What's the point of a DVD recorder?

[otpw1]

DVD recorders have many advantages, but the bottom line is that excellent results can be obtained from them without lots and lots of work, and without the steep learning curve that computer methods require. In fact, I can't remember the last time I captured to the computer.

Man alive I can, what a pain in the butt.

[mill48]

Completely OT ...

well, dvd-recorders are fine for anyone without basic knowledge (i.e. my Mom) and those who want to do it in their living room or tv room.

Now I'm not saying anything about your Mom, but what's wrong with doing it your living room or TV room?

[DereX888]

Correction. Many DVD recorders can be set to increments of 5 minutes for optimum disc space use (FR or manual mode), so you are wrong about the "fixed" bitrate encoding. Also, most of them employ a variable bitrate encoding method called Hybrid VBR. It is one-pass, but definitely variable, not fixed. Pioneer, JVC, Toshiba all work this way.

Youve got to be kidding me
The difference between 1-pass VBR and real 2-or-more-passes VBR encoding is like DIVX vs DVD, if not like VCD vs HDTV

The biggest advantage by far of DVD recorders is the time they save. The computer capturing/encoding method can be very time consuming, and the results aren't always that great. You have to know what you are doing, have the right combination of hardware and software, etc.

As I have pointed out in the previous post - YOU CAN RECORD IN A REAL TIME STRAIGHT TO DISC ON A COMPUTERS TOO. Have you missed that part?
And correction: you don't need to know anything, you select the program from a guide, or enter its length in HR:MIN and the software does it all by itself. No difference from a standalone at all (although recording directly to disc on a computer would yield not better, or actually same mediocre quality as standalone recorder's, since same 1-pass VBR would have to be used...)

Another advantage is the analog video sampling and image processing tends to be much higher quality in name brand DVD recorders than it is in most capture cards. The big name companies have been designing and building professional and consumer audio/video equipment for decades, so they have an advantage in this area.

The big names like sony always install MacroVision shit, not i.e. TBCs... so youre wrong here
Yes, they do make professional equipment too, without MV-shit and such - but standalone dvd recorders don't fall into category of professional equipment.

And if someone really need or require use of excellent image processing - theyre not amateurs. Hence they don't use standalone recorders either.

In other words, the captured image simply looks better in many cases. Plus, some DVD recorders have video input adjustments that allow for black level compensaton, color, detail, noise reduction, etc.

Whatever you can adjust on standalone recorder - you can adjust on a computer AND MORE, so youre wrong.
The captured image on a standalone simply cannot look better than same capture on a computer! I almost fall off my chair when I read your words
Have you ever tried using computer to do videocapture? I seriously doubt it, and if you really did ever tried it - then you either did it wrong (in that case you should have read guides on videohelp first ) or you've try it long ago, when Zoltrix Video capture crads were on the market ; in any case its obvious youre writing about something you have no clue about :O

And, as you rightly pointed out, the cost of a decent unit has come way down and is very affordable. The resulting DVD compliant MPEG2 video files can be edited and re-authored quite easily on the computer if one wants to, and the audio is already AC3 to boot.

At least one thing you got right - standalones are cheap. Maybe not as cheap as VCRs were lately, but very close. Kudos any average PC to the price tag of average standalone...

I don't know what is many people's fixation on AC3, but if you hear any difference between plain surround stereo recorded in MP2 vs AC3 then you gotta have 'golden ears' or you just didnt do any good job encoding audio.
And as a matter of fact many standalones do overcompress sound by using low bitrate AC3 (like 192kbps) that the MP2 with 224 or 320 or 384kbps bitrate sound way better! You haven't notice?

Most of people record of off what their cable co. provides (which is still analog cable with its plain stereo/surround sound for 50% of cable users, or a digital cable box - which would need to be recorded thru digital/optical link to standalone recorder's optical input - providing it is equipped in it - which for most of people using standalones would be already too complicated, or they simply don't have it).
And lets not forget that majority of tv programming was recorded and is still broadcasted in plain stereo/surround. So where exactly do you use AC3 5.1 recording on a standalone even if it would be capable of doing so?
Unless you were talking about AC3 2.0/2.1 sound, which is same as MP2 2.0/2.1 (with the exception of AC3 at 448kbps - but no one records 2.0 or 2.1 sound at such bitrate anyway, it is bitrate used for 5.1/6.1 channels, thus MP2's max bitrate of 384kbps with 2.1 sound does sound better than same compressed down to mere 192kbps in AC3

DVD recorders have many advantages, but the bottom line is that excellent results can be obtained from them without lots and lots of work, and without the steep learning curve that computer methods require. In fact, I can't remember the last time I captured to the computer.

Wrong again - as I have wrote at the begining of this post; you can do the same, in the same real-time and directly-to-disc on a computer as you would on a standalone recorder.
"Excellent resulsts" are in the eye of beholder; you praise standalone recorder's quality, I praise computer's recording quality. However whenever I have a need for it - I can do beautiful, professional-alike job on any video recording using computer, things like add subtitles, multiaudio tracks, even additional video angles - everything what is done by professionals you can do same or almost the same on a home PC, its only a matter of skills and time you want to spent on a project. Using standalone recorder no matter what your skills and knowledge are - you are limited to the dumbness and limitations of your recorder
Computer can easily beat any 'best' standalone's job with no sweat.
Even simplest job of them all - nice custom menu - is already beyond reach of any standalone recorder.


Another thing with computers that your standalone will never be able to do:
HDTV broadcast recording.
All standalone recorders always downgrade beautiful quality of High-def broadcast to the DVD quality, while using computer you can preserve exact quality of HDTV without any re-encoding of MPEG-2 DVB streams by simply dumping it on a harddrive as it comes broadcasted Try that on your standalone

And last but not least of the standalone's shortcomings:
making dvd backups (as many standalone recorder owners do).
By using standalone recorder you re-encode video stream (bad! its like making backup copy of VHS to VHS - every copy of a copy is worse than its source... and Im not mentioning missing subtitles/CC/menus/multiaudio tracks/angles/etc... )

Now, after I wrote what I could think of that make standalone recorders worse when compared to computer - I came to conclusion that now is the time to put on ebay my both DMR50 and DMR85 I detest them now more than before lol, and I better sell'em while they still may recuoperate to me at least part of their overpriced $ tags

To anyone else:
if youre thinking of buying capture card for your computer or a standalone recorder - fear no evil
I suggest this procedure:
First check all the guides on capturing video using computer with your capture card. Read them, see do you understand it.
If you do - go get your capture card and enjoy beautiful quality and all the goodies you can do with videocapture and disc-creating on your computer.
But if there is any part of any guide you DON'T understand - forget about capture card and your computer, and go straight to ebay.com and buy one of my panasonic recorders

Computers are either easy, or they are a "black magic" to their users.
If its the latter category you fall into - then standalone recorder is your probably only viable option.

Completely OT ...

well, dvd-recorders are fine for anyone without basic knowledge (i.e. my Mom) and those who want to do it in their living room or tv room.

Now I'm not saying anything about your Mom, but what's wrong with doing it your living room or TV room?

hmm, gee, my Mom is still hot MILF to most of my buddies, even though she past 40 long time ago (hush! )
I see no problem with doing IT in the living room or tv room, really
I just can't picture IT and my Mom in the same sentence... however if it would be your Mom (providing she's hot MILF too) then its a whole new ballgame, I mean ballpark, arrgh

[broadway]

Just curious, DerX888.
How much did your complete video capturing and editing system cost you?
What exactly do you have in your system (hardware and software) for this video capturing and editing?

[pepegot1]

Did you ever hear about FR mode on fixed recorders? I time it to movie length.

[DereX888]

@broadway
see PM

[ cut ]



@pepegot1

Did you ever hear about FR mode on fixed recorders? I time it to movie length.

And your point is?
With FR mode can you add or preserve subtitles, multiaudio, angles, make menus other than pre-set generics, or any other things I've pointed out in previous post?

[tipstir]

DVD Recorder for Stereo Entertainment System
--------------------------------------------------------
I use the Liteon LVW-5101 for 9 months now and just got the updated firmware dated 5/30/05. I use Verbatim DVD+RW 4X at 3 Hours Mode connected directly to my Comcast Digital Cable Box using Analog Video and Stereo Connections, that produce some very good pictures.

DVD Recorder for the Home Theater PC
-------------------------------------------------
This way you can use your computer HDD (hard drive) to store tv programs and etc. using Hardware MPEG2 TV Stereo Tunner Capture Card. Once this is done you can feed the new recording down the network pipe to a Network Media MVP player that has Hardware Video and Audio Decoding in S-Video, A-Video and Stereo Audio Channels to your home Television. Again you can also burn to DVD+RW/-RW also, but I find myself not doing that though. I've installed Ulead DVD Movie Factory 4.x works great with Hauppauge PVR-150 now!

This is the way I do it you can use default PVR programs like MainConcept PVR 1.1.3 for Pinnacle WDM Capture cards and Hauppauge! Network Media MVP 1000 or GBPVR v0.92.11 Hauppauge WinTV-PVR 150/500 and Hauppauge Media MVP 1000 or Hauppauge WinTV-2000, Hauppauge WinTV-PVR 150/500 and Hauppauge Media MVP 1000

[trhouse]

DereX888,

You make some interesting points, but the one you missed is that the primary market for dvd recorders is not people like yourself, educated in the use of computers and familiar with the what a computer, capture card, and some software can do in creating very professional looking dvds. The primary market is users of VCR's for whom Dolby Digital ( AC3), any menu system, no more bulky tapes, no rewind time, chapters, instant chapter access, still frames which are actually still, and 720 x 480 resolution are something of a miracle.

[edit] Your procedure "to anyone else" is pretty good.

[DereX888]

DereX888,
[...]
The primary market [of standalone recorders] is users of VCR's for whom Dolby Digital ( AC3), any menu system, no more bulky tapes, no rewind time, chapters, instant chapter access, still frames which are actually still, and 720 x 480 resolution are something of a miracle.

Oh, I agree completely!
I was pointing out the vast differences between standalone recorders and computer captures, and I was only responding to some idiotic claims in some posts.

[heavyharmonies]

DereX888, the only "idiot" in this discussion is you.

What you fail to realize is that YOUR perfect workflow is not necessarily perfect for everyone else.

When I first started doing VHS-to-DVD transfers, it was strictly on a PC, using a Canopus ADVC-100 to bring in the A/V and then TMPGENC to do the encoding, then authoring via another app.

It. was. a. royal. pain. in. the. ass.

A standalone DVD recorder takes care of all of the encoding, and gives you the OPTION of finalizing a DVD right then and there, quick and dirty, OR import to a PC for higher-end authoring.

Some people have more to their lives than sitting in front of a computer doing all this crap. The standalone DVD recorder makes it possible to do transfers as a passive activity.

And as far as your insults to gshelley61, you need to do some reading here on the forum; he knows far more than you ever will, and is considerably more helpful.

-Dan

[DereX888]

@heavyharmonies
Being called an idiot by an idiot is actually a compliment, so - thank you

I have not called anyone any names, learn how to read and understand, you idiot!
I wrote I was only responding to some idiotic claims in some posts.

See the difference between above sentences? One of them is calling someone (YOU) an idiot, other one doesn't...

[BogieV]

Without getting deeper into the discussion have tosay just 2 things:

1.Nearly 2 years ago I built PC system for editing video because the DVD recorders were too expencive and were only DVD (at most DVD-HDD) recorders (not Office, Internet, Multimedia applications).

2. Now if I had to decide I'd go for DVD-HDD recporder to do my video and live with my old 500MHz laptop for Word and Internet.

It's that simple! It depends on what you want to do. Yeah I like to tweak a bit and being able to rip some of my DVDs for back-ups, etc. - something that stand alone can not do. But apart from that I WANT DVD-Recorder - DID YOU HEAR HUNNEY ? - just calling to my wife in the kitchen

[Cole]

I am now looking into buying a DVD Recorder (Interesting that we call Video Cassetter Recorders VCRs, but we can't call a DVD Recorder a DVDR as someone already pinched that particular abbreviation!).

The trouble is, I have gotten used to my PC way - ADVC-50 to hard drive, edit, encode, burn and am having a little difficulty in letting that go.

But I primarily want to get a DVD Recorder as I want to get better recordings of programmes when I am out, other than use my JVC S-VHS, of things that I might want to keep. As good as the JVC 7965 is, it is still a magnetic format and sufferes the occasional dropout.

But so far the main things that are stopping me choosing a DVD Recorder:

Will I have the editing features available to me on PC?

--many of my old VHS tapes of off air captures feature the annoncement of the programme or even maybe up to two or three minutes of the previous programme on the intro, as timed recordings rarely (if ever) started bang on the beginning of the desired programme. This lead in would stay there until I was able to remove them during the process of making a DVD. Oh yes and on the rare occasion I captured from commercial television, the PC gives me the ease of editing out the commercial breaks.

It appears however that from some of the posts before, that a completed DVD Recorder's DVD can be re-editied if need be on a PC anyway, but at what cost? Not as accurate (is this true) than if using AVI/DV?

Oh dear, loads of different recorders and loads of different formats

--I think that I have decided to go for a recorder that records to +RW/R and -RW/R. The Time Slip of DVD-RAM doesn't really interest me. But at least when I bought a VCR in 1993 it was just a case of what I could afford for the quality and not which tapes it played.

I can't believe that there is only ONE DVD-Recorder with a Digital Receiver available!

--In the UK, it is expected that the analogue transmitters may be turned off in around six to ten years time. I do have a digi box, but it is a bit short sighted of many of the manufacturers IMHO that they have not included a digital receiver in more models already.

Do I really need a hard drive in a DVD Recorder?

--Shall I shan't I? This one is really giving me a hard (drive) time. It may be a simple choice to many but would I use it? And guess what - the one with the Digital Reciever doesn't have a hard drive in it. (Sony RDR-GXD500)

The more abundant DVD Recorders I can acutally get to look at I have been put off of by this site.

--The local shops to me have loads of Phillips and Panasonic models on display, but no JVCs or Pioneers. Skim reading through this site, it appears that the Panasonic and Phillips DVD Recorders aren't very good. I wonder if I have plain got that wrong, or do I indeed have the right idea? Ideally, I would like to see the machine before I buy.

===

The ultimate use I am looking for, is to have my PC for VHS to DVD conversion as I do still carry out a fair amount of editing (trimming mostly) and for capture of programmes if I am at home to do it.

The idea of the DVD Recorder is capture while I am not at home. Subsequently, if I want to keep the said programme, then I can quite easily rather than rerecord the (what I have now) S-VHS or VHS tape to the PC.

I think that there is a place for both PC and DVD Recorder (I can't see me giving up my PC encoding) but once I do get a DVD Recorder who knows if I will change my mind...

Oh yes, another reason I would like a DVD Recorder, is that I have saved up enough money for a good one!

[mazinz]

I practically stopped using my capture card all together. I own 2 homedecks (panny dmr-hs2 and the Jvc dr-m100s).

The homedeck just saves sooooo much time and hassle and at least with the jvc you get very good results. Now if i just had my panny deck, yes my capture card did a better job, but again its all a time issue. I have a zillion tapes here and doing it via the pc would take forever. Also re-encoding the audio (after capturing to the pc) to ac3 took time as well.

Much easier to record, rip and re-author on the pc.
And even then its a time issue, to hell with good menus as long as i can get the damn thing done. I dont care what kind of crap generic menu the homedeck makes, the disc is done in one shot.

[rhegedus]

What software do you use to re-author your dvd recorder disc once it gets to the PC? And does it re-encode? And, if so, how does it look? Are you happy with it?

So far I have found that the vobs do not always split accurately, so editing after the fact is a given.

Rip to HD with DVDdecrypter with no file splitting to get one larger VOB.

I'm quite pedantic about editingout commercials, especially when there isn't a clean break between the footage you want and the commercial, so I convert to DV with VirtualDub using the Panasonic DV codec and a reverse field dominance filter.

I then import the DV avi into Vegas and apply my own effects to edit out the commercials and blend the bits in between together.

Then re-encode to mpeg with TMPGEnc using VBR encoding , then author with TMPGEnc DVD Author.

Finally, burn with Nero.

[mazinz]

Hey DereX888

I don't know what is many people's fixation on AC3, but if you hear any difference between plain surround stereo recorded in MP2 vs AC3 then you gotta have 'golden ears' or you just didnt do any good job encoding audio.
And as a matter of fact many standalones do overcompress sound by using low bitrate AC3 (like 192kbps) that the MP2 with 224 or 320 or 384kbps bitrate sound way better! You haven't notice?

Most of people record of off what their cable co. provides (which is still analog cable with its plain stereo/surround sound for 50% of cable users, or a digital cable box - which would need to be recorded thru digital/optical link to standalone recorder's optical input - providing it is equipped in it - which for most of people using standalones would be already too complicated, or they simply don't have it).
And lets not forget that majority of tv programming was recorded and is still broadcasted in plain stereo/surround. So where exactly do you use AC3 5.1 recording on a standalone even if it would be capable of doing so?
Unless you were talking about AC3 2.0/2.1 sound, which is same as MP2 2.0/2.1 (with the exception of AC3 at 448kbps - but no one records 2.0 or 2.1 sound at such bitrate anyway, it is bitrate used for 5.1/6.1 channels, thus MP2's max bitrate of 384kbps with 2.1 sound does sound better than same compressed down to mere 192kbps in AC3

I was just reading your long reply (a few post above). Most people are fixated with ac3 because mp2 IS NOT AN OFFICIAL part of the dvd standard. Sure you can burn/make a disc with mp2 and about 99% of all dvd players will support it (although i did come across some players that would not because of this reason). It is not part of the dvd standard. I want my disc made within full specification and mp2 is not part of the equation.

I do agree that most people are wasting disc space making an ac3 5.1 track from a mono/stereo 2.0 source. And I wont even touch LPCM as i see that as a waste of disc space as well.

I just do not think you have seen a good dvd recorder, because the newest one that I did get (jvc) does rival/if not better than most of what I have seen with pc capture cards.

[broadway]

Mazinz,

You are probably right that the "best" DVD recorders available to the average consumer today rivals what can be achieved with a PC capture
card. That is usually what happens with technology.

There will always be a few obsessed with squeezing out that
last tiny bit of performance, but for the majority, the extra time and
effort of sitting in front of the PC for hours waiting for the 2-pass encoding
for 1 DVD can be put to better use.

[vhelp]

@ Cole

Regarding your method ...

Personally, and between you and I, don't

Don't give up your current pc method. It is by far, the best
method to date. And, don't be fooled into all the hype about
the quality you will get from these units. They still suffer
from one importnat aspect that is missing from this puzzle of
dvd recorder fadd.

And that missing puzzle piece is a built-in IVTC for film
type sources. (most/ALL vhs movies are film/telecine) And, especially
for vhs, you want this ivtc feature. But, as I noted in another
thread:

--> Blu-Ray - Will it provide better VHS to DVD copies??

..its still recording the whole 29.970 fps NTSC ( PAL ?? -- I would
assume the equivalent, whatever that may be for PAL )

Most programs on tv, are film based. They have a Telecine process
associciated with them. The problem with these telecine sources is
the determination factor (how clean is the telecine)
.
Perhaps, that is a factor already considered, and muted out of the
design, because it was already known that telecine source materials
can and *are* edited/modified, hence.. would break the 3:2 pattern
that an IVTC method/process would fail in the end.

Also, when dvd recorders, I have noticed some slight glitches in
the scene change sequence, and close-up of frames that are interlace
(or telecined 3:2 pattern) seem to be a little futzy looking. This
is "dvd recorder-dependant" of course

I believe that it is still too early to rely souly upon these devices.
And, the old tried-and-true, capture route is the ultimate solution,
and (IMHO) will always be

Still, dvd recorders offer lots of other "lazy" features. Lazy in
the sense that you don't want to spend the time w/ the capture setup
and editing and encoding, etc. ..but, just want to dvd record a program
to an -r/+r disk and be done with it, w/out the toal requirement of
quality.
.
I use my dvd recorder (Pioneer 220-S, last purch price $198)
(I also have an iLO 04 unit) for qucky stuff, or when I'm lazy or I
don't want to do any editing (ie, ivtc; filters; etc) or when I don't
really need total quality. There are many good reasons for looking
towards the dvd recorder scene. I like the idea of poping in an -r
disk and pressing record (and of course, using the highest quality
of these units, mine is HQ) for good reason, as it pays to be on
the side of "safety" ..because should you want, you can always rip
that program disk to your hd and either re-encode (as some do here)
or apply an ivtc and re-encode to MPEG; divX; Xvid; or whatever.

But don't give in to the belief (at this current time) that these
units are the ultimate in quality. Because IMHO, they are not.
But the above paragraph is a good example why you *might* want one

With respect to VHS archival purposes. All these units offer lots.
But, in my OP, I have only seen one setup look good (like the original
in color space - very important - - at least to me)
That is to have *two* pieces of hardware working in concert w/ each
other. The only one that I have seen work in concert (speaking of
near-match quality) is a Sharp VHS (and, Sharp 600 dvd player) w/
the Pioneer 220-S unit. These two brands, seem to match the color
space output perfectly. I have seen the Sharp 600 dvd player mostly,
but I did see a VHS version from a Sharp vcr once or twice, and it
helped forge my opinion that having the right combination of hardware
units (not gizmos) perform in concert w/ each other. And, IMHO, the
*BEST* setup is to have the following: .. see my closing, below.

For any type of archival projects, you always want to use the unit's
highest bitrate offered. Don't go for 2+ hour modes that these units
have to offer. You would be taking a step backward in the process (IMO)
.
As of current date, DL is still too expensive. Most everyone here
have 4.3g writers. asking for too much (2+ hours) per dvd disk is
asking for macroblocks. IMHO, you want to aim for 1 hr
projects per dvd disk. Especially for VHS sources. When DL becomes
cheaper/affordable, you can go for the 2 hr per disk

.
.

Gosh. So much to talk about here, but so little time (and energy)
to dish out, hehe. Anyways.

.
.

I leave you with my opinion in "what do you suggest is best" below.

dvd_player[Sharp 600] --> dvd_recorder[Pioneer 220-S]

or..

vcr_player[Sharp xxx] --> dvd_recorder[Pioneer 220-S]

These two match color space output, perfectly, IMHO.

The above is my opinion, based on my own experence. Take with a mild
amount of grain and salt

-vhelp 3451

[Cole]

Hi Vhelp

I still intend on carrying on with my PC for VHS encodes as the results that I have been getting are very good and for off air captures when I am home, but what I am more concerned about is the stuff I want to capture, but for some reason am not around to do so. The ADVC-50 is not easily set up with a timer.

Currently for my timer recordings I currently have two options:

Panasonic NV-HV61
Bog standard VHS machine. This is okay for taping stuff like The Bill, The New Captain Scarlet or films which I intend to watch once and then tape over with the next episode etc. Fine as it is, but this would invariably be captured from an analogue signal. Thus if I wanted to keep the episode/film, I have an inferior version than what I could have gotten from my PC's capture.

JVC HR-S7965
I purchased this for the playback capabilities and will continue to use this for the same. However, if i wanted to capture a programme I wish to keep and I was not going to be around to capture directly to the PC, I would set the JVC up to carry out the recording. I have a Sony Digibox attached to this and the SVHS picture quality is very very close to the original source.

However, since reading this...
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1325591#1325591

I did have a brief try of that model [7965], but encountered picture dropout problems - it couldn't give a clean recording, guaranteed to dropout, no matter how I cleaned it inside!

It did have a very nice playback* for stuff I recorded on the 9500, despite not having 3R (or R3). So for transfer it might be okay, just don't record on it!
*Excellent clarity and vivid colours.

...I have considered the few recordings that I have made and sadly this appears to be correct.

Also, there is some clipping of the frame I need to carry out on a SVHS capture are there is the 'overscan' part of the video at the bottom to remove as I am currently capturing at the 16:9 setting from the Digibox.

Therefore...
The DVD Recorder is meant to be the item to capture in as best quality as I can manage for times when I am not around to capture directly to PC.

A few weeks ago, I was not around to see the last episode of the new Doctor Who. I had two things going to make sure I capured it: my PC, which I started capture before I went out and turned off when I got back home (not always ideal) and also the JVC VCR.

Because I wanted to watch the episode as soon as I got in, on my televison as oppossed to PC monitor, I opted for the tape. During the regeneration scene a huge dropout occured which lasted about two seconds. AFAIK this simply wouldn't happen with a DVD Recorder.

[spiderman2k1]

DVD recorders can recorded Close Caption subtitles capture cards can not but i think the WINTV250 can do it with a hack.

[DereX888]

DVD recorders can recorded Close Caption subtitles capture cards can not but i think the WINTV250 can do it with a hack.

That is really *something* but I think not all of them can. I have tested today my panny and there is no CC preserved in the recorded signal at all (but it was there during the broadcast).

I wish capture cards that are able to dump CC to text files (i.e. ATI A-I-W) i wish they could do it with some sort of timecode, any timecodes.
It would have been easy to convert them into subtitles that way and add to the dvd.

[handyguy]

"but I think not all of them can. I have tested today my panny and there is no CC preserved in the recorded signal at all (but it was there during the broadcast). "

My panny e30 always captures the caption signal.

ATI video cards can capture captions. They can even suck all the captions out of a program & make a HTML, Word, text Etc file & capture a small picture every now & then if you want to go along with your text.

[otpw1]

"but I think not all of them can. I have tested today my panny and there is no CC preserved in the recorded signal at all (but it was there during the broadcast). "

My panny e30 always captures the caption signal.

ATI video cards can capture captions. They can even suck all the captions out of a program & make a HTML, Word, text Etc file & capture a small picture every now & then if you want to go along with your text.

My super cheap ilo dvdr04 does.
That was a pleasant surprise.