Analog > DV > MPEG2 vs. Analog > MPEG-2.

[indolikaa]

The problem is, that most entry-level hardware and software for realtime cap is just plain mediocre.

You're too kind. I would have said 'just plain shit'

(Surface of the sun, eh? What, you think 117° in July is hot or something? )

[curritch]

I agree with the previous posts that both hardware and software encoders are striving to do the same thing. And if they both do the same thing with equal quality then the hardware encoder is far more efficient.

But that's a big if. When a hardware encoder ships the quality is set forever unless prom updates are periodically offered which I doubt is the case. So what you get initially is what you have forever. And I doubt that there are many options for selecting the quality of the encoding.

Software encoders however, such as TMPGEnc, are updated regularly. So you can be sowewhat confident that you are getting the best algorithms available. And they are "adjustable" so that one can select a quality that is consistent with time and other factors.

So to me it's not a question of hardware vs software supremacy. It's a matter of which approach is likely to be the most "state-of-the-art". And I think that here the advantage goes to software due to its flexibility.

But getting back to the basic question of this thread. I don't believe that there is anything to lose by first encoding to the miniDV format and then using a software encoder to create the mpg2 files. And I believe that there is much to gain unless you are confident that your hardware encoder is top notch.

[vhelp]

I'm w/ Thorn on this one.

I"ve ben doing capturing for a number of years now. (approx 3, and in human
terms, 3 years is like 10 years) anyways..

My experience is like this.

When I first started out, I was doing real-time capturing to mpeg. using an
ATI-TV Wonder card. Heck, I still have it :P
I thought it was the best thing (give or take a little, cause I had other devices
that I was experimenting with too) But, it wasn't long before I realized that
I needed better.

It all depends on ones abiliites/needs and so on. As time goes by, you eyes
sees things you didn't see in your previous endeavors. Thats how life is. You
spot things easier (sometimes for the better, and others.. not)

In short, I stand by my own words of preaching.. You can't beet anything
against an Analog Capture setup.
.
.
However, in my latest endeavors, using DV as my tool, (advc-100) this is
my ultimate tool of video process. It's still analog, though not like a good
uncompressed AVI capture, but still pretty damn good. The short w/ DV is,
it's in a way, minpulitive to the eyes, w/ it's color (luma/chroma) interpolate
injenious technique :P

My take w/ hardware based setups is that your final conclusions are based
upon your expeirence, and your level of compremise :P
.
.
I for one, would not soluly depend on a hardware devcie (though there was
a time when I did - caugh caugh "dazzle") but I'm sure they are improving.

For a truely great capture setup, you truely cannot beat the advc-100 - bar none
And, when your projects are VHS sources - wow.. look out, cause it does a
great job w/ what little vhs quality is. I'm still amazed at my vhs capture
from my DV device. My previous predissor is my DC10+ which I'll defend
for all time sakes too, but DV is here, and I'm sticking with it for the time
being, because the fact is, I recommend it - again, bar none

-vhelp 2438

[MrMungus]

But that's a big if. When a hardware encoder ships the quality is set forever unless prom updates are periodically offered which I doubt is the case. So what you get initially is what you have forever. And I doubt that there are many options for selecting the quality of the encoding.

Good point. I'm finding that the hardware encoder I'm using (and will probably return) is having problems with certain areas of certain types of video whereas the analog > dv > mpeg-2 captures I do don't have those problems. I'll post some screencap examples later today as I'm wondering what causes it and if I'm doing something wrong that could be fixed with the settings.

[proxyx99]

Since MPEG2 soft encoder is a must have anyway, analog-DV route is probably the most cost effective way to get best output for least money. Comparable MPEG2 HW encoder would cost substantially more. Analog-DV downside is HD space req. which makes this solution almost impossible (impractical) to use as a PC-PVR in a long run. I still think that having analog-DV and HW MPEG2 encoder (best if combined together in extern. box) is the preferred way.

[MrMungus]

Since MPEG2 soft encoder is a must have anyway, analog-DV route is probably the most cost effective way to get best output for least money. Comparable MPEG2 HW encoder would cost substantially more. Analog-DV downside is HD space req. which makes this solution almost impossible (impractical) to use as a PC-PVR in a long run. I still think that having analog-DV and HW MPEG2 encoder (best if combined together in extern. box) is the preferred way.

But you can do what I've been doing and use your analog > DV input as the source for on-the-fly MPEG-2 encoding. Been getting good results this way (better than my hardware MPEG-2 encodes, actually). The downside here it that it requires a fast processor (I have a 3Ghz now).

[Zetti]

Hi all,

I've read this Forum twice but I am still confused;

*FROM A PURE TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW*, would an Analog-DV-MPEGF-2 capture be worst than an Analog-MPEG-2 ?

Or vice-versa ?

In other terms - but I think I've already read the answer to this question - an Ati All-in-wonder, or an extyernal MPEG-2 hardware encoder would be better or worst than using the Canopus advc-100 consagrated toy to capture from VHS and TV broadcast ?

Thanks,

Zetti

[MrMungus]

Hi all,

I've read this Forum twice but I am still confused;

*FROM A PURE TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW*, would an Analog-DV-MPEGF-2 capture be worst than an Analog-MPEG-2 ?

Or vice-versa ?

In other terms - but I think I've already read the answer to this question - an Ati All-in-wonder, or an extyernal MPEG-2 hardware encoder would be better or worst than using the Canopus advc-100 consagrated toy to capture from VHS and TV broadcast ?

Thanks,

Zetti

It's impossible to tell just based on the method. I've been doing some testing and found that for on-the-fly MPEG-2 capture, I'm getting the best results from doing analog > DV > MPEG-2.

[Zetti]

Mungus,

Please, what hw and sw do you use ?

Canopus ADVC-100 and Ulead Video Studio ?

Thanks,

Zetti

[MrMungus]

Mungus,

Please, what hw and sw do you use ?

Canopus ADVC-100 and Ulead Video Studio ?

Thanks,

Zetti

JVC VCR > DVMC-DA2 > Ulead DVD MovieFactory 2 SE.

I'll probably be upgrading to Ulead DVD MovieFactory 3 today.

[rkgibbons]

I've been using a Pinnacle DC1000 card for real-time capture into DVD-Compliant MPEG2 format. I've yet to see any other hardware product match the DC1000 card for pure MPEG quality.

Is anyone else using this solution? Care to share opinions?

[LordVader]

i'm going to shoot my self on face, i'm confused.

Maybe i'm wrong, or maybe i don't understand to much about DV compressions yet, but how could be a good process, Analog > DV > MPEG, if DV is 4:1:1 ?

Is not a risky process and a sure way to get interpolation problems in the image ?

if MJPEG don't suffer about interpolation problems, why should i transfer "Analog to DV" instead of "Analog to MJPEG/Huffyuv" ?