Installing the H.264 codec for use with TV tuner

[MrJacky]

On a lot of occasions I have stumbled upon this forum while doing searches related to videos and I thought I would post my question here, after hours of fruitless searching.

My TV tuner software allows me to select a codec installed on the system for use during recording.

I installed the DivX codec and I was able to select the codec from a dropdown list. However it didn't seems to work, and I thought I would prefer H.264 to DivX.

I have done several Google searches and so far I cannot find a codec that employs H.264 which I can install on my system.

I have stumbled onto x264, but it's a command line tool used to encode H.264 videos, which is not what I want. I need a H.264 codec which I could install on my system, thereafter my TV tuner could use it as the recording format.

I don't know the difference between installing the codec and having the encoder, because the former allows me to select the format with my TV tuner software, the latter allows me to encode another file into that codec.

[jagabo]

You will not find an h.264 encoder that's fast enough for video capture. Divx might work if you use the fastest settings. Video capture cards that allow you to use installed codecs usually use VFW encoders. There is x264vfw but it will be too slow for video capture.

[MrJacky]

You will not find an h.264 encoder that's fast enough for video capture. Divx might work if you use the fastest settings. Video capture cards that allow you to use installed codecs usually use VFW encoders. There is x264vfw but it will be too slow for video capture.

Thanks, that's was the keyword I need to know - VFW.

Anyway, fast or not, I will try giving it a shot, and if it can't, at least I got the keyword now to search.

Are there other MPEG4 codec that is fast enough for capturing, yet retaining quality?

EDIT: Well, it seems like my TV tuner software did not detect the codec, even after a reboot.

[johns0]

Use huffyuv,it produces larger files sizes but is good for editing and re-encoding to H.264.

[jagabo]

Are there other MPEG4 codec that is fast enough for capturing, yet retaining quality?

To work with video capture a codec has to be able to compress frames as fast as they are received from the capture device. Even with Divx (which is the fastest MPEG 4 part 2 encoder I know) you have to disable all the features that make it good at compressing video in order to run fast enough.

Another problem with Divx is that it keeps a keyframe index at the end of the AVI file. While capturing it first pre extends the AVI file by some amount, then fills in the file with video frames and writes the keyframe list at the end. Eventually, the pre allocated space fills up, so the file has to be pre extended again. The current keyframe list moved to the end, and new frames written to pre allocated space. Each time this happens there is a delay in processing and you risk dropping frames.

As johns0 pointed out, if you want good compression you need to capture with a fast lossless codec like HuffYUV (you're looking at about 30 GB/hr), then run a slow time consuming compression with Divx or h.264 later.

[MrJacky]

Are there other MPEG4 codec that is fast enough for capturing, yet retaining quality?

To work with video capture a codec has to be able to compress frames as fast as they are received from the capture device. Even with Divx (which is the fastest MPEG 4 part 2 encoder I know) you have to disable all the features that make it good at compressing video in order to run fast enough.

Another problem with Divx is that it keeps a keyframe index at the end of the AVI file. While capturing it first pre extends the AVI file by some amount, then fills in the file with video frames and writes the keyframe list at the end. Eventually, the pre allocated space fills up, so the file has to be pre extended again. The current keyframe list moved to the end, and new frames written to pre allocated space. Each time this happens there is a delay in processing and you risk dropping frames.

As johns0 pointed out, if you want good compression you need to capture with a fast lossless codec like HuffYUV (you're looking at about 30 GB/hr), then run a slow time consuming compression with Divx or h.264 later.

No I'm not really looking for a lossless codec, a lossy codec would actually be more suitable for me.

Is there a codec like the one you suggested, but is lossy?

I'm mainly looking at MPEG4 codec.

I'm actually not really looking at conversion here (from lossless to H.264) but rather a codec that could be used for capturing. Since using H.264 as a capture format is impossible, I'm prepared to drop the idea, because I can always capture at a high bitrate in MPEG2 then do the conversion later.

[jagabo]

The PicVideo MJPEG codec is fast, suitable for video capture, and you can select how much compression (more compression -> less quality) you want. But MPEG2 (which you apparently already have) is better if your CPU can handle it.

Lossless to MPEG 4 will get you better results than MPEG2 to MPEG 4.

[DarrellS]

The only way that I could ever capture DivX (could not capture XviD) was with an ATI AIW card and MMC 9.02 software. I was using a 3.2 P4 processor.

Now I have a Q6600 processor and a Hauppauge HVR1800 tuner card but cannot capture DivX with any capture software. I can capture DivX with Virtualdub but audio is out of sync from all the dropped frames. All the other software I tried could not even see the Hauppauge audio on the tuner card. The WinTV software that ships with the card will only capture MPEG2.

Not sure what card and software you have but I doubt you could capture DivX with a 2.6Ghz P4 and there is no way you could capture H264.

[MrJacky]

It seems like my TV tuner software already has the ability of capturing in H.264/AVC format, but the settings are rather limited.

The maximum resolution supported is only 320x240, which is crap, even crappier than VCD quality, even at 5000kbps.

And there is a maximum file size limit of 2GB.

The PicVideo MJPEG codec is fast, suitable for video capture, and you can select how much compression (more compression -> less quality) you want. But MPEG2 (which you apparently already have) is better if your CPU can handle it.

Lossless to MPEG 4 will get you better results than MPEG2 to MPEG 4.

As I can foresee myself doing daily TV capturing, lossless wouldn't be suitable as disk space could be a factor. Besides, I'm pretty much satisfied with the quality of MPEG2 at high bitrate. However, for certain shows which I want the best quality, I would definitely look into your suggestion of capturing in lossless then converting to a lossy codec.

The only way that I could ever capture DivX (could not capture XviD) was with an ATI AIW card and MMC 9.02 software. I was using a 3.2 P4 processor.

Now I have a Q6600 processor and a Hauppauge HVR1800 tuner card but cannot capture DivX with any capture software. I can capture DivX with Virtualdub but audio is out of sync from all the dropped frames. All the other software I tried could not even see the Hauppauge audio on the tuner card. The WinTV software that ships with the card will only capture MPEG2.

Not sure what card and software you have but I doubt you could capture DivX with a 2.6Ghz P4 and there is no way you could capture H264.

Don't pay attention to my PC specs, as this TV tuner which I am using will be used on another PC (which I am assuming ownership for the time being).

[jagabo]

It seems like my TV tuner software already has the ability of capturing in H.264/AVC format, but the settings are rather limited.

The maximum resolution supported is only 320x240, which is crap, even crappier than VCD quality, even at 5000kbps.

The smaller the frame the less work has to be done to compress it. Even with the small frames it's probably taking lots of shortcuts (which means not as good compression) to keep up.

[lacywest]

Cyberlink PowerDirector 8 ... has a really nice video capture section in it .... using the ATI HDTV 650 PCI card ... when I tried the video capture section ... it scanned my OTA channels and when I recorded something ... not bad at all. The file extension ... was ... mpg.

Files are huge .... I cant remember if it records ... a one hour show ... and makes a 6 gig video file. But I was very pleased with how well it works with my ATI HDTV 650 PCI card.

[lacywest]

TV Tuner ... which one is it ... does it capture HDTV

[MrJacky]

TV Tuner ... which one is it ... does it capture HDTV

Doesn't matter, because mainstream TV here is still analog.

And I don't see the connection between that capability and me looking for a MPEG4 codec.

[creamyhorror]

And I don't see the connection between that capability and me looking for a MPEG4 codec.

You shouldn't be looking for MPEG-4 codecs in the first place, because those are too slow for realtime capture (being designed to trade speed in exchange for bitrate efficiency). MPEG-2 and other fast codecs fit your purpose much better; they just take more disk space, but won't necessarily be lower in quality.

[lacywest]

TV Tuner ... which one is it ... does it capture HDTV

I shall ask again ... what is being used to do the capture ... ATI AIW card ... Canopus card ... Capture Card made my ATI ... or some other brand of maker.

Do you know ?? ... or is it a generic type ?

... is it one of those type that connect with a USB connection ... Pinnacle makes one or two of them type.

Or ... do you just not want to tell us

[MrJacky]

TV Tuner ... which one is it ... does it capture HDTV

I shall ask again ... what is being used to do the capture ... ATI AIW card ... Canopus card ... Capture Card made my ATI ... or some other brand of maker.

Do you know ?? ... or is it a generic type ?

... is it one of those type that connect with a USB connection ... Pinnacle makes one or two of them type.

Or ... do you just not want to tell us

It's AverMedia Hybrid Volar HX.

[lacywest]

Oh I see ... your in Singapore ... I use Copernic for doing Internet searches and found your tuner device ... lots of reviews at Amazon

From the AverMedia website ...

AVerMedia AVerTV Hybrid Volar HX , the best-selling USB dongle, has been certified Windows 7 Media Center Additional Qualification and also releases the in-box driver to be able to atomatically run under Windows 7 Media Center platform. With the official in-box driver launch, AVerTV Hybrid Volar HX can further integrate the PCTV entertainment to the upcoming Windows 7 Media Center platform. Namely, users can directly enjoy TV and multimedia functions under “My TV” of Windows 7 computers without the need of installing any extra software.

AVerTV Hybrid Volar HX is one of the best selling USB dongle of digital TV (DVB-T), worldwide analog TV, and FM radio access. The High Gain Antenna shipping with AVerTV Hybrid Volar HX equips superior DVB-T signal reception quality for better TV watching experience. Users can experience HDTV (MPEG-2/H.264) programs with a sharp and smooth video quality. The solid hardware design plus in-box driver make AVerMedia the first PCTV choice for Windows 7 users.

---------------------------------------

* Certified with Windows 7 Media Center Additional Qualification
* Windows 7 32-64 bit support
* In-box driver Windows 7 Media Center platform
* Linux Driver Support
* Worldwide analog TV Access, DVB-T, and FM Radio with Stereo sound
* Composite (RCA) Input Support
* Support HDTV H.264 / MPEG-2 formats up to 1080i / 720p
* Direct iPod / PSP Recording
* Low Power Consumption
* Remote control Included
* High-gain TV antenna included
* Software encode allows watching both analog TV and Digital TV on XP / Vista MCE platforms
* Vista Video Gaming Plug-in
* Vista Video Quality Enhancement Plug-in

* Input Signal
o 75 ohm TV Antenna Input
o S-Video
o Composite (RCA)
o FM Radio Antenna Input

* For TimeShift and Record in MPEG-2
o Pentium 4 2.4GHz (Hyper-Threading)
o AMD AthlonXPÒ 2400+
o Pentium Mobile 1.73GHz
* For HDTV (H.264) Previewing
o Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or equivalent
* For H.264 Recording ( For Analog/ SDTV only)
o Pentium Mobile 2.0 GHz or Dual-Core 1.6GHz or equivalent
o Pentium 4 3.0GHz (Hyper-Threading) or equivalent
* 512 MB RAM or above
* VGA card supports DirectX 9.0c Sound card
* USB 2.0 Port
* Windows XP / XP Media Center Edition / Vista / Vista Media Center Edition / 7 / 7 Media Center

Seems to have alot of nice features ... cool cool

[lacywest]

I sent you a Private Message ... take a look.

[lacywest]

On a lot of occasions I have stumbled upon this forum while doing searches related to videos and I thought I would post my question here, after hours of fruitless searching.

My TV tuner software allows me to select a codec installed on the system for use during recording.

I installed the DivX codec and I was able to select the codec from a dropdown list. However it didn't seems to work, and I thought I would prefer H.264 to DivX.

I have done several Google searches and so far I cannot find a codec that employs H.264 which I can install on my system.

I have stumbled onto x264, but it's a command line tool used to encode H.264 videos, which is not what I want. I need a H.264 codec which I could install on my system, thereafter my TV tuner could use it as the recording format.

I don't know the difference between installing the codec and having the encoder, because the former allows me to select the format with my TV tuner software, the latter allows me to encode another file into that codec.

I've got the Pinnacle one that came out a few years ago ... around 2006 ... it was the first one they made and I used it with my Dell Inspiron 1520 ... with Dual Core CPU ... and with Windows 7 media center ... actually did okay.

I just now last week tried using it ... Windows 7 found the drivers ... all by itself ... and it works very decently with the Media Center in Windows 7. Needs to be a very fast Laptop ... especially with Dual Core CPUs.

Dell Inspiron 5150 with a Pentium 4 CPU ... it didn't do very well.

[lordsmurf]

You will not find an h.264 encoder that's fast enough for video capture. .

That's not true...

..... if you have $$$$$$$ for it!

[creamyhorror]

You will not find an h.264 encoder that's fast enough for video capture. <snip> There is x264vfw but it will be too slow for video capture.

If you use the fastest presets in x264, it may be quite possible to encode fast enough. But the resulting file will probably be so big that you'll want to re-encode it later, so there's still no point

[MrJacky]

I just did some testing yesterday, and I find that Xvid works, but to an extent. And yes, it required a lot of processing power, but the quality was awesome. At around 1300kbps the quality of the video encoded in Xvid was comparable to MPEG2 at 5000kbps. This means I can get awesome quality at more than half the filesize.

I sent you a Private Message ... take a look.

Yes, I have seen your message. Will reply to that separately through PM.

On a lot of occasions I have stumbled upon this forum while doing searches related to videos and I thought I would post my question here, after hours of fruitless searching.

My TV tuner software allows me to select a codec installed on the system for use during recording.

I installed the DivX codec and I was able to select the codec from a dropdown list. However it didn't seems to work, and I thought I would prefer H.264 to DivX.

I have done several Google searches and so far I cannot find a codec that employs H.264 which I can install on my system.

I have stumbled onto x264, but it's a command line tool used to encode H.264 videos, which is not what I want. I need a H.264 codec which I could install on my system, thereafter my TV tuner could use it as the recording format.

I don't know the difference between installing the codec and having the encoder, because the former allows me to select the format with my TV tuner software, the latter allows me to encode another file into that codec.

I've got the Pinnacle one that came out a few years ago ... around 2006 ... it was the first one they made and I used it with my Dell Inspiron 1520 ... with Dual Core CPU ... and with Windows 7 media center ... actually did okay.

I just now last week tried using it ... Windows 7 found the drivers ... all by itself ... and it works very decently with the Media Center in Windows 7. Needs to be a very fast Laptop ... especially with Dual Core CPUs.

Dell Inspiron 5150 with a Pentium 4 CPU ... it didn't do very well.

I have two PCs with me which I am assuming ownership for the time being, one using Pentium M, the other using a Core 2 Duo, and I will be testing my TV tuner with either of this, because my only PC cannot run it definitely.

[jagabo]

Divx at its fastest settings is about twice as fast as Xvid at its fastest settings, with roughly comparable quality/size. So if you run into problems with Xvid you should try Divx.

[MrJacky]

Divx at its fastest settings is about twice as fast as Xvid at its fastest settings, with roughly comparable quality/size. So if you run into problems with Xvid you should try Divx.

Yes I have also tried DivX but unfortunately either it's their settings interface or it's my luck, I can hardly capture good quality videos with DivX.

[jagabo]

With Divx try this:

1) Press the Restore Defaults button to get to a known starting point.

2) In the Rate Control Mode pulldown select 1-Pass Quality Based.

3) In the Target Quantizer box next to it type in 3. That's usually a good compromise of quality and file size.

4) Tick the Use Presets To Configure The Encoder.

5) Try Presets from 0 to 3 for realtime encoding.

6) Go to the Codec tab and enable Enhanced Multithreading if you have a dual (or more) core CPU.

If your files come out too large (too high quality) raise the Target Quantizer to 4. If they come out too small (too low quality) lower the Target Quantizer to 2.

[vhelp]

..you have to disable all the features that make it good at compressing video in order to run fast enough.

you said it exactly .. after that you now have just another "codec" format much like huffy; lagarith; mjpeg; and so on, each having their pros and cons, strenths and weakness, lossy or lossless, and so on.

short story--At one point I was using one of the version of the XviD codecs for my captures because it was the smallest in capture size (I was experimenting) with near lossless results, so I thought, but found out it was not so good due to the "decoder" performance, like in the chroma portions having artifacts. It was next to dv in terms of filesize, but when your source origin was noisy analog cabletv .. bad choice. It did worse then dv in handling (compressing) noisy pixels.

You also want to consider decoding speeds. In the case of huffy vs. lagarith, while lagarith is smaller in filesize, huffy decodes faster.

Its very possible to capture with all codecs but you have to have the right mixture of capture equipment for this. Software is a major part of this. There is MMC (worse, imho) avi_io, virtualvcr and virtualdub, and a few more. Each have their S/W, but only *you* can figure out which works successfully in your system through trial and error. May take a little time but if this will be an ongoing project then its worth it.

One more thing though, regarding CPU workload .. if you use a codec that is showing high %'s, dont' worry about so much. I've done this so many and time, and at the beginning it would worry me terribly because I thought I was breaking my machine over time, so I wouldn't use anything that went over 30%, but I was wrong. In the case of the XviD codec and my capture experience I just mentioned, it was usually in the high 90's and even 100's and never did loss any framedrops. This was using virtualdub since its my main capture software currently in my system today. So its my theory and huntch that the CPU percentage that is given in most these software is *not* accurate (due to each unique/different cpu/chipset) but rather average if anything. They serve as a decent gauge.

3) In the Target Quantizer box next to it type in 3. That's usually a good compromise of quality and file size.

jagabo, unfortuntely, he said (further up) that his source is analog, and 3 might not compress very well ffor him. But he can try and see if its acceptable enough.

If you head over to the tools section and select CODEC, you'll see much more codecs to choose (and experiment) from.

-vhelp 5196

[MrJacky]

I installed the MJPEG codec (from Picvideo), but unfortunately it was not recognised by the TV tuner software.

However, the MJPEG codec installation came with a video codec configuration utility, which allowed me to configure the DivX codec (it came with no configuration tool).

Where can I download a generic tool for configuring codecs like DivX which does not come with a configuration tool (or at least I can't find)?

[jagabo]

Each encoder comes with its own configuration tool. Your encoding software should also have some way of accessing those configuration dialogs. If you can't get to it via the Start menu or the encoding software then open VirtualDub, go to Video -> Compression..., highlight the codec you want to adjust, then press the Configure button. Most encoders remember the settings you set there.

[MrJacky]

Each encoder comes with its own configuration tool. Your encoding software should also have some way of accessing those configuration dialogs. If you can't get to it via the Start menu or the encoding software then open VirtualDub, go to Video -> Compression..., highlight the codec you want to adjust, then press the Configure button. Most encoders remember the settings you set there.

Is there just a standalone tool which can detect the codecs and allow me to configure them there?

Much like the configuration tool in VirtualDub, but JUST the configuration tool alone.

[jagabo]

I don't know of any program that specifically designed to configure codecs. You could use GraphEdit or GraphStudio. But it's easier to use VirtualDub.

Xvid remembers its settings from run to run by saving its configuration in the Registry. I don't know that all encoders do that. So configuring the codec outside the encoding application may not work with all codecs.