More ATI MMC questions. (I RTFM'd.)

[palouse]

1) In MMC, use hardware (HW) or software (SW) encode for VHS-DVD capture? Or, any advantage to HW capture?
New 9.16 MMC has setup option for HW or SW encode. I just realized that www.DigitalFAQ.com self-help ATI MMC guide uses SW encode. I previously assumed that ATI Theater HW mpeg2 encode was happening. I am using a X800XL VIVO card. Does X800XL even have hardware capture? I also have X1800XT VIVO, but prefer to use computer containing X800XL. Does X1800XT have HW encode?

2) Use 720x480 capture for viewing DVD on HDTV?
I read the self-help guides. I read debate posts on "352x480 vs 720x480".
However, some friends and family who will receive resulting DVDs now have HDTV using run-of-the-mill stand alone DVD players. I understand why 352x480 is probably best option for normal TV viewing of DVDs. At the same time, self-help guide infers I should worry about destination. Will 720x480 capture give better HDTV viewing results? I don't have a HDTV or home DVD player experiment with.

Project:
Capture home video tapes, VHS and S-VHS, to mpeg2 DVD.
Goal is to preserve 20 hrs family videos with highest video detail possible using home gear. Very old high quality single use tapes, recorded on (old) fairly high quality video cameras. DVDs have to be foolproof, run in almost any player. JVC HR-7500 w/ TBC-DigiPure playback, ATI X800 or X1800 VIVO capture, Sony DVD-R discs, NEC-3540 burner, dual processor comp.

(Not that 9.16 MMC works with latest WDM driver and X800. "No Signal" message. MMC 9.08 gives "Failed to instantiate video...", and won't start. Still working on that one. )

[Nelson37]

ATI cards use a Hardware-assisted capture, SFAIK only the HD-capture cards are actually doing a true, Hardware encode. So select software.

For the capture res, destination does not make a damn bit of difference. Neither does the source res. Everything the card captures is done at a res close to, but slightly less than, 720x480. Resize to a high degree downward, or to a greatly lesser degree upward, but no choice of actual capture res, that is fixed. The "understanding" you have is based on incomplete information and does not agree with my, and others who are not blue, real-world experience over several years.

The only significance of the destination device is in dealing with Interlacing, since your source is inherently Interlaced and not telecined, you really don't need to worry about it unless your destination is exclusively PC display, and even then the best answer is to leave it alone and let the software player handle it.

Through the math and charts and graphs and Nyquist theorem out the window, most who have done the obviously necessary visual testing agree that 720x480 looks better. Compatibility is not really an issue with either res. Do both and Look Carefully at the results.

704, as oppossed to 720, seems preferable and gives no difference in results. No, it doesn't make obvious sense but it is true nonetheless. There is an explanation but it gets rather complicated, basically 704 and 720 give the same display result.

[lordsmurf]

Output viewing device does play some small part in choice. For a big HDTV, you can put 704x480 or 720x480 and it might look a little better. Depends on the source of the capture.

[davideck]

Project:
Capture home video tapes, VHS and S-VHS, to mpeg2 DVD.
Goal is to preserve 20 hrs family videos with highest video detail possible using home gear.

352 pixels per line is not adequate for SVHS resolution and may even reduce the detail on your VHS tapes. Nyquist infers this and visual tests confirm it, particulary on higher resolution displays.

If you're interested in preserving detail, then use 704/720.

[lordsmurf]

It won't reduce VHS resolution. That's silly. VHS is way below 352x480.

But S-VHS, yes, there is more information that 352x480. But it's not like it's a lot. We're talking maybe a 10% loss of detail, not anything more than that.

[davideck]

VHS is way below 352x480.

True for some, but not for all. That's why everyone should test.