If I have the time tonight, I'll see about it. But I'm going to be pretty busy tonight.Originally Posted by Wilbert
If you can tell me what to use to do it, I can try.Originally Posted by trevlac
I'm confused by this statement except with respect to the Philips chip.Originally Posted by trevlac
I'm aware of the Vertical filter and have capped at 368x480 cropped to 352x480 in the past with the AverTV Stereo. Right now I'm mainly using the card with the Philips chip. Interestingly, the 352x480 cap looks just a little bit (not much at all) better to my eyes with this card in this test.Originally Posted by trevlac
+ Reply to Thread
Results 61 to 85 of 85
-
-
@junkmalle
Let me start by saying i enjoy this type of sharing of perspective and info. This is how I learned this stuff. I'm still learning a lot.
Originally Posted by junkmalle
Your example of 2 grey pixels breaks the >2 rule. If the pixels are a little white and a little black then as long as your wave is the highest frequency, only 1 frequency sine wave can connect the dots.
I also think in your example you are making a logic jump that 2 adjacent pixels with 'low contrast' can not represent analog peaks with higher contrast. This is a good and subtle point, and I will have to think of an example to show (or not) how low contrast pixels can translate into peaks in the analog. The question is, if pixels are point measures ... what is in between.
Yes, this is the Nyquist theorem. But that doesn't mean that at 1.99x you have crap and and 2.01x you have a perfect representation of the original analog waveform. It is a rule of thumb that says the highest frequency that can appear is 1/2 the sample rate. It doesn't say that it takes a 2x sample rate to perfectly represent the waveform.
The question does come up then "In practice how much higher do you need?". To given the reconstruction room for error and such. I certainlly don't think it is 200%. If VHS can contain a max of 320x480 you don't need 640x480 unless the reconstruction method is really poor. I threw out 10%. 352 gives 10% above 320. Besides, 320 is probably never reached. 352 gives 15% room over 300.
In any case Trevlac, thanks for the perfectly civil discussion. I've seen so many threads like this that break down into huge flame wars!
BTW: Your arguments fall in line with what my friend Arachnotron says on the topic. He ran a bunch of tests with patterns and made measures on scopes. It seems if you sample < 4x you get a pattern in the samples that is at a different frequency than the frequency of the test pattern. But it does not make any sense that you have to sample at 4x or DVD could not contain above ~ 4.5MHz. And the test DVDs clearly do. I think the answer to this lies in what pixels really are and how the analog is reconstucted.
I'd point you to our discussions over at doom9, but a lot of untrue statements were made as we were exploring the topic. (Especially by me) So I don't want to confuse my current points and understanding with those.
-
I've just realized that my post with the caps faulty for the true purpose of this thread -- resolution for VHS capture. I was somewhat caught up last night just seeing the actual difference in the cards at the resolutions, so I capped straight from DVD. If I can get the time tonight, I'll record the DVD menu to VHS and repeat the tests with caps from the VHS tape.
It should be very relevent to this thread to compare the VHS caps to each other as well as the DVD caps.
Sorry if I mislead anyone. -
Originally Posted by BrainStorm69
You can also cut out little parts to post. Like the words.
Your DVD menu is a nice 'real world' source. The resolution pic played from DVD will certainlly have differences. I doubt there are differences in any VHS source. Even the test pic recorded to VHS via DVD. Edit:{Except for the BT vertical problem }
Originally Posted by BrainStorm69
Originally Posted by BrainStorm69
But most pleasing is very important ... for example. I have a $1800 professional DV capture device. It captures more detail in the resolution test pic than anything else I have ever tested. It also has a problem where the colors are clamped 25% too low. The pictures look washed out and dull.
My point here is that resolution is only 1 factor. Personally, I think proper color is more important after a certain point. I want a vibrant and rich picture. Luma resolution only gets me so far.
PS: It's nice of you to do these tests. Hopefully they may help some people. I certainly don't know how all this stuff works. I've been learning for a while and find even the worthless (to me) details interesting. For example, I don't have a philips chip card. But your process does make that philips 352 look good. -
If you're worried about VHS detail, buy one of these:
http://www.signvideo.com/dr1000_image-enhancer_video-processor.htm
And if you're worried about color, buy one of these:
http://www.elitevideo.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=8Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
Other than that, I'm not sure they are worth the money and desk space, because you get much more control in digital. I don't have a BVP4 and have read good things. But I have also read people saying they are not worth the money ($700 new I think). I don't really know, but I'd think I could get similar results in VirtualDub.
PS: I sent my Laird back to the manufacturer and asked them to fix the color problem. -
Originally Posted by Wilbert
I put them side by side in the browser still don't see much difference. They are both 352 so any difference should be due to the TMPGEnc (bicubic ?) resize vs the ATI (bilinear?). Cut out a piece and show me where to look.
PS: I think at 704 I would see a difference. -
Having used one, I'd actually have to disagree. I think the hardware controls (for color correction and sharpness) work far better than the digital ones.
Once you go digital with analog source, your options are limited. While still in analog land, you've got a bit more headroom.
I will say the "res boost" isn't all it's cracked up to be, but these units have managed to give the appearance of higher res, if not outright supplying higher res.
I'm a fan.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
@junkmalle
Here is the source: http://www.bores.com/courses/intro/basics/1_antia.htm
Here is the picture of interest:
The top signal has 50 cycles. The next item has 100 samples. The 3rd line shows the samples 'reconstructed' using straight lines. The 4th shows reconstruction using a sinc.
I believe your exmple is a discusion of line #3. This assumes samples are connected by straight lines. As you 'slide' the wave across the samplign points you have high contrast if your samples fall on the peaks and 2 almost grey pixels if you go to the other extream.
Going along with this, one has to 'believe' that 2 grey pixels next to each other actually can represent a peak. The only way I can make this jump is to view pixels as measures that need to be taken in groups of 12 or more. So the 2 don't show a peak. You need a bunch around them to calculate it.
Frankly ... I'm still working on this in my mind. The reconstruction has a great deal to do with the results ... and I don't know how real devices handle this (my TV/DVD Player / And PC Monitor - Graphic Card).
I've talked to quite a few people about this and been given tons of grief. A reasonable approach to the practical answer is to just test and look at your results. But I also like to know the theory so I can use it as a guide.
--------------
Here is a discussion about this on doom9. I'd start on page 5 and go to Arachno's 3rd post down (on nyquist).
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67287&perpage=20&highlight=post%20al...g&pagenumber=5
As I said before ... there is a lot of bunk in there ... On the 6 tap 32 phase resizer that the BT uses ... I did finally figure out what that means. I wrote a vdub filter to play with the idea. It's basically like a Lanczos3 resize. Xcept I don't know what filter taps they use. -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
And I agree on the 'headroom' thing, it's just the ease of use/pratical difference I wonder about.
Most of the stuff I play with is already mpeg2 or DV. It was hard to justify the Laird for DV in alone. I use it for DV out back to my monitor when adjusting and editing.
Like I said. I've been looking at them. I'd pay $150 for the newer + model just to see. Another item I find interesting is one of those Hotronic pro level TBCs. They of course have all the proc amp controls too. Not sure if they effect digital or analog. -
OK, here they are one more time, this time the same DVD menu recorded to VHS on my Mitsubishi HS-U781.
ATI 352x480
ATI 704x480
Conexant/BT878 352x480
Conexant/BT878 704x480
Philips SAA7130 352x480
Philips SAA7130 704x480
EDIT: For those that want to see the BT878 without the vertical filter...here it is at 368x480 cropped during capture to 352x480. Notice that the BTWinCap drivers are artificially sharpening the picture at the default setting of 50 sharpness, the "auto" box unchecked
Conexant/BT878 368x480
-
How do I know what chip my card uses? I got a Winfast 340 (I think it's a GeforceFX?), and I "think" it uses a Phillips chip.
If that's so, then can I safely assume my card is a good "all-rounder" and can capture VHS/TV equally well at 352/704/720?
Judging from BrainStorm69's examples, there's no real difference at all between the 352 and 704 captures (with the Phillips-based card) - which agrees with my own testing.
Thanks. (Interesting topic!). -
I don't even remember what they were. I think the bulk of it is left, as long as the images folder gets back online. The forum is fubar right now. I'm not even gonna use it until it's back to normall 100%.
Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
I hope the pics haven't been lost. I deleted them all from my hard drive.
-
I hope the pics haven't been lost. I deleted them all from my hard drive.
Anyway it looks like after all the reading and discussing that went on here while i been gone seems to lean towards 352X480 now with good capture device and software ect... though lower quality capture devices may not do well at that setting because of resizing and filters, right?
I never saw the pics, but reading the comments about them it seems VHS capture at 352 was equal to the same capture at 720 for quality, correct?
Although I have not been around much for a few weeks, I did do some testing on this myself. No pics to offer though.
My captures at 352X480 from a VHS-C camcorder at about 5000BPS look as good as the ones I did from the exact same tape at 720X480 and 8000BPS. Niether I nor anyone else can SEE the difference when viewing them on the PC. After burning to DVD and watching on the PC still the same! I did not burn the 720X480 though, but that should not matter.
ALSO, I just snagged a GREAT deal on some older camcorders! 1 VHS tape camcorder, works good but bad battery. Used external P/S for it.
When recording to the tape the quality is lower it seems than when capturing directly to the PC. What I have done is connect the camcorder line outs to my ATI AIW Radeon 7500 and capture directly from the camcorder WITHOUT recording to tape. 352X480 still looks the same as 720X480 capturing directly from the line out! Most likely dirty heads, but when recording to the brand new VHS tape the quality of the tape is lower than my direct captures.
If people want to save power they should learn what an OFF button is for and forget all this power saving crap! My problem is that I can turn on the camcorder and it will run about 15 minutes without recording (sends signal through the line out durring this time) but then the darn thing goes into standby power saving mode and shuts off the viewfinder and of course stops sending any signal also! Dam I hate power saving crap!
So what I found for ME is that 352X480 captures are equal quality with my equipment as 720X480 captures (cannot SEE any difference). AND either my camcorder has dirty heads OR capturing analog signal direct from the camcorder is better quality than recording to tape first then capturing the tape! Actually I THINK both are true! A tape most likely suffers a signal loss durring both record and playback compared to no siganl loss with a direct capture. Well other than cable and conection losses but you have those both ways.
Can't complain too much if I need to clean the heads on a $10 camcorder
My other $10 camcorder I am not sure about yet, it is a Panasonic camera
that connects to a portable VCR. Never saw something like this before, either a more profesional model or really old type like when they first started making them? It has no way to record to tape or power itself! It connects to a VCR with a 10 pin connection.
I did find the portable Panasonic VCR ($5) in with some other stuff, Also an RCA VCR that is strange. The RCA looked like a normall VCR but older topload and had the camera connecter on the side too ($5 also) so I bought it too. What I found is that one is 2 piece. Portable VCR and docking station! I noticed the bottom was loose when I picked it up, figured it had broke and someone took it apart for some reason but got it for parts anyway. When I got home I found instead the Tv tuner and clock (left side) is part of the docking station and all the VCR controls are on the portable VCR. The bottom was not loose, it was of course the bottom of the VCR and top of the docking station instead.
SO far I did not like the picture though but haven't had time to mess with it much yet. Except for batteries everything worked, but then the RCA portable went dead, Hopefully just a loose power connection.
So anyway, looks like I'll be doing alot more recording/capturing/burning/playing again soon. Anyone want to see the deer in my yard?? -
We haven't had one of these threads for a while... Reminds me of the good old days of VCDHelp...
Simply put, unless there is a PROBLEM with capturing at a higher resolution (e.g., HDD constraints, insufficient bandwidth --> dropped frames, etc.), capturing at the higher resolution (and then doing software resizing) will not look any WORSE than capturing at a lower resolution.
If you are using a resolution higher than the actual amount of video information (i.e., you are oversampling), the only effect on the quality is either NONE or BETTER (through a better SN ratio... i.e., less noise).
The arguement AGAINST using a higher/highest framesize is really one of efficiency. Generally, you will need more resources, the process will be more difficult and the process will take longer. Depending on your setup, there may be minimal quality advantage.
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
I still have one of the pictures I posted. It's a comparison of my Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 capturing a resolution test pattern (referenced earlier in this thread) from VHS tape at 720x480 and 352x480. The 720x480 capture does show a little more detail:
Enlargements and reductions were performed with VirtualDubMPEG with the Lanczos3 filter. This JPEG file is very close to the original BMP extractions. For those of you who don't know, the PVR-250 captures directly to MPEG only.
Note that the visible alternating lines in the "300 line" area of the 720x480 capture is a moire pattern, not accurate detail from the original image. -
If you are using a resolution higher than the actual amount of video information (i.e., you are oversampling), the only effect on the quality is either NONE or BETTER (through a better SN ratio... i.e., less noise).
Something more general, explaining why it doesn't contradict with Nyquist. Quoting someone from Ars
"More than that, Nyquist specifies the minimum sample rate required, under ideal conditions, to mathematically reproduce the original bandwidth limited signal. Since we have to physically reproduce the signal (under non-ideal conditions), we are pushed further from Nyquist's minimum. Things like non-ideal front-end anti-aliasing filters end up increasing the required frequency bandwidth"
I hope BrainStorm can redo the screenshotsPlease
-
I stand by what I stated before as a truism...
The caveat I gave was "unless there is a problem". If the driver handles scaling badly or inconsistently, you may well find "optimum" capturing resolutions.
Assuming everything else is the same, there shouldn't be any worsening of "quality" in capturing at a higher resolution. There just may not be any benefit.
As an audio analogy, it would be like capturing AM radio at 44.1 kHz sampling rate vs. 22.015 kHz. At 44.1 kHz, it won't sound any worse (and may possibly be better).
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
[quote="Wilbert"]
I hope BrainStorm can redo the screenshotsPlease
-
This thread has probably been the absolute best information I have found on the net. so far. As some of you know, as a few of you have helped me quite a bit, I am looking to convert VHS tapes(which are already not the best quality..multiple generation concert videos) I have to digital format. From what i've gathered and understand I should capture at one of the following:
Using ATI's MMC:
mpeg at 352x480 using huffy encoder with 288 line field threshold, predict gradient RGB compression, Predict median YUY2 compression, or maybe a resolution a notch higher than burn it to svcd.
OR mpeg4 at 640x480 encode interlaced, VBR max bitrate 8, target bit rate 8, motion estimation quality 100, audio encode 296kb. Then use TMPGenc to bring to to svcd format.
Now, after that is done..either should be ready to go to svcd, right?
If I wanted to go to xvid or divx, I could do that right off the bat by choosing AVI then the xvid codec, right?
Again, all the help has been appreciated! -
Since this thread got brought up again, and I have my AverMedia AverTV Stereo (BT878) installed at the moment, I decided to re-do the VHS caps that got lost when Baldrick switched servers.
-
I suggest a new post if possible! A link from here to the new post may help those that seek info about those subjects
La Linea by Osvaldo Cavandoli
Similar Threads
-
Video resolution (image size) calculator
By headless chicken in forum MacReplies: 10Last Post: 15th Jan 2011, 17:17 -
Correct size Resolution for AVI
By Sliztzan in forum EditingReplies: 45Last Post: 25th May 2010, 10:01 -
Youtube Default Screen size / resolution
By Juc1 in forum Video Streaming DownloadingReplies: 4Last Post: 7th Apr 2010, 06:48 -
How much does resolution affect file size?
By milkydoo in forum Video ConversionReplies: 3Last Post: 16th Sep 2009, 17:29 -
Converting resolution size
By Illusionist in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 17Last Post: 11th Mar 2008, 01:38