Amazing discovery in capture resolutions (IMHO)

[andie41]

The example shown of capturing at 704 and resizing to 352, indicates a somewhat better result by resizing - better in the sense that it appeals more to the eye, on the computer monitor. But my question would be (and was when I was looking at my own setup), what does it look like at 704 on the TV screen. The DVD player would be resizing back up to 704 - correct?

[vhelp]

@ andie41,

I'm not sure of the resolution of a tv set, because there is still too much
confusion on this "resolution" bit w/ tv (and vhs) it's 704, no.. its 240, no..
its.. I don't know hehe.. But, I think it's more or less in the range of
640 x 480 cause, even when you play vhs tapes through, it always looks
a heck of a lot better than after you capture it But still..

The new thing now is "scanline" when you talk about vhs or tv sets. So, I
don't know if we'll ever know for sure. But, it would be nice to do a short
study, and at least get an "approx" resolution, if not equivlant.

-vhelp

[spiderman2k1]

I have done some test on Direct TV and some time's on my PC capture card 352*480 is better then 720*480.Let's take the scifi channel very low rez TV station so low rez is fine. A low rez source is better to capture at a low rez capture. Now when I captured TWO TOWER's from PPV I want to watch at my grand mother house she hate wide screen. Two Tower's captured great at 720*480 a 3000 CBR the PPV station had a high bitrate. Ever TV station can be different.

[FulciLives]

I haven't tried capturing at 368x480 but when I first got my AverTV Stereo I tried capturing at 352x480 and I noticed that the image did not match the original.

Let me explain that ...

I recorded some stuff from the SCI-FI CHANNEL and the SCI-FI logo (which is in the lower right hand side of the screen) was closer to the right edge of the screen with my 352x480 capture than on the original broadcast. This was on the same TV so it wasn't a TV overscan difference between two different televisions.

I finally found that capturing at 704x480 and adding 8 pixels of black to the sides (making it 720x480) looked good both at that resolution for Full D1 as well as looking good when resized from 720x480 (with black sides) to 352x480

When I say "looked good" I mean the aspect ratio looked about the same as the original with the SCI-FI logo being in about the same spot on the TV screen as per the original broadcast.

So ...

If 352x480 had an "off" aspect ratio then surely 368x480 cropped to 352x480 would be off even more. Hell the SCI-FI logo might even get clipped a bit on the right hand side by the TV overscan.

Now maybe resizing 368x480 to 352x480 might look OK aspect ratio wise as I haven't tried it but if I have to resize it then I figure I'm better off capturing at 704 and padding to 720 then resizing to 352x480 which is what I do now.

BTW I resize in AviSynth using: LanczosResize(352,480)

So I dunno right now I might try a sample clip at 368x480 resized to 352x480 and compare it to 704 padded to 720 resized to 352x480 and see which looks more proper aspect ratio wise as well as sharpness wise.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Zetti]

Do you guys think that, on NTSC standard, is it better to capture analog at 704 X 480 instead of 720 X 480 ?

If so, why ?

Isn't the 720 lines the real standard for DVD NTSC ?

I've been only doing 720.....

Thanks,

Zetti

[vhelp]

hay Fulci,

you just helped me to realize I may have ben incorrect w/ my aspect ratio
analigy and method.

Maybe there is two forms of aspect ratios (AR) and I was on about one of
them

You see, I was thinking in terms of static AR. When you crop off the lt/rt
side, as long as you don't stretch the source, it won't distort the look which
in my opnion messes w/ the AR.
.
.
You statement about the logo is what made me rethink what I said earlier
When you really think about it, 368 is the actual resolution hence, AR. But,
if the capture card is capping, but factoring in to this equation (as some do)
then, when the cap caps at the two res at issue here (ie, 352 vs. 368) look
closely at the AR and video (overlap them if you can) and observe if one of
them stretch out or in differently. If I recalled in one of my earlier capture
test (a while back) I remember one cap at a given res would capture flush
lt/rt sides, while another one added black bars lt/rt. This is what I'm on
about in cropping and AR. Course, I could be wrong about this too, but at
least I can admit it :P

But, I like the prefered method.. cap at 704 and padd (as I do) 8 pixels to
lt/rt sides for total of 720. I prefer the vdub method, because I use it all
the time, and I have the resize down on it.

-vhelp

[vhelp]

@ Zetti,

try not to think DVD, as the standard when you are aiming for maximum
quality. When you are capturing, it's not DVD standard. You have to think
in terms of resolution. When you opt for a 720 capture, it's because your
end goal is DVD :P
.
.
But don't get the DVD confused w/ capping at 720 as being "DVD spec".
When I'm capturing at 720 resolution (via my advc) my end goal is for a
DVD project. Too many people think that 720 is DVD spec but its not, at
least not in the sense you (and I) use it like. The DVD standard includes
720, becuase it's the most popular (for obvious reasons)

Do you guys think that, on NTSC standard, is it better to capture analog
at 704 X 480 instead of 720 X 480 ? If so, why ?

I think that the answer to this "depends" on your capture card and what it
can produce at both those res. Two items for verification would probably be:

01 * level of distortion/quality and, (this can be tested w/ a 'test pattern' )
02 * aspect ratio

Line 01, if you can utilize a tets pattern test, and verify the best quality at
a given frequency, using verious capturing resolutions, the one w/ the most
detail is probably the res to use. For instance, I have determined that on
my ATI-TV Wonder, that 640x480 gives the greatest detail of all the res I
used in the test captures. This is not something you do every day and w/
every project. Its a capture resolution "assemilation" approach.. done once.
Assuming one does it correctly. I'm still learning this approach :P

For obvious reasons, some cap devices don't have this flexibility (ie, advc)
because they are usually constrant to one resolution.., but that they are
(an assumption here) tuned to this resolution.

There is one more item of issue that can give false hopes. Format.
NTSC vs. PAL. Both use different colorspace and resolution, as well as the
variance in results when used w/ different codecs/colorspace and resolutions
(ie, uncompressed vs. DV vs. DV 411 bug etc) can give a false or not as
accurate a result.

-vhelp

[vmesquita287]

Hi everyone,

I just stop by this thread and decided to do the test myself. I have a PixelView Play TV Pro, another BT878 card, and I am using the BTWinCap drivers. I capture using virtualVCR and used avisynth to put images side by side and subtitle. I captured Sky Digital interactive menu




Using 352x480 I couldn't even read the text. 368 is definatelly the best, followed closely by 704x480 nearest neighbor resized to 352, which has some "stairs" effect. Using bicubic to resize makes the stair dissapear, but on the other hand, blurs the picure. This is very interesting, I'll stick with 368 from now on.

[]'s
VMesquita

[trevlac]

@vmesquita287

Nice test. Your results are exactly what I said. I used test patterns. It's nice to see with a higher than vhs source, it still holds.

Bottom line, you get a better resize from the chip.

BTW: Sky probably has more resolution than can fit in a 352 frame. Does 704 look better than 368? It may not be worth the xtra space/bitrate required to put on dvd.


@All

I gaurentee if you read the link I posted, you will understand Aspect Ratio and what a card captures.

In brief, a NTSC signal is ~711 pixels wide and ~486 lines. The total signal is wider than 711. 864 if I recall. The xtra contains signal syncing info. Using the BTwincap you always get a 712x480 cutout of that picture. To go from what you get to where you want, 1) resize by the proper ratio (1/2 for 1/2D1, 2/3 for SVCD) 2) Crop or pad to hit your target. So if I cap at 712 and resize by 1/2, I get 356. I then have to crop to 352 to get 1/2 D1. So, if I let the card resize to 368, I must crop 12 more pixels than if I did it exactly. That is about 3% off.

[lordsmurf]

@Zetti

Yes 704 and 352 are best. The 720 introduces linear artifacts that are quite bothersome, at least to me. AT least on my ATI card, whichuse 704 as the capture resolution internally on the chipset.


@vmesquita287

That 368 image looks artificially sharpened as well. Something happened either at the GIF/JPEG compression or there is a filter in the card at the 368 resolution that should be considered. Trev, what do you think. You see what I'm talking about? It's got harsh edges and stray pixels at borders.


@all

I do know I've gotten MPEG-1 704x480 files from people with BT878 card before, and it was very acceptable. (Still not seeing any interlace issues on those files either, which is odd. Assuming he has progressive playback sent to recording card, at the moment at least.) This would explain the quality I saw. I do know 720 and 352 on these cards is... well... NOT optimal.

I plan to add a "any card" MPEG capture guide to lordsmurf.com here soon. Maybe tweaking the "any card" AVI guides too. I'll be using a AVerMedia card on a P3 for testing. This will all come in handy for that time, and I'll likely reference this post. And if nobody here minds, maybe even swipe an image or two (credit given, of course).

[Zetti]

@Zetti

Yes 704 and 352 are best. The 720 introduces linear artifacts that are quite bothersome, at least to me. AT least on my ATI card, whichuse 704 as the capture resolution internally on the chipset.

Thanks Lord, I've read on your site that you recomend lower capture resolutions, but as I aim DVD standard, I have always captured at 720 X 480 - I suppose my 8500DV card is designed for that...

Anyway, I've realized that on some VHS captured videos - and only on some, not all - there is a kind of "shaky" movement, as if the cameraman had Parkinson or so...
My girlfriend insists on saying "it's perfect, you've gone mad", but I ain't satisfied.....

Well, as you know (I'm Andre with a diferent nick now) I don't use ATI MMC anymore, I've sticked to Ulead Video Studio and I am sure I must use field order B, this isn't the point;

Well, I think from now on I'll try 704 X 480 instead of 720 and see how it goes...

Thanks to all,

Zetti

[Zetti]

@ Zetti,

try not to think DVD, as the standard when you are aiming for maximum
quality. When you are capturing, it's not DVD standard. You have to think
in terms of resolution. When you opt for a 720 capture, it's because your
end goal is DVD :P
.
.
But don't get the DVD confused w/ capping at 720 as being "DVD spec".
When I'm capturing at 720 resolution (via my advc) my end goal is for a
DVD project. Too many people think that 720 is DVD spec but its not, at
least not in the sense you (and I) use it like. The DVD standard includes
720, becuase it's the most popular (for obvious reasons)

I think that the answer to this "depends" on your capture card and what it
can produce at both those res. Two items for verification would probably be:

01 * level of distortion/quality and, (this can be tested w/ a 'test pattern' )
02 * aspect ratio

Line 01, if you can utilize a tets pattern test, and verify the best quality at
a given frequency, using verious capturing resolutions, the one w/ the most
detail is probably the res to use. For instance, I have determined that on
my ATI-TV Wonder, that 640x480 gives the greatest detail of all the res I
used in the test captures. This is not something you do every day and w/
every project. Its a capture resolution "assemilation" approach.. done once.
Assuming one does it correctly. I'm still learning this approach :P

Thanks, vhelp......anyway, I wonder; if the final movie on the DVD **MUST** be either 704 X 480 or 720 X 480 (right ?); if capture is done on a diferent resolution, shouldn't the authoring sw refuse the file ??

Or shouldn't it be necessary to resize it in an intermediate process before loading it at the authoring tool ?

It seems confusing for me......my goal is DVD NTSC;

Thanks,

Zetti

[vhelp]

hi Zetti,

the 3 major resolutions are

* 352
* 704
* 720

Heck, but even if you capped at 704 and used the method outlined in previous
posts here, to 704 to 720, and got good results, it's still the same as if you
done it 720, if you know what I mean. In other words, if you like 704, then
why not use it

But, the 3 resolutions above are standard for DVD authoring. In my new
DVD experience/endeavors, I'll be opting for 720.. the max. Only because
I'm assuming that I will end up w/ a Widescreen TV, and I wanna be ready,
FWIW. You know.. come ta think of it, I'll probably just re-cap/encode/author
it all over again, just for the fun of it, and hobby :P

Zetti, I'm also using ifoEdit to author as VOBs (well, single ones, till I figure
out how to get ifoEdit to do multi-VOB's cause that will be a challenge in deed)

-vhelp

[vmesquita287]

@Lordsmurf

I think the MPEG2 compression from the original signal (Sky Digital) plus the JPEG compression I used for the picture caused this... I was going to put a PNG but it got too big (1 Mb) to post...

[]'s
VMesquita

[vhelp]

PNG's are the best to use, for maximum argument sake.
Yeah, 1mb is exsesive though :P but I try and limit to 500k or less.

-vhelp

[Zetti]

@Lordsmurf

I think the MPEG2 compression from the original signal (Sky Digital) plus the JPEG compression I used for the picture caused this... I was going to put a PNG but it got too big (1 Mb) to post...

[]'s
VMesquita

@VMesquita

Can your capture card get the PAL-M color ?
Do you capture MPEG-2 real time or AVI ?
Vc comprou sua placa de captura aqui no Rio ?


@vhelp

Thanks, well, I also have an AiW card like Lordsmurf, as he says that the internal setting is 704 and not 720, I'll try some 704 capture and check........I think it's no useful for me to cap at 352 as I aim maximum quality to watch my movies at a BIG TV.

Zetti

[lordsmurf]

Zetti, just remember you cannot expect better than the source. If you are using VHS or most traditional analog sources, you're already below 352x480 anyhow. Boosting capture to 720 or 704 does nothing for you.

Assuming the software is not doing some funny business in the background. Using ATI MMC, 352 and 704 look the same on sources that were around 352 or lower.

[vmesquita287]

@vhelp
I'll try to capture again and post a PNG tomorrow, maybe with only part of the picture.

@Zetti
My card supports PAL-M, I capture AVI using Huffyuv, VBLE (lossless yv12 codec) or PicVIDEO mjpeg according to the lenght of the capture (I don't have a lot of HD space). I got my capture board here in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in "Edifício Central".

[]'s
VMesquita

[Zetti]

Zetti, just remember you cannot expect better than the source. If you are using VHS or most traditional analog sources, you're already below 352x480 anyhow. Boosting capture to 720 or 704 does nothing for you.

Assuming the software is not doing some funny business in the background. Using ATI MMC, 352 and 704 look the same on sources that were around 352 or lower.

Yeah...thanks......I've been wondering, could the shaky video (that happens only with SOME tapes, not all) be due to the absence of a TBC ?

As far as I've learned, the TBC fixes horizontal/vertical distortion on video, the issue I've been having with some VHS tapes is very similar to a shaky hand holding the camera.....as one can see, not actually horizontal/vertical distortion, but a distortion on the stability of the picture.....should a TBC fix it ?
It happens only on some VHS tapes, generally 2nd generation or higher, not actually old or bad quality tapes though;

Thanks Lord and everybody,

Zetti

[FulciLives]

OK here are some captures I did with screen shots.

Source was the USA NTSC DVD of the Hammer film FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL

Played this back on my Cyberhome CH-DVD 500 and connected it to my AverTV Stereo PCI capture card using composite video

Captured the same clip twice once at 704x480 and again at 368x480

The captures were read into VirtualDubMod using an AviSynth script for resizing and/or cropping and I copied and pasted the images into Adobe Photodeluxe Home Edition and saved them as TIFF files. I then loaded each TIFF and created JPEG files using 7 out of 10 on the quality slider with 10 being best. The pics are JUST under the 50k limit.

PIC1_A using 704x480 capture
AviSynth script

LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\mpeg2dec3.dll")
avisource("D:\test704.avi")
AddBorders(8,0,8,0)
LanczosResize(352,480)

Basically I'm padding the 704x480 to 720x480 then resizing that to 352x480 ... this is how I normally do my captures when using Half D1 in the end. If I'm not doing Half D1 but instead Full D1 then I use the same script but drop the LanczosResize line making the resolution 720x480

PIC1_B using 368x480 capture
AviSynth script

LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\mpeg2dec3.dll")
avisource("D:\test368.avi")
LanczosResize(352,480)

Here I simply resized the 368x480 capture to 352x480

PIC1_C using 368x480 capture
AviSynth script

LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\mpeg2dec3.dll")
avisource("D:\test368.avi")
crop(8,0,-8,0)

Here I simply crop or cut 8 pixels from each side of the 368x480 capture to get to 352x480

PIC1_D using 368x480 capture
AviSynth script

LoadPlugin("C:\PROGRA~1\GORDIA~1\mpeg2dec3.dll")
avisource("D:\test368.avi")
LanczosResize(344,480)
AddBorders(4,0,4,0)

Here I resize the 368x480 capture to 344x480 and then add 4 pixels of black to each side to get up to 352x480 ... I will explain why I did this in a moment.

OK here are the pics:

PIC1_A


PIC1_B


PIC1_C


PIC1_D


Please try to note not just differences in SHARPNESS but also the aspect ratio. I think PIC1_A and PIC1_D are the same aspect ratio wise and probably the most correct (or about as correct as it can be).

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
I'm bad. I forgot to mention what codec I used!
PICVideo MJPEG on the 19 out of 20 quality setting with 20 being best.

[FulciLives]

If you guys are interested the post above is only one PIC that I created from FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL but I have 3 more images from the film and like the first image there are the same 4 variations based on my settings.

PIC2 is the FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL logo screen which has the title in very LARGE letters but also has a very SMALL line of text with some copyright info. I think because of the small text it would be worth posting.

PIC3 is a shot of the village with a lot of detail in it

PIC4 is a fairly close up shot of the monsters face including his shoulders and chest which are very hairy so again lots of detail there.

Again though I will only post if you guys are interested. I'm on a 56k modem and stupid NetZero has been VERY slow for the past almost 2 weeks now even for a 56k modem. So it took me FOREVER to post these pics.

DSL is ordered and should be set up by Jan 26 if not sooner.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[FulciLives]

OK here is another set of pics from FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL

These were made and ordered exactly as I did the first pic (the Paramount Log) from my last pic post. Again all pics are done at 7 out of 10 but the village shot had to be done at 6 out of 10 to get it under 50k

PIC2_A
704x480 padded to 720x480 resized to 352x480



PIC2_B
368x480 resized to 352x480



PIC2_C
368x480 cropped to 352x480



PIC2_D
368x480 resized to 344x480 then black borders added to make it 352x480



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

PIC3_A
704x480 padded to 720x480 resized to 352x480



PIC3_B
368x480 resized to 352x480



PIC3_C
368x480 cropped to 352x480



PIC3_D
368x480 resized to 344x480 then black borders added to make it 352x480



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

PIC4_A
704x480 padded to 720x480 resized to 352x480



PIC4_B
368x480 resized to 352x480



PIC4_C
368x480 cropped to 352x480



PIC4_D
368x480 resized to 344x480 then black borders added to make it 352x480



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

That is the last of the pictures I have to offer.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
All pics for this post have now been added. This post is finished!

[lordsmurf]

@zetti ... yeah, sounds like a TBC for those tapes may be in order

[vmesquita287]

I just realized a very interesting fact. If I turn off the "Sharpness" control of my BT878 driver, both 352x480 and 368x480 captures look about the same in respect of detail. Turning off sharpness at 704x480 makes some difference but almost none. The driver also offers a sharpness level control, but varying this control doesn't seems to make any difference.
I am not sure if I could sharpen the 352x480 capture to make it look like the 368x480 capture without distorting it. If this was possible then I it would be proved that the additional sharpness was only artificial sharpening. I'll test this later.

[]'s
VMesquita

[trevlac]

I just realized a very interesting fact. If I turn off the "Sharpness" control of my BT878 driver, both 352x480 and 368x480 captures look about the same in respect of detail. Turning off sharpness at 704x480 makes some difference but almost none. The driver also offers a sharpness level control, but varying this control doesn't seems to make any difference.
I am not sure if I could sharpen the 352x480 capture to make it look like the 368x480 capture without distorting it. If this was possible then I it would be proved that the additional sharpness was only artificial sharpening. I'll test this later.

[]'s
VMesquita

The BT878 spec doesn't say anthing about a sharpness control. Where do you think your sharpness options are implemented? The chip spec does say Hue,Contrast,Brightness, Saturation are offered. Also, there is a gamma uncorrect on/off option (only rgb & not the same as my BTwincap driver options)

Here is the spec: http://www.conexant.com/servlets/DownloadServlet/100119a.pdf?FileId=542

I'll look at the BTwincap source if I get a chance. What driver are you using? What app?


Edit

Well, the sharpness is 'implemented' in the chip. It effects a horizontal filter that is turned on. No filter should be sharper, but I have not puzzled thru how it all works, basically, if you pick 'auto' the text below explains. If you pick something else, a specific filter option is set.

These bits control the configuration of the optional 6-tap Horizontal
Low-Pass Filter. The auto-format mode determines the appropriate
low-pass filter based on the horizontal scaling ratio selected. The
LDEC bit in the CONTROL register must be programmed to 0 to
use these filters.
00(1) = Auto Format. If auto format is selected when horizontally
scaling between full resolution and half resolution, no filtering
is selected. When scaling between one-half and
one-quarter resolution, the CIF filter is used. When scaling
between one-quarter and one-eighth resolution, the
QCIF filter is used, and at less than one-eight resolution,
the ICON filter is used.
If the PEAK bit is set to logical 1, the HFILT bits determine which
peaking filter is selected.
01 = Max full resolution peaking
10 = Min Cif resolution peaking
11 = Max Cif resolution peaking
00 = Min full resolution peaking

	// Adjust filters!
	if (m_sharpauto) {
		if ( m_ptrVideoIn->AutoHFilter )
		  fieldHFILT = HFilter_AutoFormat;
		else  // SECAM
			if ( hActive < DWORD(m_ptrVideoIn->Clkx1_HACTIVE) / 7 )
				fieldHFILT = HFilter_ICON;
			else
				fieldHFILT = HFilter_QCIF;
		fieldPEAK = 0;	 // Peaking (1 = On)
		fieldLNOTCH = 0; // This can be disabled to get full Black/White bandwidth (0 = On)
		fieldLDEC = 1;	 // Reduces bandwidth of luma. (0 = On)
		fieldCOMB = 1;	 // Averages color to reduce artifacts  (1 = On)

	} else {
		
/*		LNOTCH -> Color subcarrier elimination
		LDEC -> use or not filter LP or PEAK
		PEAK -> Select between peak and filtering 
		COMB = CromaComb: Use this to average chroma components of next lines

			PEAK/HFILT		LDEC	PEAK	COMB
			ICON 11			ON(0)	OFF(0)	ON(1)
			QCIF 10			ON		OFF		ON
			CIF	 01			ON		OFF		ON
			-				OFF(1)	OFF		ON
			11				ON		ON(1)	ON
			10				ON		ON		ON
			01				ON		ON		ON
			00				ON		ON		ON
			ICON 11			ON0		OFF0	OFF
			QCIF 10			ON		OFF		OFF
			CIF	 01			ON		OFF		OFF
			-				OFF		OFF		OFF
			11				ON		ON		OFF
			10				ON		ON		OFF
			01				ON		ON		OFF
			00				ON		ON		OFF */

		ULONG val = m_sharpness - 18;			// Get value of horizontal sharpness
		BYTE PeakHFilt	= BYTE((~(val >> 4)) & 3);		// Bits 54
		BYTE Peak		= 0;							// Peak = Off
		// Allow PEAKing only in Full Size in Bt848A or better.
		if (hActive > DWORD(m_ptrVideoIn->Max_Pixels) / 2 && pisces->HasPEAK() ) {
			Peak		= BYTE((val >> 3) & 1);			// Bit 3	
		}
		BYTE LDec		= (PeakHFilt || Peak) ? 0 : 1;		// 
		BYTE Comb		= BYTE((~(val >> 2)) & 1);			// Bit 2

		fieldHFILT = PeakHFilt;
		fieldPEAK = Peak;
		fieldLDEC = LDec;
		fieldCOMB  = Comb;
		fieldLNOTCH = 0; // This is a MUST to avoid color interference!
	}

For a non-programmer, (like me), it is easier to use the method I mentioned a few times above (frame size link), and read the chip register values as you set various options in your app, then translate them to english using the spec.

@Smurf

This might explain why the image looks too sharp. I think it is actually because it was not blurred (as maybe it should be) when it was shrunk. Not using a filter may make the image look artificial.

[Northstar]

Interesting topic.

I've tried most, if not all these resolutions here to capture with from digital tv, and in ALL cases anything below 640x480 does not look sharp in my opinion, even 640x480 pales in comparison to 720x288 resized to 720x576. How do you people get a sharp picture with those resolutions, dont you see a fuzz round moving objects and people all the time? Maybe its me being too picky, i dont know, but the diffrences are noticable to me, im no expert on this stuff but im pretty sure i know how to capture something properly and whether it looks good or not. I have yet to try this new res but will be giving it a try to see what the differences in quality are.

[lordsmurf]

Interesting topic. I've tried most, if not all these resolutions here to capture with from digital tv, and in ALL cases anything below 640x480 does not look sharp in my opinion, even 640x480 pales in comparison to 720x288 resized to 720x576. How do you people get a sharp picture with those resolutions, dont you see a fuzz round moving objects and people all the time? Maybe its me being too picky, i dont know, but the diffrences are noticable to me, im no expert on this stuff but im pretty sure i know how to capture something properly and whether it looks good or not. I have yet to try this new res but will be giving it a try to see what the differences in quality are.

If you have fuzz, you most assuredly have inadequate bitrate. That has no relation to resolution.

720x288 ? If you are capturing deinterlaced, you are throwing away half your data already. What program captures interlaced at that resolution?

I have no "fuzz" and I use 352x480 almost exclusively, mostly because most of my sources are at/near/below this source resolution anyway.

[trevlac]

@Northstar


You've got some strange numbers there. You're mixing PAL and NTSC numbers. Also, I see no way 720x288 is better than 480x576, unless you are watching only on a PC. You should try ?x576 resolutions for PAL, but I live in NTSC land, so maybe I'm wrong.

[lordsmurf]

so maybe I'm wrong.

You're right. Not wrong.
You've got your information down better than you give yourself credit for.

[Northstar]

Im capturig at this res because its pal, so im told, i watch what i do on a Yamada6100 divx player and have no problem watching what i copy at these resolutions. I can assure you they look great at this res 720x576 (x288 resized remember, it saves deinterlacing which usualy makes things worse not better, in my experience), anything below 640x looks fuzzy. I have seen this mentioned time and again from other forum members about the quality looking bad below 640x, so i know its not just me. I also use a lossless capture, its not the capture that looks bad/fuzzy, its when you encode it. If i capture at a lower res there is a slight noticable difference in quality then when you encode (divxpro 5.1.1) it shows it up even more (but not on 720x288 resized to x576). Ive tried many different ways to capture with many different programs and lower resolutions are definately worse than higher resolutions, lets be honest a higher res HAS to look better than a lower res right, otherwise whats the point in having higher resolutions if they arent better? I tried the res you mentioned btw, obviously i live in pal land as you say, on the pc i use windows media player classic to stretch it to fit the screen, i have to say the picture actually looked better than the other lower resolutions ive tried before now.

So what do you recommend for this method for us pal people, we cant really use the ntsc one can we?