What Is The Better Of These Two Options

[gates69]

What would yield better quality in the end product??

1.JVC SVHS 9600 into my JVC DR-M10 DVD Recorder and then doing any editing on my pc.

OR

2.JVC SVHS 9600 into my Canopus ADVC-100 and then into my PC via firewire with editing to follow??

[Capmaster]

I think (1)

[gates69]

And your reasoning??

[gonzalimator]

I would think that editing with DV AVI would be easier that editing with MPEG-2. I vote for #2.

[wwjd]

I would vote for #2 as well.

wwjd

[Cornucopia]

As MPEG (using interframe compression) is much harder to edit than DV (using intraframe compression), and DV has a higher overall bitrate than MPEG (25 Mbps vs 9.8 Mbps max), for quality work it makes much more sense to go the 2nd route. As long as you've got the HD space available.

HTH,
Scott

[triphop]

if you objective is to merely get an analog signal into your PC to edit, then 2 is better. My argument is that you will be avoiding the MPEG2 encoding / decoding step that will be incurred by 1. I am assuming that your editing application works on DV as mpeg editing is less than stellar (IMO).

[gates69]

Well I am using Pinnacle Studio 9.When I have inputed a dvd via the canopus into Studio 9 it captures it as an AVI file.
So if I ran my SVHS to my stand-alone recorder and then took that dvd into my pc would it not also capture it as an AVI file??
All I see is adding an extra step using my stand-alone instead of going directly to my pc.
Hard drive space isn't an issue for me if that helps any.

[daamon]

So if I ran my SVHS to my stand-alone recorder and then took that dvd into my pc would it not also capture it as an AVI file??

It would, but it's the source that's the thing you have to think about - DVD (be it a commercial one, or one recorded on your stand-alone) is MPEG2 and so a lower bitrate than DV, hence (technically) lower quality, although this may not be observable to most people.

Editing AVI, irrespective of the source, is (considered to be) easier than editing MPEG. It's the quality of the AVI that is dependent on the source.

What are you planning on doing once you've finished editing? Output to (S)VHS tape, to (S)VCD on CD or to DVD?

When you say editing, what do you mean? Just trimming clips and cutting / splicing them together, or fades, transitions, effects etc.?

[gates69]

The end result will be going to dvd.
I use pinnacle to add chapters,edit,build menu's etc...
I know many have had problems with that program but it has worked great for me.
So is it safe to assume that I would be better taking my svhs directly into my pc instead of adding that extra step with the stand-alone??

[vhelp]

Hi gates69,

Definately go with your 2nd option. As other's here say, it's the better route.

Even at your DVD writer unit's maximum bitrate setting, it's still comrpessing
your source. Expect macro blocks in your final re-encoded to MPEG file.

Soo.. ..

* Whatever macro blocks that weren't in your original source, will now be their,
... when your DVD writer unit compresses it to MPEG, and then when you
... "re-encode" to MPEG again (after you firewire it to a DV file)

* And, whatever macro blocks that were there in your original source, will
... now be multiplied by your DVD writer unit's compression to MPEG, and then
... when you "re-encode" to MPEG again (after you firewire it to a DV file)

Just realize this.., that when your source is from Satellite or some other
MPEG that you are capturing, that there will be macro blocks already there.
.
The problem here, is that you are going to be re-encoding these macro blocks
again, and then again.
.
Also, when your color space will be converted (evident by comparing it to
your original source) ..and when you capture it again to DV (another color
space conversion) you will be encoding the color space yet again, making
your final MPEG even more brighter looking.

The above is the reality of what to expect if you go with your first option.

So, going your 2nd option is the better route. Just remember though, that
if your source if Satellite or other MPEG source, that you should expect their
to be some macro blocks in their already.

The only source that does not have macro blocks (and make for great
capturing projects) are:

* VHS
* LD (laserdisc)
* Analog Cable
* Antenna signal
* DV cam footage (and VHS/VHS-C etc CAM equipment)

All everything else (ie, DVD; Satellite; Digital Cable) all have macro blocks.

-vhelp

[gates69]

Well in the two dvd's I have run through the ADVC-100 to my pc and into Pinnacle looked great after the finished product was done.
Now granted these two dvd's were very clean to start with and had no digital artifacting that I could see.Not sure if I totally agree with your statement.Does the statement "garbage in garbage out" apply here??
I guess I'm asking if the dvd source you are using is very clean(very little or no artifacts) will the end product look better then if the dvd looked bad to begin with??

[Cornucopia]

Well in the two dvd's I have run through the ADVC-100 to my pc and into Pinnacle looked great after the finished product was done.
Now granted these two dvd's were very clean to start with and had no digital artifacting that I could see.Not sure if I totally agree with your statement.Does the statement "garbage in garbage out" apply here??
I guess I'm asking if the dvd source you are using is very clean(very little or no artifacts) will the end product look better then if the dvd looked bad to begin with??

I think you answered your own question.

GIGO--yes.

As a rule (there are exceptions of course), if you're keeping the bitrate on the "high" side, the most encoding loss (or artifact creation) is the 1st one. But there will always be "buildup" of artifacts with every generation of compression that you use.
Remember-VHS/SVHS uses a form of analog compression (composite, color-under & BW limiting, etc), DV uses compression, MPEG uses compression, Sats use compression, most CableOperators use compression--it's hard to get away from it.
Try to minimize the # of times you give it a compression step, and use the least amount of compression that you can afford (aka highest bitrate). This includes when applying titles/fades/layers/transitions/FX to a clip there will be re-compression in the rendering.

If you tried METHOD #1 and had good results--AND--it is quicker and easier for you, you may want to continue with it. BUT, you may have just gotten away with a lucky break on the 1st go-round, which doesn't always happen.

HTH,
Scott