MCC 7.5 and ATI AIW 128???? Help!!!!

[cap]

Hi,
I am using virtualdub with windows2000. I have an AIW 128 and have loaded the current driver for that model and WIN2000 (driver = 5.13.01.3279). I also want to capture big 780x480. Can I use MCC 7.5 with the driver for my AIW128? Can I use the Radeon driver with my AIW128? Any help is would be great.

[Macros746]

Many people have been successful at using MMC 7.5 with their AIW 128 cards. But as to capping at the res you want to.......good luck. Why do you want to capture that high anyhow? It seems a bit like overkill....to each their own. I WOULD NOT recommend trying to get Radeon drivers to work with the AIW as they represent two entirely different technologies.

Macros

any questions drop me a line

[cap]

Thanks for the reply Macros,
I’m capturing from a satellite dish, which is 525 lines of resolution, I thought that if I capture at 720x480 and convert to SVCD, XSCVD, VCD and XVCD I would get better Quality. What resolution would you recommend to get the same Quality in as out?

P.S. I’m also using Huffyuv v2.1.1.

[Macros746]

Well since people are VERY passionate about which choices they prefer and why I'll leave it up to you to do some experimenting. First of all, if you are capturing from a digital source (SVHS or, I think, digital TV and some satellite) then 640 x 480 is probably the top you are going to want to capture. Frankly, I capture at 352 x 480 and then resize (I usually make XVCD) but if your end goal is SVCD then I would simply cap to 480 x 480. But, as a test capture 5 min. in 640 x 480 and then 5 in 480 x 480 and then 5 in 352 x 480 and encode....see if you can see an end difference. My guess is there won't be much of a difference. Another thing for you to try is capturing with MJEG codec at a quality setting of 18. It isn't a 'lossless' codec as is Huffy, and yet, I find that I like the encode quality I get from it better than HUFFY. I also love how much more I can fit on my harddrives. Give Mjeg a shot (I suggest the same comparitive measures I listed above) and see what you think. So, for me, the best solution is 352 x 480 captured to MJEG codec set at 18. Resize filter set to 352 X 240 (of course if you are doing an XVCD or SVCD you would probably have capped to 480 x 480 in the first place). Then I use the sharpen filter in TMPGenc (I find 70 +) to be my cup of tea and then I sometimes play with the color filters as I find that VCD in particular seems to make colors less vivid. In short, you will NEVER get quality that is exactly the same out as it is in....it isn't possible unless you are copying digital to digital (i.e. ripping a DVD to your Harddrive). But, with a little experimentation with what YOU like best, you can end up with a very nice product indeed....and archived the way you want it. For instance, at the sacrifice of a tiny bit of quality in sound I now can archive two one hour episodes (minus commercials about 41 minutes) of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on XVCD with a nice animated Menu to separate the eps. It doesn't look like a DVD but it is roughly on par with a VHS (some parts are better and some are worse...I've never quite found a way to get the really dark areas on VCD to look as good as on Video...) I think you'll find an end that makes you happy. Good luck

Macros

[Bud]

Marcos

Where is the sharpen filter in TMPGenc? You helped me once on the settings recommendations and they work great, at least for me, I get nothing short of great video each time, I capture from a Digital Cable system to a standard VCD format, and that works for me, anyone elese will just have to play with the settings that work for them and their system. I have the ATI Raedon DDR 32MB run Win2000Pro on 1.7Ghz with a Western Digital 120 GB Hard Disk (Yes 120 GB) 7200 RPM, someone once said they did not make that high of a drive, you can get them at Compusa stores. Again thanks for you asssitance.

Bud

[patrickm]

well, just from personal experience, 720x480 is not too big a deal unless you're doing it uncompressed or whatever.

but having an ATI 128, i believe 640x480 is a hardware-native resolution of the card, and that the 720x480 is extrapolated upwards from it. i've never seen this in print or anything, but from various testing i've done i think it's probably accurate...