High Quality Capture Cards

[LavaJockey]

I'm looking for a capture card and I have one main requirement: I want it to capture every bit of detail from a VHS tape, and store it in an AVI file. I don't care about any fancy features of any software that comes with it. I don't care about any kind of MPEG encoding ability either. I plan to use VirtualDub to capture to AVI, and TMPGEnc to convert to MPEG. So all I need is the capture ability. Is there such a card?

Right now I have both a Matrox 450, and an ATI All-In-
Wonder. I can capture at 704x480 resolution, 30 fps. However if I play both the original tape, and the captured AVI file to my TV screen (and then switch between them with an A/V switch), the AVI file has less detail. Is there a capture card out there that can pass this sort of test? I want to play both the VHS tape, and the AVI file, flip between them with an A/V switch, and not notice any difference in detail.

[Shabubu]

Most capture cards are based on the same brooktree chipsets, pinnacle seem to make better quality boards, but it's the codecs you use that seem to make the most difference. Basically use huffyuv at 400x480 and then encode to an interlaced mpeg with CCE or TMPGEnc using DVD bitrates and you should be fine.

[cruffino69]

Short version:

Ain't gonna happen.


Long version:

You're comparing two very different pathways from video to screen. The VCR-to-TV path has no analog/digital/analog conversion steps and thus are not prone to quantization errors. Furthermore, the TV output from your computer may be driving an otherwise perfect signal (if that were even possible) in a fashion that is different from your VCR. The color/tint/brightness/contrast settings may be off, the circuitry is very likely different, not to mention the noise generated by the PC that's injected into the composite (or S-video) output.


Hope this helps.

[Anonymous65]

The BT8x8 chip can do this, but you have to set the sharpnes setting in the registry to max. ATI and other capture cards have a smothening filter to reduce noise, and to help compression. You need to capture without any noise reduction. The only capture card with the BT8x8 chip I have used where the sharpness was set to max is the Cybermail card, which you can buy for $15. (Or use the drivers that set the registry to max). However, it is VERY hard to capture at 704x480 at 30 frames without dropping alot of frames. The Dazzle DVC2 also have sharpness control so you could maintain the crispnes in the video. I also tried the Pinnacle DC-10, and the sharpness was very low, still it had a control for it, but even at max, the picture was soft.
A trick you can use to get back the sharpness is to use the detail filter in Tmpeg. Use a setting of 30 to 50, and you will gain back most of the crispnes you lost during capture, and the video will not look so flat. Your ATI card will most likely be the best choice because it can actually capture at 704x480 without big problems.

[stanwebber]

avi format does not support interlaced playback so you will have to encode to mpeg2 BEFORE you can do a worthwhile comparison which sort of defeats the purpose. be sure to disable any bob or weave deinterlace playback filters & run fullscreen if you are outputting to tv. the quality of the tv-out on your video card is likely to be the single largest variable in all of this. as little as 352x480 will capture ALL possible detail from vhs

[LavaJockey]

Thanks to all for the replies.

>avi format does not support interlaced playback

I'm not sure exactly what that means. It sounds like
it means that the odd and even fields not being output
when I play an AVI file through the TV out. Is that
correct? How does that work? Televisions need both
fields to produce a picture.

>the quality of the tv-out on your video card is
>likely to be the single largest variable in all of this.

Then I have a new question: Which card has the highest
quality TV Out?

>as little as 352x480 will capture ALL possible detail
>from vhs

I have read that here many times. I understand why
480 is necessary to capture both fields in the video.
But then people usually say "convert to 352x240". Why?
Doesn't that throw away half the lines?

[Anonymous65]

The reason you convert from 480 to 240 lines is to make a VCD compliant file. The VCD format is 352x240, not 352x480. Also, you can combine the two fields and make one without loosing half the vertical resolution. The nature of interlacing cause you to loose vertical resolution, which is not the case with progressive (non-interlaced) scanning. So, by combing two fileds you do not loose half the vertical resolution, you only loose about 1/3, strange that might sound...

[LavaJockey]

>The reason you convert from 480 to 240 lines is to make
>a VCD compliant file.

I see. Actually, that is not important to me. Disks
are becoming big enough that I don't think I will bother
creating VCDs. So I can choose any resolution I like.

Here is a non-obvious interesting tidbit I discovered:
a video clip encoded at 704x480 looks better than one
encoded at 352x240 even when both are encoded at
the same bit rate. Try it!

[LavaJockey]

>However, it is VERY hard to capture at 704x480 at
>30 frames without dropping alot of frames.

If I capture with the Huffyuv codec, I don't drop frames
during 704x480 captures.

>The BT8x8 chip can do this, but you have to set the
>sharpnes setting in the registry to max.

I've never heard of this sharpness control. Would
my Matrox 450 card, or the ATI card have such a
sharpness control? If so, how does one set it?

>A trick you can use to get back the sharpness is to
>use the detail filter in Tmpeg.

There does not seem to be a "detail" filter in TMPGEnc.
Are you referring to the filter labeled "Sharpen Edge"?

>Your ATI card will most likely be the best choice

The problem is that the ATI cards do not come with
drivers that are supported by VirtualDub (or something
to that effect, I forget exactly what). So I can't use
VirtualDub to capture.

[stanwebber]

the vertical refresh rate of ntsc video is 60hz or 60 fields per sec. a field is every other scanline and represents a unique 1/60th of a sec in time. the electron gun makes 2 seperate passes every sec to display the full image: first odd scanlines then even resulting in half the image being perpetually shifted 1/60th ahead in time. this shows up as interlacing when processed thru the frame-based video system of your pc. until you grasp this basic principle and its implications you have no hope of making any sort of informed decision. as to the what video card has the highest quality tv-out....best i can offer is ati aiw pro is better than voodoo3 3000. and yes, you're quite accurate in your assumption that 352x240 vcd is crap

[cruffino69]

I found this link in a post either here or on http://www.rage3d.com. This is the VfW (Video for Windows) wrapper for the ATI WDM drivers. I haven't used it directly because somewhere along the way one of the driver releases provided the wrapper, and seemingly later versions did not (thus, if you do clean installs of your drivers you wouldn't necessarily have this any more).

The VfW wrapper allows VirtualDub to use the ATI board. I can capture in VirtualDub without any problems.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cruffino69 on 2001-11-09 07:22:55 ]</font>

[LavaJockey]

>the vertical refresh rate of ntsc video is 60hz or 60 fields per sec. a
>[...]
>processed thru the frame-based video system of your pc. until you grasp this
>basic principle and its implications you have no hope of making any sort of

Yes, I fully understand that. But you said that avi format does not support
interlaced playback. So how can that be? NTSC needs 2 fields per frame,
you claim that AVI does not interlace, yet I can still play AVI to my TV.
What part am I missing?

[Anonymous65]

The AVI file does not need to be interlaced, the video encoder in your DVD player will take care of that, or the software you use to make the mpeg file will do it. All movies (from film) are non-interlaced material. It will play back perfectly on your TV...

Sharpness in Tmpeg is the same as Sharpen Edge control.

I do not think that the ATI or matrox have any sharpness/detail controls.

You can use Vdub with ATI if you install the old Win98 drivers. I believe the wrapper has a upper frame limit excluding 704x480.

The discussion of using bigger frame size and the same bit rate has been discussed to death before. If you have little motion, that is correct. But as soon as you have motion, a 704x480 frame with a low bit rate will turn into several big blocks. this will not be so evident at a lower frame size using the same bit rate. However, if you only have talking head video (and no car chases), then go with the higher frame size.

[NeVeRLiFt]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1555&p=2

This is the card to keep an eye on!
I may just sell my AIW Radeon and get one of these this Christmas!

[CocoPops]

Just wanna add how I do my "perfect" captures

OS : Win98se
Video card : ATI AIW RADEON
Using S-Video cables...
Use ATI MMC 7.0 (works great without wrapper)
Only use MMC 7.0 to setup Source to S-Video (only need to this the first time per reboot).

Then close MMC again, and startup either Vdub or AVI IO.
Capture (PAL 720x576) using PICvideo MJPEG Codec at setting 19.

Encode to Interlaced MPEG2 using Tmpeg beta 12 (stil same frame size or maybe a little small like 480x576.
Data rate : Automatic VBR (CQ_VBR) and around 4000-5000 in data rate.

TV Playback sucks on the AIW card so im using a Creative DXR3 card (not using creatives drivers coz they sux, but sigma Designs Hollywood Plus drivers).

I get very nice captures using that setup, and I still use Tmpeg beta 12 (not 12a) as I think it's better, even compared to the new one.

[stanwebber]

i re-read my own comments and i agree they are not consistant; neither are anyone else's for that matter. you're on your own

[Anonymous65]

I'll get an ATI card when they make reliable software to go with the hardware. I have tried two different ATI cards, and they didn't stay in the PC for more than a day because of buggy and unstable drivers and capture applications.