Hi guys I'm having trouble with my ezcap and was wondering if anyone here can help me.
I'm trying to record footage straight from my PS3 and Xbox 360 (not at the same time of course) so I bought an ezcap and all the gubbins including three male to female splitters and a composite cable so I can view the game on the TV while recording. I set the whole thing up and opened the video capture program that came with the ezcap and I got a picture plus sound. "Great" I thought, "it's working". The sound quality is good but the visuals are terrible. I recorded a quick test and uploaded it to youtube to check the final quality but it didn't improve.
I've seen videos on youtube supposedly recorded with ezcap showing much much higher quality images, can anyone help me by explaining how to get at least a decent picture quality? I'm not looking for anything spectacular, just something better than using my phone would be nice.
Thanks in advance.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Beware there are imitation EzCap devices that are inferior to the genuine EzCap.
EzCap is limited to standard definition video (720x576 PAL) so you will never get high definition out of it. Best results usually come from capturing s-video with a lossless codec (like UT video codec or HuffYUV). Then if you want a smaller file convert to Xvid or h.264.
The video has lots of dot crawl artifacts, macroblocking, and dropped/repeat frames, and interlace artifacts.
I've been fiddling with the settings using a trial of Corel Video Studio Pro X4 and I've managed to greatly increase the video quality. It's no longer really blurry at high speed. Check it out.
Would you fellows recommend I get the full version of VSPX4 which seems to be around £60 or is Sony Vegas the way to go? I've seen Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum Production Suite 11 (PC) on amazon for £32.60
This capture looks better, but I still see macro-blocking during fast motion.
Cauptain, one of our resident experts on video game capture, generally recommends lossless capture with AmarRecTV using the UT Video Codec. Capturing that way consumes a lot of HDD space initially. but produces superior results after re-encoding to a YouTube compatible format. You can see some his work on YouTube His captures are often in high-definition, but there is no reason that standard-definition captures wouldn't look very good as well.
Since Youtube recompresses everything you upload it's not possible to tell which problems are caused by Youtube and which are in the file you uploaded. You should upload short segments here instead. Your latest upload looks better than the last but it still has duplicate and missing frames, and a poor blend deinterlace (that makes frames look like double exposures). Never encode anything as WMV because Microsoft's codecs discard frames when the action gets too high for the requested bitrate.