Capture from TV to Computer in BEST quality. Recommended software/hardware?

[bits]

TurboRunner wrote:

man i would of thought the dvd recorder manufacturers would have included a datatransfer option to the standalones by now so you could copy the videos from the standalone hdd to the pc hdd without having to burn them and re ripping maybe sometime in the future.

It will never happen! The media industry is steadily and systematically moving towards digital media residing in places not easily accessed for editing and pirating. The endgoal is to have complete control of digital media.

[mob]

I really appreciate the help you guys are giving me

From all of what I've learned so far, here is a list of products I was/am considering and my feelings towards each one:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Canopus MPEGpro-EMR
This was on my consideration list but after reading what FulciLives posted HERE (last paragraph), I have decided not to go with this device.

Besides, I already have the Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-USB2 and I don't think I would see any improvement between the two. If anything, the Hauppauge is most likely better anyways.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Canopus ADVC110
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this would be the best choice for converting TV to XVID (One of my main goals).

Say I use the ADVC to capture (or better yet, "transfer") TV to PC, it will be stored on the PC's hard drive as DV (which I am aware is some type of uncompressed avi).

In the same way that I would convert MPEG2 to XVID, I can easily convert DV to XVID with no problems.

According to my understanding, DV will also give me better quality than MPEG2 plus the re-assurance that the audio and video will be in sync.

So it seems that for a person who wants to capture TV and convert it to XVID, the ADVC would be the best choice.

The problem comes only when one wants to use the ADVC to convert to DVD. This means I would have to go through the tedious process of converting DV to MPEG2 (with CCE) which I know takes a very very long time.

Also, the DV format is something new to me and I am not familiar with it at all. I have a great understandment of MPEG2 and I know all the right tools when dealing with MPEG2, so switching to DV will probably require me to learn a little. My main concern is, how can I edit out commercials from a DV avi without any re-encoding or losing quality? I know with MPEG2 there are many options (one being VideoRedo which I love so much and use all the time).

I love VirtualDub and I am wondering if I would be able to use it as my "capture" software when using the ADVC. I know I can't use VirtualDub with my Hauppauge WinTV-PVR because it wont support MPEG2.

If I can use VirtualDub as the capturing software, will I also be able to use it as the editing software to remove commercials without losing quality or re-encoding? I hoping there is a DV editing software like VideoRedo out there that would give me the same simple cut-and-save process.

Aside from that, I am also thinking I may not even need the ADVC110. Maybe the ADVC55 is enough for me?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Pioneer DVR-633H-S
Can be used to easily convert TV to XVID or TV to DVD (but wont be as good quality as the ADVC).

This seems like an excellent (or possibly the best) solution for one who is planning on mainly archiving to DVD.

It can be as simple or complex as you want it to be. You can do all your recording, editing, authoring and burning directly from the unit itself (keeping it as simple as possible and requiring no PC).

There will always be the option of burning the VOBs to DVD-RW and transferring them to the PC (with no quality loss) for better control on editing/authoring using your favorite PC software.

With that said, you can think of this DVR as sort of a TV to PC capturing device that will output directly to VOB (MPEG2). The VOBs can then be easily converted to DVDs (with ease) or XVID (just as easily as DV -> XVID).

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Only one question remains. How big of a quality difference are we looking at when comparing the ADVC to the DVR?

I guess I also have to decide what my inentions are regarding the tv recordings. Wether it be XVID or DVD as the final goal.

So basically I still need help deciding between the ADVC and the DVR.

I've compiled a simple list of pros and cons for each device to help me decide:

ADVC Pros:
-The best possible quality
-Easily convert TV to XVID

ADVC Cons:
-A rather long process when converting TV to DVD
-Requires the PC to be constantly used during capturing/encoding
-I don't know what software to use for editing/capturing DV

DVR Pros:
-Easily convert TV to XVID
-Easily convert TV to DVD
-Doesn't need the use of a PC for capturing

DVR Cons:
-Excellent quality, but still inferior to that of the ADVC.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Aside from all what I posted above. I have a question for you, FulciLives, regarding what you wrote here:

With the Pioneer DVR-531H-s I use the following method (which is common). I have digital cable and my cable box has a built-in DVR function (has a built-in HDD). My cable wire is split so that one goes into the cable box and one goes directly to the Pioneer via the RF input. I record all "analog" cable channels direct to the Pioneer using the RF input. For digital channels I first capture them to the DVR box. Since these channels are digital the DVR is making a 100% back-up of the digital stream so there is no loss in quality when you capture and play back later. I then later play back the recording from the DVR and in real time record it to the Pioneer via the S-video and RCA Stereo audio jacks.

I also have the HD-DVR service from my cable company. I have the Scientific-Atlanta Explorer 8300HD. Just like you, I also use it to record and playback HD. I just wanted to ask you, how do you know which channels are analog and which ones are digital?

Also, why do you record Analog to the Pioneer and Digital to the DVR? Why can't you just record everything to the DVR and then real-time record them to the Pioneer when you need to?

I could be wrong, but I am assuming that recording from the DVR's hard drive to the Pioneer will give you the same results as recording live TV to the Pioneer.

[spectroelectro]

I've been doing this for enough years now, and enough folks have said my TV caps are the best they've ever seen, that it's possible I might not be entirely clueless about which hardware and software to use.

The answer is: it depends. If your main goal is to produce a non-standard video format like divx or xvid or H264 which you would then play on your computer, then you won't want to use a standalone DVD recorder. Why? Because in order to get H264 or divx or xvid or Ogg Theora from a DVD, you would have to transcode the mpeg-2 files recorded on the DVD. Transcoding always gives inferior results to what you get from encoding directly from a high bitrate low compression format like Type 2 DV avi files or a no-compression format like huffyuv into the target video compression format.

For example: I've compared Type 2 DV avi captures encoded directly into xvid and MPEG-2 VOBs from recorded DVDs transcoded into xvid. Using the same xvid settings, the Type 2 DV -> xvid files always beat the transcoded xvids. The reason is that when you encode video into mpeg-2, you always introduce some video artifacts. They might not be visible, but rest assured, they're there. Then when you transcode the mpeg-2 file into xvid, you add still more compression. Whereas if you record into a lossless format like huffyuv or a relatively low compresssion (5:1) format like a type 2 DV avi file, you only get the compression artifacts from the xvid encoding and nothing else. Furthermore, because the xvid encoding process has much better material to work with, it produces a better looking output. Any mpeg-2 encoder is going to produce some smoothing and blurring and and other changes in the video, and this will degrade the quality of what you start with when encoding into xvid.

So if your ultimate goal is to encode into some non-standard format like svid or H264 or Ogg Theora or divx, best to get a Canopus ADVC-110 or an ATI AIW -- preferably an older ATI AIW, the 7200 and 8600 works fine and you can capture into type 2 DV very well at extremely low cost with a card like that, and still get superb video quality. You'd spend no more than about $60 to $70 on a used ATI AIW 7200. There is one caveat -- the ATI AIW series work very well on some motherboard chipsets, but don't work well on others. And there's no way to tell ahead of time. You just have to install it and see. Some people report excellent results with the ATI AIW cards, while others report nothing but endless crashes and problems, and it seems to depend on some black magic combo of the right Wintel OS/mobo chipset. Older AMD mobos didn't run the ATI AIWs well, some versions of VIA chipsets didn't run ATI AIWs well, and so on. So installing and getting the ATI AIW card to work properly is a real hassle and winds up being a crapshoot. It might work great, it might not work well at all -- you'll just have to see. The worst case is that you'll be a couple of weeks of work and $70. The fallback position is to get a Canopus ADVC-110, which requires essentially no installation at all.

The disadvantage of a Canopus card (I have a Canopus ADVC-100 as well as a cheaper PCI video cap card running on the same computer, so since I own both I'm not playing favorites here) is that you can't capture directly into a lossless video format like huffyuv. If you want really spectacularly good divx or xvid or Ogg Theora files, you'll want to capture into lossless huffyuv and then encode from that. Encoding will take about 3 to 4 times longer, but boy, the results are worth it. With the Canopus, you must encode into Type 2 DV. That already throws out 80% of the video information, since Type 2 DV is half cosine transform 5:1 compression. The Canopus has a hardware chip that does nothing but type 2 DV avi, and the cable from the Canopus merely transfers the data. This is why the Canopus reduces the load on your computer to nearly zero. All the encoding is done in hardware on the Canopus breakout box itself.

On the other hand, if your goal is to produce playable standard video DVDs that you can pop into your standalone DVD player and play back on a TV set, you are much better off getting a DVD recorder. Avoid the Panasonic, which are dogs. Panasonic produces very mediocre looking output. I use a JVC DRM10, which is generally regarded as one of the best DVD recorders (if not the best) because of its noise-reducing LSI mpeg-2 encoding chip. You will actually improve the quality of VHS tapes whenyou capture 'em into the JVC DRM10 if you start with a high quality VCR that has built-in digital video noise reduction, like the JVC 2911 or the Toshiba W8000 or M784 or M781 models. I own a JVC DRM10 and a Toshiba M784 and use a Sima EditMaster proc amp with a VIdicraft Detailer III video enhancer and an AVT 8710 TBC to capture from VHS tape. I still often put the proc amp in the chain when I capture from digital cable for reasons mentioned below.

If you're going to capture from VHS tape, you'll need some extra equipment: a proc amp, a video image enhancer, and a TBC. If you're cappping direct from digital cable, you won't need much other than the ATI AIW or the Canopus, though you might want a proc amp anyway. I'm astoudned at how badly some TV station munge the picture when they reboardcast it. Some TV stations in my area rebroadcast major network channels with the luma all screwed up so the picture is excessively dark and contrasty; other TV station love to pump the chroma way up so it looks like an explosion ina fluoresceent paint factory, and still other stations use some kind of processing that removes all the picture detail, or they just screw witht he IRE levels so the picture looks either too muddy or too glary coming right out of the cable box. Never underestimate the gross incompetence of local TV station video engineers.

DVD recorder models known to produce an excellent picture with no significant ac3 or mpeg-2 encoding problesm int he resulting VOB files nclude Sanyo and Pioneer and JVC. DVD recorders to avoid include the Panasonic, the Magnavox (which a video enthusiast of my acquaintance calls a "maggotbox"), the Cyberhome and the Emerson.

[edDV]

man i would of thought the dvd recorder manufacturers would have included a datatransfer option to the standalones by now so you could copy the videos from the standalone hdd to the pc hdd without having to burn them and re ripping maybe sometime in the future.

That is what I'm looking for as well. A gigabit eithernet connection (or IEEE-1394) to the PC would do the job.

Plus, I'd like the use the output HDD to YPbPr side of the same box to feed the TV display as a playout server. It would either play from the HDD or from a DVD.

If the connection was ethernet, the box could be located in a diffewrent part of the house.

[edDV]

I really appreciate the help you guys are giving me

From all of what I've learned so far, here is a list of products I was/am considering and my feelings towards each one:
...
Canopus ADVC110

So it seems that for a person who wants to capture TV and convert it to XVID, the ADVC would be the best choice.

I agree with spectroelectro's comments re: XVID.

The problem comes only when one wants to use the ADVC to convert to DVD. This means I would have to go through the tedious process of converting DV to MPEG2 (with CCE) which I know takes a very very long time.

Also, the DV format is something new to me and I am not familiar with it at all. I have a great understandment of MPEG2 and I know all the right tools when dealing with MPEG2, so switching to DV will probably require me to learn a little. My main concern is, how can I edit out commercials from a DV avi without any re-encoding or losing quality? I know with MPEG2 there are many options (one being VideoRedo which I love so much and use all the time).

Many programs can be used from Virtualdub-CCE to the mainstream commercial editors (e.g. Premiere, Vegas, ULead Video Studio, etc.).

DV will edit better than MPeg2 and give better encoding results.

I love VirtualDub and I am wondering if I would be able to use it as my "capture" software when using the ADVC. I know I can't use VirtualDub with my Hauppauge WinTV-PVR because it wont support MPEG2.

If I can use VirtualDub as the capturing software, will I also be able to use it as the editing software to remove commercials without losing quality or re-encoding? I hoping there is a DV editing software like VideoRedo out there that would give me the same simple cut-and-save process.

Aside from that, I am also thinking I may not even need the ADVC110. Maybe the ADVC55 is enough for me?

Use WinDV to capture to DV format, then use Virtualdub (with DV codec) to edit if you desire. You can capture DV to uncompressed or Huffyuv realtime with Virtualdub if you so desire.

For cuts editing, I prefer to use a YUV based editor that will essentially create a database of the edit and only decode the signal path when effects or transitions are performed. When complete, the database and raw captured DV video are presented to the encoder for DV to MPeg2 encoding. This is how programs like Vegas, Premiere and ULead Video Studio work when used with the internal Mainconcept MPeg2 encoder. Alternatively the editied timeline can be frameserved (as YUV or RGB) to another encoder like CCE.

Pioneer DVR-633H-S
Can be used to easily convert TV to XVID or TV to DVD (but wont be as good quality as the ADVC).

This seems like an excellent (or possibly the best) solution for one who is planning on mainly archiving to DVD.

It can be as simple or complex as you want it to be. You can do all your recording, editing, authoring and burning directly from the unit itself (keeping it as simple as possible and requiring no PC)....

It will convert TV to DVD but not directly to Xvid. You would need to go to MPeg2 and then transcode in the computer.

Only one question remains. How big of a quality difference are we looking at when comparing the ADVC to the DVR?

I guess I also have to decide what my inentions are regarding the tv recordings. Wether it be XVID or DVD as the final goal.

So basically I still need help deciding between the ADVC and the DVR.

I've compiled a simple list of pros and cons for each device to help me decide:

ADVC Pros:
-The best possible quality
- Easily convert TV to XVID

ADVC Cons:
-A rather long process when converting TV to DVD
-Requires the PC to be constantly used during capturing/encoding
-I don't know what software to use for editing/capturing DV

DVR Pros:
-Easily convert TV to XVID
-Easily convert TV to DVD
-Doesn't need the use of a PC for capturing

DVR Cons:
-Excellent quality, but still inferior to that of the ADVC.

Lets go line by line

ADVC Pros:
-The best possible quality
>>> uncompressed capture would be better but not by much

- Easily convert TV to XVID
>>> capture then encode

ADVC Cons:
-A rather long process when converting TV to DVD
>>> same as TV to XVID

-Requires the PC to be constantly used during capturing/encoding
>>> yes

-I don't know what software to use for editing/capturing DV
>>> Many choices available

[code]DVR Pros:
-Easily convert TV to XVID
>>> Not easy by my way of thinking. At least 5 steps.

-Easily convert TV to DVD
>>> yes

-Doesn't need the use of a PC for capturing
>>> yes

DVR Cons:
-Excellent quality, but still inferior to that of the ADVC.
>>> yes, but not a dramatic difference.

[FulciLives]

With the Pioneer DVR-531H-s I use the following method (which is common). I have digital cable and my cable box has a built-in DVR function (has a built-in HDD). My cable wire is split so that one goes into the cable box and one goes directly to the Pioneer via the RF input. I record all "analog" cable channels direct to the Pioneer using the RF input. For digital channels I first capture them to the DVR box. Since these channels are digital the DVR is making a 100% back-up of the digital stream so there is no loss in quality when you capture and play back later. I then later play back the recording from the DVR and in real time record it to the Pioneer via the S-video and RCA Stereo audio jacks.

The cable box DVR has to encode analog channels whereas digital channels just get copied bit-for-bit on the digital level. The result is that the analog channel is not an exact copy of the original signal whereas the digital channel is an exact copy of the original signal.

So that is why I capture the analog channels straight to the Pioneer. With the RF input I can use the tuner and that makes it very easy.

On most cable systems the "lower" channels are analog and the "upper" channels are digital ... only the analog channels will work via the RF input (when bypassing the cable box). On my system any channel under 100 is analog ... channels over that are digital.

Simply plug your cable directly into the DVD recorder bypassing the cable box ... the channels you can get are the analog channels. It's that simple.

Regarding your post of pros and cons ...

It seems you are stuck between wanting to archive stuff in DVD Video format or in DivX/XviD format.

Personally I feel DivX/XviD is poor for NTSC captures due to the fact that you need to de-interlace OR perform an IVTC (which is tricky to do). To my eyes de-interlacing NTSC is a damn shame and should not ever be done. DivX/XviD is fine for backing up a progressive source like a DVD Video but for 29.970fps interlaced (even telecine) NTSC video ... a big no no!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[bits]

mob,

I sure hope you are able to get a really good TV signal, if not, then all the planning and equipment will be overkill! Digital cable, digital dish ...sometimes it is a good signal and well many times it is not.

Garbage in garbage out!

[zoobie]

I hope you're going to record tv from premium-only channels...The stuff on regular cable has all those ads running thru the movie...awful

[edDV]

FWIW - various ways I currently capture from cable.

HD Cable Box --> IEEE-1394 (1080i, 720p 20-25 Mbps MPeg2TS*) --> HDD

HD Cable Box --> S-Video --> ADVC-100** --> IEEE-1394 (25 Mbps DV) --> HDD
or --> ULead Video Studio 8/9 (realtime MPeg2 sw encoder) --> HDD

HD Cable Box --> S-Video --> AIW 8500DV (realtime MPeg2 encode) --> HDD
or --> AIW 8500DV (uncompressed YUV) --> HDD
or --> Saphire Theatrix 550 (MPeg2 or Uncompressed YUV) --> HDD

RF Cable (analog channels) --> AIW 8500DV (realtime MPeg2 encode) --> HDD
or --> AIW 8500DV (uncompressed YUV) --> HDD
or --> Saphire Theatrix 550 (MPeg2 or Uncompressed YUV) --> HDD

Philips HDTV --> composite NTSC (analog channels***) --> AIW 8500DV --> HDD
or --> Saphire Theatrix 550 (MPeg2 or Uncompressed YUV) --> HDD

* Local DTV channels only
** ADVC-100 Switch 2 (on) maps 7.5-100 IRE to digital 16-235
*** Analog tuner channel continues to output even if 480p/1080i is being displayed
*** Philips HDTV tuner looks better than AIW-8500DV internal tuner.

[mob]

...I've compared Type 2 DV avi captures encoded directly into xvid and MPEG-2 VOBs from recorded DVDs transcoded into xvid. Using the same xvid settings, the Type 2 DV -> xvid files always beat the transcoded xvids. The reason is that when you encode video into mpeg-2, you always introduce some video artifacts. They might not be visible, but rest assured, they're there. Then when you transcode the mpeg-2 file into xvid, you add still more compression. Whereas if you record into a lossless format like huffyuv or a relatively low compresssion (5:1) format like a type 2 DV avi file, you only get the compression artifacts from the xvid encoding and nothing else. Furthermore, because the xvid encoding process has much better material to work with, it produces a better looking output. Any mpeg-2 encoder is going to produce some smoothing and blurring and and other changes in the video, and this will degrade the quality of what you start with when encoding into xvid...

This is good to know. So basically if I decide to make xvid rips out of my tv captures then DV would surely be the way to go.

The disadvantage of a Canopus card (I have a Canopus ADVC-100 as well as a cheaper PCI video cap card running on the same computer, so since I own both I'm not playing favorites here) is that you can't capture directly into a lossless video format like huffyuv. If you want really spectacularly good divx or xvid or Ogg Theora files, you'll want to capture into lossless huffyuv and then encode from that. Encoding will take about 3 to 4 times longer, but boy, the results are worth it. With the Canopus, you must encode into Type 2 DV. That already throws out 80% of the video information, since Type 2 DV is half cosine transform 5:1 compression. The Canopus has a hardware chip that does nothing but type 2 DV avi, and the cable from the Canopus merely transfers the data. This is why the Canopus reduces the load on your computer to nearly zero. All the encoding is done in hardware on the Canopus breakout box itself.

Now this is the first time I'm hearing this. I havn't read many posts about the Canopus ADVC and DV, but going by what I have read so far and what you just posted, there appears to be some sort of confusion here at the forum. Everything I've read about the ADVC has lead me to beleive that it will produce an identical 1:1 digital copy of whatever it is given. According to what you have just posted, this is not the case.

Use WinDV to capture to DV format, then use Virtualdub (with DV codec) to edit if you desire. You can capture DV to uncompressed or Huffyuv realtime with Virtualdub if you so desire.

Are you sure I can use the ADVC to output Huffyuv? Because accroding to spectroelectro this is not possible since the Canopus hardware chip will transfer to DV no matter what output is chosen. This is part of my confusion. Then there is the post that Barnabas made...

Buy a DV device, such as a Canopus ADVC-55 or higher. You will have to encode to mpeg-2, but the results can look as good the original...I also have a Hauppauge PVR-250, and like it, but to get the same quality as what I see on dishnetwork. I use the Canopus.

...which made me think the Canopus will produce a 1:1 "what you see is what you get" type of capture. Also contradicting what spectroelectro said.

It seems you are stuck between wanting to archive stuff in DVD Video format or in DivX/XviD format.

This is exactly where I'm at... stuck! Maybe I should just flip a coin? It would certainly be easier. I know for a fact that I am 100% sure I will be making xvid rips of my shows for easy computer access and storing. The only dilema I have is that I might want to make DVDs out of some of them. Since quality matters most to me, I think the Canopus should be a better choice. I will sacrifice time and convenience for quality by going this route. I will still be able to make DVDs out of the DV's... and like edDV pointed out: going from "DV to XVID" or "TV to XVID" or "DV to DVD" would all require basically the same ammount of effort. Which, in essence, made me clearly see that by chosing the dvdrecorder the only real benefit is basically being able to skip the encoding process when doing "TV to DVD". Which is still a HUGE benefit considering the ammount of time I'll be saving.

mob,

I sure hope you are able to get a really good TV signal, if not, then all the planning and equipment will be overkill!

Garbage in garbage out!

So true... and so sad. That's the one thing that sucks about this. No matter what I buy, it's not going to change the crappy source that I'm starting with. I do get a good signal, but it is no way near perfect. On a big screen TV I can clearly see that. When sitting right infornt of the TV, I can see that it is a blocky and pixelated picture.

The only reason I want to record TV is because of one of my favorite shows. The show never came out on DVD so buying all the seasons is not an option. Then the network stopped airing the show and for about 1 year I never got to watch it and I went crazy. Now a new network started airing the re-runs and I want to record them before they are lost forever.

Anyways, like you said, "garbage in garbage out". I really want to preserve the quality, but what kind of quality am I preserving here? Crappy TV... which unfortunately is my only option. So yeah, I definitely want to record this show in the best possible quality... which is still crap quality but oh well

So for the past few hours I've been checking prices on the Canopus.

I can get the ADVC55 for about $210 and the ADVC110 for about $230. I still think it will be a coin-toss decision between tha Canopus and the DVDrecorder, and I still have some unanswered questions about the Canopus (discussed right above) which I'd like to get some more info on. But if I do end up choosing the Canopus, Which one should I go for? The 55 or the 110?

[swiego]

I think it would be OK to describe the choices as follows:

ADVC100/110 --> 90% of the quality for about 5% the work

AIW/etc and huffyuv --> 100% of the quality for about 400% the work

Basically, are you a perfectionist or are you a pragmatist?

[zoobie]

He said BEST so that would rule out the ADVC...I think
Looks like the AIW with the 400% work...ha ha

[edDV]

...

The disadvantage of a Canopus card (I have a Canopus ADVC-100 as well as a cheaper PCI video cap card running on the same computer, so since I own both I'm not playing favorites here) is that you can't capture directly into a lossless video format like huffyuv. If you want really spectacularly good divx or xvid or Ogg Theora files, you'll want to capture into lossless huffyuv and then encode from that. Encoding will take about 3 to 4 times longer, but boy, the results are worth it. With the Canopus, you must encode into Type 2 DV. That already throws out 80% of the video information, since Type 2 DV is half cosine transform 5:1 compression. The Canopus has a hardware chip that does nothing but type 2 DV avi, and the cable from the Canopus merely transfers the data. This is why the Canopus reduces the load on your computer to nearly zero. All the encoding is done in hardware on the Canopus breakout box itself.

Now this is the first time I'm hearing this. I havn't read many posts about the Canopus ADVC and DV, but going by what I have read so far and what you just posted, there appears to be some sort of confusion here at the forum. Everything I've read about the ADVC has lead me to beleive that it will produce an identical 1:1 digital copy of whatever it is given. According to what you have just posted, this is not the case.

Use WinDV to capture to DV format, then use Virtualdub (with DV codec) to edit if you desire. You can capture DV to uncompressed or Huffyuv realtime with Virtualdub if you so desire.

Are you sure I can use the ADVC to output Huffyuv? Because accroding to spectroelectro this is not possible since the Canopus hardware chip will transfer to DV no matter what output is chosen. This is part of my confusion. Then there is the post that Barnabas made...

The Canopus ADVC-100 converts analog inputs to DV video over IEEE-1394. There is no concept of 1:1 in analog to digital conversion. DV is 8 bit 4:1:1 YUV at 25 Mb/s. This will oversample NTSC or PAL analog so everything is captured.

PCI Tuner cards can capture "uncompressed" to 8bit YUV usually at 4:2:2 sample rates creating the equivalent of a ~140 Mb/s datarate.

A capture program (like Virtualdub) may take either realtime input and apply the Huffyuv compression codec to encode a compressed version of the 4:2:2 stream to ~30Mb/s.

If a PCI tuner is used, the process looks like this.
NTSC --> PCI tuner ntsc decode --> analog YUV --> A/D --> 4:2:2 uncompressed YUV ~140 Mb/s --> huffyuv codec --> huffyuv encoded file on HDD.

If you want to do the same from a Canopus ADVC the process looks like this.
NTSC --> ADVC ntsc decode --> ADVC DV conversion --> DV 4:1:1 YUV at 25 Mb/s. --> --> software DV decode --> 4:2:2 uncompressed YUV --> huffyuv codec --> huffyuv encoded file on HDD.

The latter can be done in in realtime with a capture to Virtualdub if your system is fast enough. The ADVC alternative will lightly compress the file in hardware and then decompress in software and recompress to huffyuv. If the input is NTSC (composite or S-Video) it is unlikely there will be a significant quality difference from the two techniques.

If the source was a high quality broadcast camera or Digital Betacam you would see a difference but not much if the source was analog Betacam.

Bottom line, for an NTSC source with XviD as the goal after editing, either will work.

Alternatively, of course, you could just capture the DV file. Then import the DV file into Virtualdub with a DV codec to YUV or RGB. You would only use the ADVC ifyou had another need for realtime DV encoding.

[edDV]

I think it would be OK to describe the choices as follows:

ADVC100/110 --> 90% of the quality for about 5% the work

AIW/etc and huffyuv --> 100% of the quality for about 400% the work

Basically, are you a perfectionist or are you a pragmatist?

If you were capturing a $75K broadcast camera, this would be true. But with cable NTSC as the source, the garbage at the end of the process would look about the same.

Even if you were capturing analog Betacam or Laserdisc, the output should be about the same. Most of the difference would be from the quality of the NTSC decode, not the differences in sample rate or compression.

[FulciLives]

Am I the only one that thinks captured NTSC at 29.970fps de-interlaced to DivX/XvidD looks like shit and is totally unacceptable?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[lordsmurf]

Am I the only one that thinks captured NTSC at 29.970fps de-interlaced to DivX/XvidD looks like shit and is totally unacceptable?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

99% of the time, it looks like shit and is totally unacceptable.

On rare occasion, you can get away with an IVTC that does not destroy the video, but it largely depends on the original source before the station interlaced it. Simple de-interlacing always looks like ass.

Another problem is user error, cropping (and often re-stretching! yuck!) the video. Either mask it or leave it alone.

Finally, MPEG-4-based codecs still pretty much suck. They have chronic issues in CPU requirements (Apple, for example), as well as chronic problems in maintaining a/v sync (Divx and Xvid especially!). There are also color compression issues to tend with.

MPEG-2 may take more space, but it's still the highest quality "manageable" format we have at the moment. And beyond the DVD-Video specs, MPEG-2 has many more options that compress less and offer yet higher quality (at cost of file size), far better than DV and other "high quality" formats that most people think of.

"Best" quality card? Matrox has some nice cards. ATI has some nice cards. Hauppauge has some nice cards. Canopus has some nice non-DV cards. LSI-chipped DVD recorders work great too. These can all give out professional quality (or close to it!) output.

[edDV]

Man, I'm really liking the ABC pregame Superbowl 720p HDTV quality. They are using supersharp cameras and lenses. Nice 5.1 soundfield too.

And that progressive image is near motion artifact free

I love 59.94 fps source progressive video !!!

oops, sorry. May be off topic.

[FulciLives]

Man, I'm really liking the ABC pregame Superbowl 720p HDTV quality. They are using supersharp cameras and lenses. Nice 5.1 soundfield too.

And that progressive image is near motion artifact free

I love 59.94 fps source progressive video !!!

oops, sorry. May be off topic.

I'm spending time here to get away from the SuperBowel thank you very much !!!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[xxiangg]

Have you ever considered to capture DTV instead of analog TV?
I used to capture TV show using ACDV100 to DV flow six months
ago. But now I only capture digital TV. Digital TV carries the same
or even more programs than its analog station in a lots of areas.
Its quality is significantly better than its analog station in almost
every situation. And its captured file is easy to process in the future.

I have no idea what you are talking about here?

Are you talking about OTA HDTV ???

With my cable the analog channels look better than most of the digital channels except for the HDTV channels of course which look best even when downsampled to 4:3 WS 480i format.

My digital cable channels that are non HDTV have way too many MPEG artifacts. Some are actually OK looking but most are pathetic.

Also on my cable system those channels that are still "analog" are "analog" only and have no digital form be it standard defination or HDTV.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Yes, i am doing DTV capture of the air from ABC for superball now.
It is in 720p and the quality is way better than any analog signal
I can get. It is too bad that the digital signal you got does not even
match its analog one. My ACVD 100 has hardly been used recently
since I found digital capture. But the only bad part is that digitally
captured resolution is too high for me to save them in regular DVDs.
You can exam each frame captured from 1080i, the resolution is
amazing. My 20" LCD monitor (1600x1200) is not big enough to
display it. So I am considering to replace it with a 24" LCD moniter.

[edDV]

I'm also watching the 720p Superbowl @ 1280x720 progressive on my computer and on my HDTV.

[mob]

Alright, now that the superbowl is over... :P

I just wanted you guys to know that I am going to go with the Canopus ADVC for now and start converting my show to XVID right away.

I also have a shoebox in my closet that I wll be throwing money in every now and then (I'll try about 30-40 dollars a week if I can). This money will be used to buy a DVDrecorder because I just want both and I can't decide and the shoebox will guarantee I don't touch the money once I put it in there

Im going to use the Canopus for xvid rips and the DVDrecorder (once I get it) for making DVDs.

Hopefully now I only have a small decision to make. Should I get the Canopus ADVC55 or the ADVC110?

Like I mentioned above, the 55 is about $210 and the 110 is about $230.

Is there a quality difference between the two models?

If not, then the 110 might be more than what I need right?

[edDV]

The ADVC-100/110 is bidirectional. I use that almost every day*, but you may only need the input side. The 100/110 will have better resale value.

* some D/A uses
- monitoring my editing programs (Premiere, Vegas, ULead)
- monitoring DVD Architect (authoring)
- dubbing to analog (DV to NTSC)
- analog NTSC color bar reference for system levels setup.

[xxiangg]

I remember that 100/110 is an external box and 50/55 is an internal
card. With an internal card, it takes less space. But you can only do
capture on one machine. For an external box, you can share it with
several machines. But in terms of quality of captured video, they
are the same.

[mob]

I remember that 100/110 is an external box and 50/55 is an internal
card. With an internal card, it takes less space. But you can only do
capture on one machine. For an external box, you can share it with
several machines. But in terms of quality of captured video, they
are the same.

Im pretty sure all the ADVC's are external. (At least I hope so because I am planning to use it with my notebook).

The ADVC-100/110 is bidirectional. I use that almost every day*, but you may only need the input side. The 100/110 will have better resale value.

* some D/A uses
- monitoring my editing programs (Premiere, Vegas, ULead)
- monitoring DVD Architect (authoring)
- dubbing to analog (DV to NTSC)
- analog NTSC color bar reference for system levels setup.

Hi edDV,

What do you mean by "monitoring" your editing/authoring programs?

Also, is it possible to use the ADVC110 sort of like a "TV out" from PC to TV via firewire? The reason I ask is because since it is possible to send DV to say... VHS, maybe it is possible to send it directly to the TV? If this is possible, would it be better for me to do that or just simply use the PC's S-Video Out like always?

[edDV]

Hi edDV,

What do you mean by "monitoring" your editing/authoring programs?

Also, is it possible to use the ADVC110 sort of like a "TV out" from PC to TV via firewire? The reason I ask is because since it is possible to send DV to say... VHS, maybe it is possible to send it directly to the TV? If this is possible, would it be better for me to do that or just simply use the PC's S-Video Out like always?

It works for video out from prosumer DV format editing programs. Also programs like WinDV or ULead Video Studio will play a DV file through the ADVC type box to analog. Many DV camcorders will do the same thing.

Unlike a display card S-Video connection, the ADVC outputs calibrated levels off the editor.

Also see this
https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=292362

[mob]

Hey guys!

I just wanted to say thanks to all of you who took the time to reply and help me come to my decision.

My brand new Canopus ADVC110 will be arriving on monday

I can't wait to use it! Thanks again everyone! I really learned a lot from you guys in these past few days.

I appreciate it.