ADVC-50 versus Hauppauge PVR150, my experiences

[henry_nettles]

I thought I would post my recent experiences with capturing from VHS and
converting to DVD. The views expressed here are only my opinions, and
are not intended to start any controversy.

I have some rather old VHS tapes (1989 through 1991) which contain
college football games. My son was an athletic trainer with the team
during these years, and on a few occassions appeared briefly on
television. Naturally, my wife is pretty fond of these tapes. These
tapes were all recorded in the four hour mode, so the picture quality
wasn't great to start with. And now, 15 to 17 years later, and after
many playings, the tapes are definitely not what anyone would call hiqh
quality.

My playback device is a JVC SVHS deck, model number HR-S3901U, so all
signals were in the Svideo domain. I first started capturing with an
AVDC-50, which as most of you know, converts incoming analog (Svideo or
composite) to DV and outputs through a firewire port. I used WinDV for
recording the incoming firewire signal to the hard drive at
approximately 13 gigabytes per hour.

Next, I used VirtualDub to trim out the commercials. I first
experimented with an older copy of Adobe Premiere (version 6.5), and an
old copy of Avid (Xpress DV 3.5.3). I found that VirtualDub did
everything that I needed, and was much easier to use.

One of the old tapes had a very poor audio track. The volume was quite
low, and was rather hissy. I extracted the .wav file from the .avi
(using VirtualDub), and then experimented with Sound Forge. Using
"audio restoration", followed by 80% normalization cleaned up the audio
track rather nicely. I used Tmpgenc Xpress to convert the .avi files to
.mpg (DV to Mpeg2), and was fairly well pleased with the results. I did
experiment with CCE 2.70, but to my eyes Tmpgenc looked as good, and
could also convert to AC3. Tmpgenc DVD Author version 1.6 was used to
author the DVDs. I should also mention that I split each tape into
first half and second half, placing each half of the tape (football
game) onto a separate DVD.

After doing about 5 of the tapes using the above methods, I happened to
pick up a used Hauppauge PVR150 card for a very reasonable sum. It was
quite a struggle getting the correct drivers loaded in the correct
order, but once I did I was very pleased with the results. I captured
two tapes at 5.5 mbits, trimmed with VideoReDo, and authored with
Tmpgenc DVD Author. No reencoding was necessary. I also captured one
tape at 12 mbits, and reencoded after trimming out the commercials.
Given the poor quality of the original tapes, it shoud come as no
surprise that I could see no real difference between capturing at 5.5
and 12 mbits.

I was so pleased with the results from the Hauppauge PVR150, I went back
and recaptured one of the games that I had originally done with the
ADVC-50. Much to my surprise, there was visible difference. The
straight capture with the Hauppauge at 5.5 mbits Mpeg2 looked better
than the capture to DV with the ADVC-50. This was performing direct
comparisons on my 52 inch rear projection TV, playing
from a Philips 642 DVD player.

There are a couple of good things to say about going the DV route.
Trimming out the commercials with VirtualDub is much preferable to doing
the same job with VideoReDo. This is not a knock on VideoReDo. Given
the limitations of trying to edit Mpeg2, I think VideoReDo does a
marvelous job. But it is much easier and smoother editing DV files with
VirtualDub. Secondly, the one occassion where I had to process the
audio went very well when working with DV instead of Mpeg2 format. I
expect it might have been much harder to extract the audio from the
mpeg2 file, process it, and remux without losing sync.

[lchiu7]

Interestion experiences. I have a PVR250 in my PVR (which also has Firewire) and have also just purchased a ADV110 for transferring a bunch of Hi8 tapes and some VHS ones.

Up till now I had been transferring the Hi8 tapes through a WinTV card, capturing in MJPEG format using iuvcr, using VirtualDub to edit out the unwanted material and encoding to MPEG using tmpgen. That works fine but takes time.

But I felt that there might be a better way so have purchased the ADV110 so I can transfer directly over firewire in DV format and encode in MPEG2 after some editing. This is what I do with my digicam recordings. But one thing I haven't tried is to capture directly in MPEG2 using the PVR250. It would certainly save an encoding step and I find Womble edits MPEG2 files fine (haven't tried VideoRedo). This is because the PVR250 is hardwired to my cable box to record TV shows and it's fiddly to disconnect everything.

One difference is my tapes while over 14 years old, were originally recorded in Hi8 and were hardly played much at all after recording. Family shots of babies and children growing up which you don't really watch again and again So they are in good state and therefore I don't need to edit the audio, which from I recall on Hi8 tapes, was pretty good to start with.

[videomaniac]

I have a PVR250 and a ADVC-100 as well. I have been converting VHS(20+ yrs old) family tapes over the last few years. The PVR250 does a reasonable job but in my opinion is not as good as the ADVC-100 using CCE Basic ($60). In my opinion the PVR250 softens the video just a bit more than I like. I also prefer doing my cuts and edits in DV avi and then encoding to DVD compliant mpeg.

[lchiu7]

One advantage of using the ADVC110 or ADVC100 is that the DV format is not that highly compressed so the hardware compression can be executed quite good. Then you can encode to MPEG2 using two pass using whatever encoding software you like whereas with the PVR250, no matter how good the hardware mpeg2 encoder is, it's still realtime and one pass.

[henry_nettles]

Some excellent points have been raised here. In general, or perhaps I
should say "in theory", a software encoder making two passes SHOULD do a
better job than a hardware encoder working in real time. But I don't
think it is necessarily the Mpeg2 encoder that is the difference.
Remember, the ADVC-50 is capturing and "encoding" to DV. Perhaps that
is the step where the visible difference is occurring?

Look at it this way. The ADVC has an analog-to-digital converter,
followed by a hardware DV encoder. The PVR150 has an analog-to-digital
converter, followed by a hardware Mpeg2 encoder. Perhaps the
analog-to-digital converter in the PVR150 is better?

I refuse to try and judge these images while watching on a computer
monitor. And I have no way to display the captured .avi (DV) files on
TV. The ADVC-50 does a good job of capturing and converting to DV. I
can capture a four hour VHS tape in one go, with no dropped frames and
no sync issues. That is a major accomplishment, although I expected (or
hoped for) as much, based on things I have read here and elsewhere.
What was surprising to me was that I could accomplish the same thing
with the PVR150. And with (to my eyes, at least) better looking results.

[The_Doman]

Look at it this way. The ADVC has an analog-to-digital converter,
followed by a hardware DV encoder. The PVR150 has an analog-to-digital
converter, followed by a hardware Mpeg2 encoder. Perhaps the
analog-to-digital converter in the PVR150 is better?

If you use the S-Video inputs the picture quality of the PVR150 can be very good, composite input (at least for PAL users) is horrible...
The big difference with the PVR150 compared to the ADVC are the built noise filters of the PVR150's MPEG encoder, these filters really help to cleanup the image.
With the ADVC you always end up with a more raw/noisier image which often needs some good noise filtering when you encode it to DVD/MPEG.

[jman98]

Some excellent points have been raised here. In general, or perhaps I
should say "in theory", a software encoder making two passes SHOULD do a
better job than a hardware encoder working in real time.

I'm not disputing this, but one of the things people seem to forget is that there is nothing stopping you from capturing your video at very high bit rates using a hardware encoder and THEN re-encoding down to a lower bit rate. For example, suppose you want to capture about 2 hours of TV and you need a bit rate of (talking off the top of my head here) 4000 for the whole thing to fit on a single layer DVD. There's no reason why you can't do hardware encoding at 9000 or even higher and then do a multipass re-encode with CCE or TMPGenc to 4000 VBR. I have done this many times and gotten excellent results. Yes a software encoder making 2 passes to output video at 4000 will be better than directly capturing at 4000, but there is no real need to do the direct capture at 4000 if you have the time and tools to re-encode.

For what it's worth, I have a PVR-350 and I think it is the best video capture card I have ever owned. I have also owned a Dazzle DVC-II which I loved and an ATI All-in-Wonder which I did not love.

[teegee420]

There are a couple of good things to say about going the DV route.
Trimming out the commercials with VirtualDub is much preferable to doing
the same job with VideoReDo.

I use MPEG VCR for this. You get frame-accurate cuts every time.

[videomaniac]

There are a couple of good things to say about going the DV route.
Trimming out the commercials with VirtualDub is much preferable to doing
the same job with VideoReDo.

I use MPEG VCR for this. You get frame-accurate cuts every time.

VideoReDo does frame accurate cuts every time as well.

[The_Doman]

There are a couple of good things to say about going the DV route.
Trimming out the commercials with VirtualDub is much preferable to doing
the same job with VideoReDo.

I use MPEG VCR for this. You get frame-accurate cuts every time.

VideoReDo does frame accurate cuts every time as well.

TMPGEnc MPEG Editor does frame accurate cuts every time as well too....

[henry_nettles]

I never said that VideoReDo did not do frame accurate cuts. The problem is more in trying to move quickly through the file to find the next commercial break, and then move slowly and precisely to find the exact spot to begin the cut. VideoReDo has three levels of movement, and it is not difficult to use. But...

Moving through the DV file with VirtualDub is just much smoother. Much, much, much smoother. Consequently, it is much easier to find the next commercial break, and position yourself exactly where you want to begin the cut.

[bits]

I never said that VideoReDo did not do frame accurate cuts. The problem is more in trying to move quickly through the file to find the next commercial break, and then move slowly and precisely to find the exact spot to begin the cut. VideoReDo has three levels of movement, and it is not difficult to use. But...

Moving through the DV file with VirtualDub is just much smoother. Much, much, much smoother. Consequently, it is much easier to find the next commercial break, and position yourself exactly where you want to begin the cut.

Actually VRD has 5 levels of movement, which includes the slider and the mouse wheel. BTW all of these are programmable so that you customize the movement to your liking. I have used vdub and TMPGenc DVD Author (this is not frame accurate but does cut at I frames) and VRD is by far and away the better and easier tool to use. Have you tried VRDs Ad Detective for finding commercial breaks? It works quite well.

[SHS]

I perf MPEG Video Wizard for home video becuase of some thing it can do that the other two can't do which has more Special Effect but just for plain edit MPEG by remove adds I used MPEG VCR and some Lite Transition with Special Effect if need.

bits I try it and didn't like it and I can still do faster then VRDs Ad Detective in MPEG-VCR and never like it's levels of movement I perf MPEG-VCR speed switch button

[lchiu7]

I must admit it had never occurred to me to use the PVR250 to capture my Hi8 tapes and so bought the ADVC110 instead. Perhaps because my PVR250 is a PAL version and my Hi8 tapes are NTSC. I know there is registry hack to allow a PAL PVR250 to record NTSC over s-video and composite but never got started on that. Might be worth checking it out and if it works, might have a ADVC110 for sale

[shaynew]

FYI:

One thing not yet mentioned is that the ADVCs are great at keeping audio in sync over long encodes.

For people who want to do any editing beyond basic trimming, DV is much better than mpeg.

Note that the ADVC50 had reliability issues so the quality of images from it may not be on par with the 100/110.

I also think the 50 doesn't to DV to analog which is nice for editing with video playback on a TV.

The ADVC110 lacks the 100's ability to disable macrovision protection. While (I heard) the Hauppage 150/250 cards black out the video when they detect macrovision.

I've also heard that the ADVC100 at least is as good or better with analog video coming from composite instead of S-video.

Hauppage cards are fine for home theater PCs/PVRs. The ADVC100 rules for no-hassle editing.

--Shayne

Long-time, happy ADVC-100 owner

[thecoalman]

The big difference with the PVR150 compared to the ADVC are the built noise filters of the PVR150's MPEG encoder, these filters really help to cleanup the image.
.

That was something I was going to ask since the one other poster said the 150 produced a softer image indicative that it was filtered. If that's the case then you would have to see what you could get from the DV file after it was filtered. Being that it's DV this is where it's going to excel as you can apply multiple filters with your own settings instead of a single preset the PVR gives you.

@ henry_nettles

What I would suggest you do is feed both a really clean signal and compare the quality because what you are seeing from the ADVC is the raw unfiltered capture... One thing to note is I have seen comments that the ADVC has trouble with very noisy captures but I can't say I've experienced this myself... although most of my material hasn't been real bad.

Here is a test I ran with a 110, first image a screenshot taken directly from the DV-AVI transferred from a DV cam:


Nearly the same frame but this was captured DV Cam>S-Video>ADVC>firewire, nearly identical:

Note that the ADVC50 had reliability issues so the quality of images from it may not be on par with the 100/110.

It's my understanding that the basic DV hardware is all the same in every ADVC, the difference from model to model is the bells and whistles you get or don't get... I could be wrong though.

[lchiu7]

FYI:

...

The ADVC110 lacks the 100's ability to disable macrovision protection. While (I heard) the Hauppage 150/250 cards black out the video when they detect macrovision.

--Shayne

Long-time, happy ADVC-100 owner

Not an issue for me and for most folks I guess unless you are thinking of transferring your precious commercial videotapes to DVD when a DVD copy isn't available and/or you are loathe to purchase yet another version. None of the material I would want to capture has macrovision