to me...? But then, what would I know?

    Any further comments/suggestions???

    Why is it I can capture at lower resolutions, but only get dropped frames (100s of 'em) at full resolution (720x576)?? Surely my system is up for the task??? Or is it that I need more RAM, or a 2nd HD??????? Or WHAT??

    AAAAAARRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!! I'm losing it over this!!!!!!!!!!

    Please help!!!
    heh, i didn't mention that there are two sVchost.exe and sCvhost.exe...and yes one is a legitimate part of windows...i think this problem was related to the mblaster virus..anyways it was just a suggestion
    Quote Quote  
  5. Try to eliminate variables, which their are many. Use a pristine VHS source for a test, then your intended source at identical resolutions. Perhaps three or four different tapes might be necessary. Do you have access to a Hi8 cam or LD player ? These analog (analogue to you) sources should be the best available. If ALL your captures are dropping frames, you then know the prob is in your sys, not outside.

    I am of the mind that a second HD is a must. At $80 USD for a 80GB drive, how can you miss ? Even if this does not solve the prob, it will be very useful anyway, and possibly eliminate another variable, viz, other programs (hidden?) accessing your HD while capturing.

    As noted several times on this post, capturing at higher res than native, is pointless. Try 352x480, not 240, instead , or whatever the PAL standard is. VCDs look terrible, because they are not capturing both fields at ???x240.

    Good luck.
    Quote Quote  
  6. What is the speed of your HD? 5400 or 7200 rpm? A 5400 rpm HD may not be able to handle the bitrate of higher resolution captures.

    I'm only asking because your computer details are not listed and it's a basic thing to get out of the way (at the level of "is it plugged in"). Not meant to imply anything.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member marvel2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Vorlon Home World
    Search Comp PM
    Ok

    " proxy excuse me i'm just a noob"


    who's been a member of this forum since 2001, who use's DVD Maestro to author DVD's and is also in the process of learning the Ultimate DVD Authoring software ---->Scenarist.


    I'm just a noob who capture's everyday and encode's using CCE, I'm just a noob who's been making VCD's, SVCD's, Divx's, Xvid,s for the last 4 years.

    I'm just a noob who has help a few people here on this forum from time to time, i'm just a noob who now helps friends when they have problems to do with DVD Authoring, Encoding, making VCD's SVCD's or even when it comes to fixing ther PC's.

    I'm just a noob...well you get the point, so to say i don't have any expertise, i'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong.
    I Have Always Been Here

    Toshiba Regza 37Z3030D, Toshiba HD XE1 + EP-10 ( Both Multiregioned), Samsung BD-P1500 Blu Ray. OPPO DV-983H
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wantage, UK
    Search Comp PM
    this might be of some interest.....

    http://www.hardwarereview.net/Reviews/Leadtek%20A280/WinfastA280MyVIVO.htm

    particularly this bit :
    Now that we have examined the 3D aspects of the card let's get to it's other main feature - video capture and time-shifting. Once the WDM drivers are installed the option to capture appears in any compatible application. This is not supported however, and we had problems with dropped frames and some standard resolutions not supported when we used AVI_IO and VirtualDub to capture. Everything was fine with the Leadtek PVR application and it even allows a picture-in-picture (PIP) mode so you can continue to see the live feed while time-shifting and vice-versa. Quality was perfectly adequate for Mpeg2 at the set compression rates although we would have preferred more output options (such as YUV) to capture in a loss-less AVI format for later processing.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Search Comp PM
    The problem here is not software. It is hardware. Since the RAM and the processor are certainly up to snuff it only leaves 2 potential problems.

    1. Built-in sound card. Bad idea, but not the problem. He still has trouble even when not capturing audio.

    2. The combined Video card/capture card. In my opinion, it is bad to have any device try to do two jobs. I have moved over 75 hours of my VHS tapes to DVD using just Videostudio 6 and 7, my D-8 camcorder and firewire card. The problem as I see it is that your capture card cannot keep up.

    You need a dedicated capture card. Firewire or something like ADS Instant DVD 2.0 Video Capture Device which is USB2.0.

    I think that you should also consider a second hard drive. You must really be slamming your drive running your capture software, OS and capturing to it.

    Just my two cents.....


    Theseus001
    Quote Quote  
  10. Lost Will Hay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Buggleskelly Railway St.
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by proxyx99
    No dropped frames here, with any format.
    I'm assuming this 'no format' is directed at my post, so I'll respond (and only echo exactly the same comments above).
    He can't capture without losing frames, he believes he's covered every variable and we, and I, have offered an alternative.
    There is absolutely no quality benefit in capturing VHS over 352x576 and if it's one more test that eitehr works or fails, whats the problem?

    Originally Posted by proxyx99
    I tried to make it simple for you
    Originally Posted by proxyx99
    I tried to make it simple for you, can't go any lower than that
    Originally Posted by proxyx99
    If you have "0" expertise, watch and learn
    Originally Posted by proxyx99
    I won't live forever for you to catch up.
    Originally Posted by proxyx99
    so try to find one for him instead of asking why
    I ain't even going to begin to teach you the error of your ways here proxy.
    Will
    tgpo, my real dad, told me to make a maximum of 5,806 posts on vcdhelp.com in one lifetime. So I have.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Lost Will Hay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Buggleskelly Railway St.
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by theseus001
    .......potential problems. ..............the combined Video card/capture card.
    I appreciate this is only your opinion but in my opinion its complete and utter bollocks.
    How do you acount for the millions of ATI users on this forum, including me, who have had years of superb captures?
    I respect your opinion as your own, hopefully you'll respect my opinion of the shite you posted
    I've just bought the Canopus ADVC-100 and trust me, it has nothing to do with the performance of my ATI Radeon 64mb ViVo, a cheap £35 ($50) card that has been the best hardware purchase I have ever, ever made.
    Will
    tgpo, my real dad, told me to make a maximum of 5,806 posts on vcdhelp.com in one lifetime. So I have.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by proxyx99
    @clanger
    @marvel2020

    Sorry guys, beside empty statements from you I don't see anything to comment on. I tried to make it simple for you, can't go any lower than that. Try to be constructive instead and read the original posting that started this thread. If you have "0" expertise, watch and learn, I won't live forever for you to catch up.

    No dropped frames here, with any format.
    Did you already finish that can of STFU I served you last night, Chairman Mao?

    Originally Posted by Will Hay
    How do you acount for the millions of ATI users on this forum, including me, who have had years of superb captures?
    Me included. Months rather than years, but superb captures nonetheless.


    Matteo, zore was having a similar problem last night. One of two things appears to have solved his problem: he either disabled his onboard sound card or updated his chipset drivers. Are your chipset drivers updated? I don't see any mention of what chipset you're using...
    Quote Quote  
  13. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Americas
    Search Comp PM
    To whom it may concern.

    I appreciate your point of view, however didn't he state clearly that he does neither like nor want this alternative to be discussed here?
    I offered him sound troubleshooting method that always works and have no issue with trying to do it his way if that is his wish.

    My remarks were to point it out to you that you offer a solution that he's already dismissed as not desirable so why you insist on it.

    Can't understand why a comment or suggestion that is not aligned with yours has to end up with a personal attack.

    I never participate in the discussion that I'm unable to move forward even by a notch.

    As to proficiency? Try to find my post with a question "how to ?", anywhere. I don't come for advice, I answer and try to help. You may ask why? It's because "why" and "how" is in my past. All I can do now is share.
    Now membership: this is my third or fourth (don't keep track) since the beginnings of VCDhelp, this is least important and proves nothing (see below). I do not collect credentials here, have them earned elswhere.

    who's been a member of this forum since 2001, who use's DVD Maestro to author DVD's and is also in the process of learning the Ultimate DVD Authoring software ---->Scenarist.
    by marvel2020

    Good, when you're done studying Scenarist you can ask me a question about it. Using Maestro doesn't entitle you to consider yourself a Maestro. Not yet.

    Lastly, CLANGER seems to have drawn proper conclusions leading to his post:
    ...this might be of some interest.....
    More like this needed... if you're up to the standard.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member marvel2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Vorlon Home World
    Search Comp PM
    Now why would i want to ask you a question about scenarist when all i read is bullshit that you type.

    Ok granted you may or maynot know more than me, i don't know i'll have to take your word on this, but considering the people you have criticize recently i wouldn't trust your word as far as i could throw it.

    Who the **** made you Mr Perfect ?, and what gives you the right to slag off other users suggestions, wither there right or wrong, i didn't see your suggestions helping him much.

    As as for you not dropping any frames, just more of your BULLSHIT.
    I Have Always Been Here

    Toshiba Regza 37Z3030D, Toshiba HD XE1 + EP-10 ( Both Multiregioned), Samsung BD-P1500 Blu Ray. OPPO DV-983H
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Search Comp PM
    Well I see that this innocent thread has been taken over by people whose egos are to large for the topic.

    Will Hay and proxyx99: If you have nothing constructive to add, just shut up or flame each other in private.

    And Mr. Hay, I don't discount the fact that ATI cards can and do capture excellent video for millions. And I am happy for you.... BUT your use of ATI card is not the point. For some, they do not work well or are not a viable solution. I was offering an alternative to solve the problem, which you seem to have even forgotten. Grow up.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member Nolonemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Search Comp PM
    Theseus hit the nail on the head. Use a DVcamcorder the analog pass-though to capture. I was tearing my hair out trying to capture hi res without dropping frames (fast cpu, separate defragged ATA100 HD, disable everything else running that I could, no dice). DVcam is brain dead simple, the coversion is great, and zero dropped frames.

    Not the answer you're looking for, I know, but it's the one that worked for me.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbin, Arsetralia
    Search Comp PM
    Well, ha ha, I must say I'm enjoying this thread!

    Proxyx99, in all fairness you've given me some sound advice earlier on in this thread that I will follow ASAP! Thanks!

    In fact, all of you have had good suggestions to offer. I really appreciate it & I will look into it immediately.

    Use a DVcamcorder the analog pass-though to capture.
    I'm inclined to believe this may be the go. As Nolomeno mentions, even installing a 2nd HD didn't solve his problems with dropped frames!?

    I will go & research some more (!?) and post up my results as soon as I can. I will follow every suggestion that's been posted here, short of buying a DV camcorder. But that is on the cards for me, a little down the track, hopefully...?

    Please, feel free to continue this thread, guys! It's great entertainment! Ha ha...

    CHEERS!
    Quote Quote  
  18. Lost Will Hay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Buggleskelly Railway St.
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by theseus001
    Well I see that this innocent thread has been taken over by people whose egos are to large for the topic.
    Erm, good one.

    Originally Posted by theseus001
    Will Hay and proxyx99: If you have nothing constructive to add, just shut up or flame each other in private.
    That is hardly flame, far from it in fact.
    proxy has an opinion and so do I, and I have respect for that opinion.
    His opinion is seemingly based on fact, yours, it would appear, is based on what you had for breakfast, what the weather is like etc.
    Perhaps you're cofusing my post with indolika's, who seems to have taken a rather dislike to proxy and has shown this, many times.
    Many, many times.

    Originally Posted by theseus001
    And Mr. Hay, I don't discount the fact that ATI cards can and do capture excellent video for millions.
    Oh, I must be mistaken.
    I thought I read...

    Originally Posted by theseus001
    The combined Video card/capture card. In my opinion, it is bad to have any device try to do two jobs
    This generalising statement is confusing and completely misleading.
    You have completely discounted the fact that there are millions of ATI cards out there doing this exact same thing, despite you bleating to the contrary.

    Originally Posted by theseus001
    And I am happy for you.... BUT your use of ATI card is not the point.
    Oh, I see.
    I never suggested the author of this thread should buy an ATI card, my point was simple.
    Did you even read my post young-un?

    Originally Posted by theseus001
    Grow up.
    Erm, good one.
    Will
    tgpo, my real dad, told me to make a maximum of 5,806 posts on vcdhelp.com in one lifetime. So I have.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by Will Hay
    Perhaps you're cofusing my post with indolika's, who seems to have taken a rather dislike to proxy and has shown this, many times.
    Actually, I don't dislike proxyx99. I simply disagree with some of his/her thoughts and opinions and choose to express my feelings in a somewhat-cynical manner.

    Originally Posted by Will Hay
    Many, many times.
    And no locked threads or yellow cards to boot! :P Well, yet.

    Originally Posted by Matteo693
    Well, ha ha, I must say I'm enjoying this thread!
    Entertainment and education, all in one convenient package. Sweet, huh?
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Sorry to add fuel to the fire here guys, but in my experience you definitely CAN see a difference between VHS capped at 352x576 and 720x576. What you need to remember is that you can't measure an analogue source as a number of vertical lines. 352 is basically an estimate, in that 352 physical lines would look roughly equivalent. The data being captured is not transfered digitally from the VHS - it is sampled. Therefore simple logic should suggest that a sample of 720 lines from an analogue source provides more accurate representation of the source than 352 lines.
    The key point here is that VHS does NOT contain 352 distinct lines of picture information - if it did then there wouldn't be an issue.

    I honestly ask anyone who is in doubt to try capping something like a Widescreen VHS at the two resolutions, and then say that there is NO difference in the detail levels. I've been transferring my old Star Wars VHS to DVD recently and noticed an immediate difference in clarity when using 720x576, after initially using 352x576.

    Also, to the original poster, I too use huffyuv codec at 720x576 and get about 1 dropped frame every 8 minutes. I would try downloading something like PCMark2002 and use it to bench test your PC. Using the online results browser it will give you the transfer rates for your hard drive, which would at least help to indentify if that was your bottleneck.

    Good luck!

    Nick
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member lacywest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Search Comp PM
    Okay first off ... I'm not a saint ... I do use the F-word on a regular basis my self ... but not in Internet Forums.

    As for saving your pension ... to buy a bunch of harddrives ... well lets stick with one.

    PCClub ... Maxtor 40GB ATA 133 ... $70 bucks. Unless your motherboard supports ATA 133 ... your most likely ATA 100. You can still use it but not at full potential.

    ATA 133 card ... is something like $30 some bucks ... I guess to obtain a card to allow 4 more IDE devices to be connected.

    I've bought a Maxtor HD at Staples and returned it only because it said Quantum on it instead of Maxtor ... and they did refund me. So maybe you could buy one ... see if your problem goes away ... if it doesn't ... return it.

    I forget the reason but I bought another one at Staples and after using it for a few days ... I did a low-level format and returned it.

    Frame drops ... are related to something happening other than video being captured. And your C-Drive is becoming busy while at the same time trying to process video being captured.

    Yes ... it is frustating. I do capture at 740x480 ... I use the PicVideo codec set at 18.

    Summary ... another hard drive is my best answer for the solution.

    I've captured Fright Night 2 from video tape ... file size ... 25 Gigs. Problem is ... the video quality of the tape is lousy. And it is not available on DVD ... Fright Nite 1 is but not Part 2.

    Good Luck ... Cheers ... oh ... and ... Merry Christmas and have a nice new year
    Quote Quote  
  22. Lost Will Hay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Buggleskelly Railway St.
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lacywest
    Okay first off ... I'm not a saint ... I do use the F-word on a regular basis my self ... but not in Internet Forums.
    That's odd, because I use it here on the forum but not when speaking in public/to people I know/to people I don't know
    Will
    tgpo, my real dad, told me to make a maximum of 5,806 posts on vcdhelp.com in one lifetime. So I have.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by akbor75

    btw: it may be useful capturing at high resolution when you're capturing from vhs tape. you can then resample to e.g. 480x576 and improve the quality, cos the noise will be averaged.
    cos the noise will be averaged

    Are you sure about this?

    I love to talk about frame sizes.... and Analog to digital conversion

    -----------------------------------------

    1) Before an ADC takes place, the signal is filtered to reduce all frequencies below 1/2 the sample rate. This may remove noise, but that is not the reason for the filter.

    2) ALL of the Capture cards we use sample the analog signal at 1 rate for PAL. Either 13.5MHz or 17.73MHz. These samples may then be decimated to a smaller number of samples because you (or your driver) asked for a size different than the number of samples.

    3) The bandwidth of a standard VHS signal limits the signal information to 3MHz. 6.75MHz equates to 720 pixels. In other words, 6.75MHz*2 = 13.5 sampling is required to accurately convert a 6.75MHz signal to digital. 3MHz*2 = 6MHz sampling is required to accurately convert a VHS signal to digital. This equates to 6MHz*52microsecond line length or about 312 pixels required to accurately convert a VHS signal to Digital. 352 should do fine. 720 is a bit overkill.

    4) NTSC and PAL TV may contain more detail than can be represented by a 352 pixel width. They have a higher bandwidth than VHS.

    So... It may be fun to try, but you are wasting your time if you do this as a standard process. One big caveat here is that your drivers/hardware (and almost anything else in the chain to your TV) may really screw up this theory stuff. But you can compare your direct mpeg capture at full frame to one at half frame to see if there is a difference for you.

    I must say I do like the image proxy paints. Capture at 200 KM/h
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by nick1977
    Therefore simple logic should suggest that a sample of 720 lines from an analogue source provides more accurate representation of the source than 352 lines.
    You would think this, but no. Sample theory is based upon the fact that you can represent any waveform as the sum of sin or cosign waves. If you sample at twice the frequency of the source, you can recreate it exactly. This is because the samples are not interpolated together with straight lines, but rather with sin curves. I've been reading up.

    The key point here is that VHS does NOT contain 352 distinct lines of picture information - if it did then there wouldn't be an issue.
    Well VHS does have a limited bandwidth. So if you sample above that bandwidth you can create exactly the same signal from your samples. Regardless of how high your sample rate was above that bandwidth. (Well the same singnal this is not completely true, but high sample rates do nothing to solve this problem. I can give you more detail if you care.)

    I honestly ask anyone who is in doubt to try capping something like a Widescreen VHS at the two resolutions, and then say that there is NO difference in the detail levels. I've been transferring my old Star Wars VHS to DVD recently and noticed an immediate difference in clarity when using 720x576, after initially using 352x576.
    I think your card uses a BT878 chip. One of mine does too. When the card decimates the 'full' samples to get to 352, it messes it up. Try capping at 368 and compare it to 352.

    Or look at my compares of 360 vs 368. Huge difference for only 8 pixels

    http://pics.trevlac.us/img.htm?Sharpness360.jpg
    http://pics.trevlac.us/img.htm?Sharpness368.jpg

    I'm not really shouting at you about this. Just a few months ago, I had the same opinion. You have to go outside of our hobby to professional information to get the real skinny. The hard part is matching back to what our junky equipment is really doing.

    PS Kell does not apply to horizontal. See if you can find a reference to sillyness like extended kell in a reasonalby professional form. I'd love to read it. Kell may apply to CCDs. But it does not apply going from an analog signal to a digital representation of that signal. CCDs go from real life to analog to digital. (I believe)
    Quote Quote  
  25. Trevor,

    recalculate based on these numbers and see what the capture size is?

    Type Video Resolution FM Deviation Freq. Range
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    VHS (240 lines) 1.0 Mhz 3.4-4.4 Mhz
    SVHS (*) (400 lines) 1.6 Mhz 5.4-7.0 Mhz
    BETA1 (250 lines) 1.3 Mhz 3.5-4.8 Mhz
    BETA2/3 (240 lines) 1.2 Mhz 3.6-4.8 Mhz
    SuperBETA (285 lines) 1.2 Mhz 4,4-5.6 Mhz
    ED BETA (500 lines) 2.5 Mhz 6.8-9.3 Mhz

    (*) The tape for SVHS must have a higher coercivity since the frequency is
    higher (information more dense) and the demagnetizing forces are greater.
    Quote Quote  
  26. On the horizontal cap size, logic and theory are interesting and may lead to changes in technique but they are ultimately IRRELEVANT if they disagree with the obvious visual evidence that bigger is, in fact, better. While this may very well be due to an error or defect in the resize method used by my ATI card (and others), since I am capping MPEG2 for immediate burn a cap at 368 does me no good. Also, I and several other test subjects have visually determined that while 480x480 is better than 352x480, 720 x480 is better still. YMMV. If you are satisfied to create a visual medium that is THEORETICALLY the best as opposed to one that LOOKS better, then let that be your choice.

    This has been tested with VHS source (brand new, first 3 plays out of the shrink wrap was capture, fourth was testing) played on SVHS player using S-Video cable for capture, burned and viewed by A-B switching between disk and original source, playing in synch. Both source connected to TV thru Composite, multiple viewers, multiple test tapes, 3 different times now, total of 8 different test subjects, actual source of displayed video unknown to test subjects, viewed on 27" TV. Subjects were NOT asked "is THIS better than THAT" but rather "which in your opinion is better? A or B?" I submit that this method gives a more valid result on which is "better" than any theory could possibly do.

    One tidbit that was mentioned in the duplicate post and not here is that he is capping while using filters. This may be the issue.

    Also, while the original poster has repeatedly claimed to have read the sticky about frame drops, he has reacted to many of the ideas suggested here, which are explained in detail in the sticky, as though he has not seen them before. Curious.

    Someone stated that capping at 720x576 will always drop frames. While I am not in PAL land, I can certainly verify that capping 720x480 AVI using HUFFY is absolutely doable with no drops, though it takes a little systematic elimination of bottlenecks.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    [/quote]Or look at my compares of 360 vs 368. Huge difference for only 8 pixels

    http://pics.trevlac.us/img.htm?Sharpness360.jpg
    http://pics.trevlac.us/img.htm?Sharpness368.jpg

    Well, I will bow to your superior knowledge, as you do seem to be going slightly out of my depth!

    I will try what you suggest (my card uses the 848 chip, which I believe is the PAL version of the 878?). I have however used 352x576 regularly for direct broadcast recording and always been very satisfied with the results. Maybe this will open my eyes!
    My only query is with regard to your examples. They appear (on my screen anyway) to be identical in size, which would suggest some kind of post capture resizing has taken place. A bit hard for me therefore to be completely objective about the benefits! I will, however, try it myself!

    I suppose the question is, does using this chipset at a resolution other than 352, and then resizing to 352, result in a better picture???

    Thanks for the insight anyway.
    Nick
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Sorry about the last post - get the quote messed up!
    I'm sure you can follow it anyway!

    Nick
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbin, Arsetralia
    Search Comp PM
    Jesus...!

    Now I don't know whether to laugh or cry?

    (By the way...the "F-word" is in my dictionary! What christian yuppie out there ruled it "offensive"?? It ain't "offensive" to me!)

    .....

    Erm, OK, I'm a "noob" I guess & I can see I was "pharking" up when resizing the avi capture with TMPGEnc...that's why capturing at lower res was giving me shithouse DVD results.

    But still, my original question was: Why won't my system accept Full Res capture??

    Clanger's link to a review of my capture card was a bit of an eye-opener. Maybe that's my problem??

    Sheesh...who knows!?!?!?

    I'm havin' a beer.
    Quote Quote  
  30. @racerxnet

    I've read the reference for you table. Thanks. Because I assume we are only talking regular VHS here, that's all I'll address.

    1st, your table does not give the bandwidth of the y signal. It says it is centered at 3.4, and that 4.4 is the upper limit. I don't believe zero is the lower limit. Have a look at this table from your source:



    chroma clearly takes up the lower bandwidth. It doesn't look like luma starts until about 1.4MHz. 4.4 - 1.4 = 3MHz.

    2nd, TVL horizontal is the 240 number quoted. That has a direct relationship to pixels on a 4:3 display AND bandwidth. For the 4:3 simply multiply by 1.333. 1.33*240~320 pixels. I think the 240 is just a rounded estimate, just like my original 3.0MHz. Just in opposite directions of rounding.

    Bandwidth calc from the 240 is as follows:
    BW = TVL * Aspect Ratio / (2 * active Picture length)

    Active picture length for PAL is 52 microseconds. About 52.666 for NTSC. Your reference uses NTSC so lets pick that, but the results are not much different (and we are guessing anyway).

    BW = 240 * 1.333 / (2 * 52.666) ~ 3.04MHz

    Here is a reference for the calculation.
    http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/750

    So I'd say anything between 320 and 300 would be ok numbers

    @Nick

    I made my samples because I was puzzled by the problem. That was in October. Here is the thread: https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=184977

    I can't recall why I resized them in photoshop to 500x480, but I did. Maybe to see them better. Anyway, they were a test for me, so I trust myself. You shouldn't trust me. Do your test.

    As far as what is good for your card. I find I can cap at 368 using the btwincap drivers, and then crop to 352. However, this messes with the aspect ratio a small amount. Also, I mostly cap TV. NTSC TV is supposed to be about 440 pixel resolution so I just do 704 and don't worry about the overkill. (Really, I do 712 but that is a different story.)

    Of course do what works for you. The original intent of my post was to point out that killing yourself to cap VHS as 720 might really get you nothing.


    @Nelson

    2 Things I don't understand. 1) You seem to be angry with me. 2) I don't see where we disagree.

    The second 1st. I just was trying to provide information, and help with some confusion on the reasons why 720 was better than 352. I clearly stated that YMMV because ADC is a complicated process and any hardware/software in the chain can change things. I don't have an ATI Theater based card like you. I was refering to a Brooktree based card having a 352 problem. I think your method is excellent and what everyone should do. How are you gonna know without trying/testing your stuff? I even suggested that the original poster simply do a test to see if it is worth it.

    The 1st item. I don't think I was giving recommendations to you on your process. I was just stating my experiences and understandings. If you don't believe me, fair enough

    You do seem to be easily set off. So here's another one. Captures on your ATI card at 720 streatch any analog source you capture (so does 480). Balls are not round, squares are not square, people are a bit fat.
    This is because your card does not capture a full ITU-601 standard active line of 53.333 microseconds in length. You see 53.333 * 13.5MHz = 720.
    You probably only get 52.9 microseconds or about 715 pixels. But what's a few nanoseconds anyway?

    What can you do about it? Not much since you capture to MPEG2. Now if you get a newer ATI card with the Theater 200 chip, AND you capture at 704, it is my understanding that you will be almost right on. No skew.

    The caveat is this all probably depends upon the version of the driver you use. So as always, one should test to know for sure.

    Cheers,

    Trev
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!