Simple Question: True or False?

[jcm0320]

If cable television has a resolution of 352x480...

And I record at 720x480...

Then it probably doesn't matter if I convert to mpeg2 and use a resolution of 352x480, right?

I would think that the quality will be the same no matter what since the source is 352x480. I don't think there would be any benefit to using a higher resolution at all, unless the difference would be noticable in upscaling dvd players (w/HDTVs).

[jagabo]

What makes you think your cable TV has a resolution of 352x480? I've never seen a cable system that bad.

[jcm0320]

So it's not 352x480? I thought that was the NTSC standard.

[Cornucopia]

NTSC is ANALOG; it doesn't have a pixel resolution. The nearest digitally-sampled equivalent that I've seen is probably 480x480 (with non-square pixels to maintain the 4:3) or 540x480 (similar but not identical non-square pixels). That's after having been broadcast OTA/SAT/Cable. At it's origin, it's full 601 (704/720x480) in either digital form or analog equivalent.

If you've got a high-quality (read S-video, etc) all-analog path until you get to a cap card or Digital recorder, you're probably better off capping at 720x480 and then later downrezzing. It'll look alot cleaner (smoother & sharper) that way.

Scott

[lordsmurf]

Of all the DVD-compliant resolutions available, traditional VHS, cable, satellite and antenna television is closest to 352x480 when the analogue data is digitized. The actual visual quality is entirely dependent on the quality of the hardware and/or software that converts the analog data to digital. For example, an ATI AIW Radeon at 352x480 is very sharp, while a Hauppauge PVR-250 at 352x480 is not. Some versions of Procoder and MainConcept have been known to be soft at 352x480, while others have not.

Your answer is TRUE, but that assumes you've got good hardware and/or software in use.

[Video Head]

Try it and tell us your results...but don't tell us what capture device you are using.

[jagabo]

Use a resolution test pattern if you can find one. Or something with very thin vertical lines. Or very small text.

[jman98]

I record cable TV all the time and use 720x480. If you were capturing VHS tapes, that would be a different story. Unless you are using low bit rates and a crappy encoder, you have nothing to gain by using 352x480. I record at a constant bit rate of 8100 and then re-encode it down to a lower bit rate using CCE (Cinema Craft Encoder) and use VBR (variable bit rate). How low I go on the encode depends on how much video I want to put on the DVD. I'm getting really excellent results with about 132 minutes of video on a single layer DVD disc this way. You could always just test it yourself and see if you think that 352x480 is really any better or not. In my experience it is not better, but do whatever works best for you. You may not have access to high quality encoders, may not have the time or desire to do re-encoding, etc. all of which influence your final product.

[jcm0320]

I am using the Canopus ADVC 110. It's $150+ and hardware-based so it doesn't drop any frames. So, as you can see, I bought it because archiving material on DVD is a hobby I am serious about getting into. We probably have 200+ home videos on VHS from the last 20 years, as well as various TV programs I have recorded over the years that I would like to save.

In fact, I've even gone as far as purchasing Verbatim 8.5gb Dual Layer DVDs. So... anyways... I'm going the expensive route because I want to retain as much quality as possible.

The question I asked was pretty much out of curiosity... being that I have room on the DL DVDs to store 2+ hours of video at 720x480 anyways.

[jagabo]

If you're serious about quality with VHS you need an S-VHS deck with a line time base corrector. Most such decks will also have noise filtering. If your tapes aren't in good condition you may need a full frame time base corrector too. An analog proc amp for color/brightness/contrast correction will help too.

Since you're capturing with an ADVC 110 your only choice for capture is 720x480. In my experience VHS burned to DVD has very slightly more detail at 720x480 than when downsized to 325x480. The issues mentioned above are more critical.

[jcm0320]

jagabo: Yeah, in my research I came across a lot of people saying that stuff. So I purchased a Panasonic AG-1980 on eBay. I was just reading over the manual a couple hours ago and learning about all the features.

In my short experience with it I have noticed some nice things...

1.) Ya know those old VHS tapes that "flicker" when you play them in a normal VCR? The AG-1980 seems to eliminate that by about 99%. But there is an occasional small flicker.

2.) The manual tracking seems to work very well. A lot of times you have to take control of the tracking when the automatic tracking doesn't get the job done. But I suppose this means you have to sit there while the entire video is being transferred and have you hand ready to do some quick tracking. If that's what serious video enthusiasts do then I guess I'll do it myself.