VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 129
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    All 600's output pretty much the same thing.

    At the bottom of a forum thread, look under the "Reply" input pane for "Upload files/Manage attachments". Max video accepted = 500MB. Ten seconds of YUY2 AVI huffyuv or Lagarith losssless compressed video would be about 50MB. You can click the "manage attachments" button at any time to see a window with a list of accepted formats. Then you can just close that window.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  2. Excellent. I'm still playing a bit with iuVCR since VirtualDub is not working with my card.

    I do have a question however. After seeing such poor reviews on the two usb ATI capture devices I pictured in a previous post, I decided to look back to the original ATI 600 capture card or USB. When I googled to find drivers for the PCI card, it seemed that there were none available for Windows 7, let alone 8. The 600-USB looked a little more promising for Windows 7, but unknown on Windows 8. Can anybody confirm this is working with at least Windows 7 64-bit?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Link to another site that has info on drivers for ATI 600 and 650(Avoid the 650, it has AGC problems you don't want): http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/3070-ati-600-card.html#post15505.

    ATI 600 USB, aka Diamond TV Wonder 600 USB, aka Diamond TV Wonder HD 600 USB attached below
    (ATI wdm capture drivers for Vista64/Win7-64)

    Not likely you'll find Win7 drivers for the old PCI card. More likely you'll find divers for the '600' PCIe version. This leads me to ask, how are you going to mount the old AIW AGP card in a Windows 7 PC?
    Image Attached Files
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  4. The main benefit of the ATI 600 is that it is a little sharper than others when capturing from a sharp source like a DVD player. But that extra sharpness is meaningless when it comes to VHS. And drivers can be a problem since the device is so old. So I wouldn't sweat about getting that device in particular. There's very little difference in quality between raw SD capture devices from the big names -- Avermedia, Hauppauge, and the ATI 600. Avoid the ATI 650 and 750 devices -- they have overactive automatic gain controls that can't be disabled.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    The main benefit of the ATI 600 is that it is a little sharper than others...
    What do you mean by sharper than others? Compared against which others? If the AVCD110 can save me a ton of time and provide as good of an image as the ATI600, I don't mind spending the extra. I figure that I can still get most of it back again when I sell it again.

    The 600 card is not AGP but rather a PCIe card. Here is the link for one that I found:

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-ATI-TV-Wonder-600-PCIE-Video-Capture-Card-P-N-109-B41434-0...item4ade4278c8
    Last edited by jadoggin; 23rd Oct 2014 at 12:11.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    The main benefit of the ATI 600 is that it is a little sharper than others...
    What do you mean by sharper than others? Compared against which others?
    You're missing my point. Among the decent capture devices it doesn't matter if one can resolve a few more analog lines than another. They all can capture all the detail in a VHS signal.

    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    If the AVCD110 can save me a ton of time and provide as good of an image as the ATI600, I don't mind spending the extra. I figure that I can still get most of it back again when I sell it again.
    The time difference is only in the initial setup. The improvements you get from raw YUY2 capture vs DV capture are in two areas: no DCT artifacts and better color resolution.

    Here are crops taken from a VHS recording of a color resolution test pattern:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	VhsColorRes.png
Views:	823
Size:	237.3 KB
ID:	28091

    The top half of that image was captured with much more chroma resolution than was in the VHS signal. The bottom half of the image is from the same video re-encoded to DV AVI. You can't even see the break between the two. So the 4:1:1 chroma subsampling of DV is of no consequence with VHS sources. The first image in this post shows you that the capture device was capable of capturing with chroma resolution far exceeding that of VHS tape:

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/319420-Who-uses-a-DVD-recorder-as-a-line-TBC-and-wh...=1#post1980652

    Regarding DCT ringing artifacts: here is a YUY2 capture from an ATI 650 USB2 device:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	yuy2.png
Views:	593
Size:	733.9 KB
ID:	28092

    and the same video converted to DV:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	dv.png
Views:	621
Size:	704.8 KB
ID:	28093

    You can see the DV encoding has added DCT ringing artifacts. Look around the "714 x 486 / 525" text, for example.

    Note that these test patterns were made by recording the output of a DVD player. So the source had some DCT ringing artifacts (mostly blurred away by the VHS tape). Here's a cap of the output from the DVD player:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	dvd.png
Views:	685
Size:	378.6 KB
ID:	28094

    Notice how the VHS caps above lost all the high resolution vertical line patterns.

    Danno78 has posted caps from many different capture devices. One example:
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/313735-Capture-card-for-Laserdisc-and-VHS-Good-card...=1#post1940519
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    The tests do show some differences/similarities. A few basic elements aren't part of the tests. The DV samples are after-capture conversions from lossless, not captures to DV. One major omission in these tests is that the targets don't move. Another major element not considered is that the lossless capture is not a lossy encode, but a DV capture is. Lossless will usually be lossy encoded only once. DV is usually lossy encoded at least twice. But the patterns do show useful information.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    The DV samples are after-capture conversions from lossless, not captures to DV.
    But the capture with the ATI 650 as YUY2 is similar to what a DV device would do before encoding. Since the YUY2 data was saved with a lossless codec the net result is the same as sending the data directly with a DV encoder. Ie, I simulated what would have happened if the ATI 650 had a DV encoder chip.

    My point here was to show the effects of DV encoding not the differences between different capture devices. Different devices will have different processing so there will be other differences -- but those differences are not related to the DV encoding. I have the same VHS tape captured by a DV camcorder (recorded onto tape, then transferred via firewire to the computer) but it is so different looking (poor comb filter, different levels/colors, more noise -- and there are no user controls over any of it) there's not much point in comparing it to the ATI cap. Ie, most of the differences would be due to the particular camcorder, not the DV encoding.

    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    One major omission in these tests is that the targets don't move.
    Lossless YUY2 (huffyuv) and DV are both intra-frame only codecs so there's not temporal component to the compression. Of course, some features of video can only be seen when there is full motion but that wasn't my point here. It was only to look at the effects of 4:1:1 chroma subsampling and DCT ringing artifacts.

    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    Another major element not considered is that the lossless capture is not a lossy encode, but a DV capture is. Lossless will usually be lossy encoded only once. DV is usually lossy encoded at least twice. But the patterns do show useful information.
    Again, the point was only to look at the particular issues I mentioned, not what happens to the video later on.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Fully understood. I've browsed thru simialar tests for years. Always enlightening.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    Are you saying that I should just use my JVC HR-J692U rather than buying a used SVCR?
    I have a HR-J693U. If you set the Picture Control to NORM, it's pretty good for SP tapes. For EP, it's murky garbage and turning on sharper settings just makes it uglier.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by vaporeon800 View Post
    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    Are you saying that I should just use my JVC HR-J692U rather than buying a used SVCR?
    I have a HR-J693U. If you set the Picture Control to NORM, it's pretty good for SP tapes. For EP, it's murky garbage and turning on sharper settings just makes it uglier.
    Good to know. Thanks. I will need to replace the battery on my remote to access the settings on the VCR.

    Ok, so I was able to create a brief capture using iuVCR and my existing Osprey 110 capture card. I ended up using the Lagarith codec as the Huffyuv didn't show up as a selectable option. I also just received my ATI 600 capture card and the DMR-ES10 in the mail today. But I wanted to create this as a baseline to see if the capture is actually getting better with the stuff I just bought. Attached is the video file and I'm excited to see what you guys think can improve the picture. I do so appreciate all your help!
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  12. It's hard to tell much with a video like that but why are there no interlace comb artifacts? And why is it captured at 640x480 rather than the ITU standard of 704x480 or 720x480?
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    It's hard to tell much with a video like that but why are there no interlace comb artifacts? And why is it captured at 640x480 rather than the ITU standard of 704x480 or 720x480?
    Are you saying that it looks like the capture has been de-interlaced? My Osprey card doesn't allow for anything more than 640 x 480. Ok, so I'm gonna swap my Osprey card for the ATI-600 and try again with a 720 x 480 using VirtualDub.
    Quote Quote  
  14. It's definitely 29.97p, not 29.97i.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Some folks capture to 640x480....like myself, I hate working with 720x480 if I do a lot of lengthy processing. I've had a couple of auditioned cards in the past whose software forced 640x480 only. Anyway, at 640x480 you eventually have to resize to 720x480 or let your encoder do it (HCenc won't do that favor for you). Resizing to 720x480 takes special care, though. I usually use 16-bit dithering and it's a last step before encoding. In VirtualDub and most NLE's you can resize the window to 4:3 or 16:9 for display only without affecting the video. If you have total crap video that won't take much manipulation to begin with, better stick with the ITU sizes per jagabo.

    .
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  16. Why do you dislike working with 720x480? It would seem like it would be optimal quality if your end format is the same size.

    Anyway, I was unable to figure out a way to capture interlaced with iuVCR, so I tried with Movie Studio Platinum. Sony's product doesn't seem to recognize my Osprey card either. So I made one more attempt using Power Director and it was able to capture at 640x480 interlaced. I've uploaded that as well.

    Ok, next I'll be swapping my Osprey card with the ATI-600 and will try again to compare quality differences...
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  17. PDCapture.avi is 60 fps progressive and every pair of frames is identical. So you still have only 30p video. It's doubtful the camcorder shot 30p.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    This is my first post on this forum, so bear with me. I have about 20 family VHS tapes that I need to convert to a digital video file and store on my computer. From my research, the H.264 format is currently superior (although H.265 is right around the corner). While I'm at it, I'd also like to burn to DVD.
    Sounds like a good plan.
    Don't forget to archive the caputered file as that will be your best source when future delivery codecs come around!

    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    I'm figuring the best way to do this is to capture the video as an AVI file (I know it's huge), and then Edit in a video editing program and then burn to DVD.
    AVI is a container, the container is really not that important. What is more important is the compression format you use.


    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    I'm thinking I could then take the edited video and export back as an uncompressed AVI, then run it through VidCoder to convert to the H.264 format. This way I'll get the highest quality of both.
    Again AVI is just a container but yes you can edit and then convert your source to H.264. VidCoder for one should be just fine.


    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    All of these can capture raw uncompressed AVI. .....
    Capturing uncompressed video is total overkill IMHO. At least use a lossless video CODEC like Huffyuv. But make sure the color spaces coming from the capture card are supported by the codec.

    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    I've spent a good month playing with all of this testing various formats, but I'd still like to get a professional opinion from those of you with experience. Some are recommending that the best method is to use a VCR/DVD combo recorder to directly transfer/burn my videos. Then rip the dvd image and transcode using VidCoder/Handbrake to an H.264 file. But I would like to get an opinion on a forum with users more involved with this type of work. If I can use the capture card and VCR that I already have and get the same or better quality, I'd prefer to go that route.
    It all depends on the CODEC used by those direct transfers. One of the problems in capturing VHS is that the material is rather 'wiggly' and that is not very efficient for many CODECs.

    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    4. Do I need to de-interlace? Usually this seems to make the picture worse.
    Do not de-interlace. You would want to stay as close to the source as possible for your archive format, interlacing should be done at a latter stage. Obviously when encoding to H.264 you would want to deinterlace.

    Edited to correct interlace with de-interlace

    Last edited by newpball; 30th Oct 2014 at 13:31. Reason: de-interlace instead of interlace
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    The O.P. has already decided that losslessly compressed capture is the way to go if considrable cleanup and editing will be required.

    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    4. Do I need to de-interlace? Usually this seems to make the picture worse.
    Do not interlace. You would want to stay as close to the source as possible for your archive format, interlacing should be done at a latter stage. Obviously when encoding to H.264 you would want to deinterlace.

    To stay as close to the source format as possible is certainly a good policy -- however, I don't know that you're aware of it, but VHS is interlaced. So is DVD, and so are most BluRay/AVCHD except for high-res film-based formats and 720p.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  20. Yes, VHS is always interlaced. As was all standard definition analog TV. Sometimes the two fields that comprise a frame are from the same picture -- but the video should still be captured interlaced.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Ok, so I am beyond frustrated with trying to get a capture from my new ATI 600 card. It shouldn't be that hard, right? I have installed the ATI 600 card and installed the drivers. Card seems to be working properly. However, when I attempt to capture in VirtualDub, I get the error "Unable to start video capture" (attached). I try the same with iuVCR and preview there doesn't seem to work either. So I'm wondering if I've even installed the correct drivers. Can someone confirm who has this card working with Windows 7 x64? I've also attached an image of the driver version I have installed (image.jpg). I found many different drivers, but the only one that seemed to work was the one I downloaded from here. The image of the driver version is image2.jpg. The card that I bought is the one from PowerColor and looks like this.

    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Image.JPG
Views:	280
Size:	66.0 KB
ID:	28231  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Image2.JPG
Views:	525
Size:	43.1 KB
ID:	28232  

    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    The PCIe version isn't known to work with Windows 7/8. AFAIK no one ever released Win7 drivers for that card. There are Vista/Win7/Win8 capture drivers for the USB 600, which I believe is the device that was recommended over the PCI or PCIe if you're using Windows 7. The USB divers are in post #33.

    What that download page doesn't mention is that Microsoft .NET framework 4 plus update is required, even for Vista. There must be a dozen posts here and at digitalfaq acknowledging that the PCI/PCIe versions don't work with Windows after Vista.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  23. Bummer I didn't come across those posts before purchasing this card. Ok, so now I'm back to buying a USB type capture device. These ATI 600 USB type devices seem to be pretty rare. I'm just curious. What makes the ATI device superior to the Hauppauge, Diamond, or even Easycap USB Video Capture devices?
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    It was Diamond Multimedia that marketed the ATI TV Wonder USB. There is a similar device, the Diamond VC500 One-Touch USB that seems popular. I believe it captures to lossless AVI using a colorspace simialr to YUY2. Users might correct me on that. http://www.walmart.com/ip/13215178?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&adid=2222222222...836432&veh=sem

    Most of the other cards capture to MPEG2 or DV-AVI.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  25. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    The O.P. has already decided that losslessly compressed capture is the way to go if considrable cleanup and editing will be required.

    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    4. Do I need to de-interlace? Usually this seems to make the picture worse.
    Do not interlace. You would want to stay as close to the source as possible for your archive format, interlacing should be done at a latter stage. Obviously when encoding to H.264 you would want to deinterlace.

    To stay as close to the source format as possible is certainly a good policy -- however, I don't know that you're aware of it, but VHS is interlaced. So is DVD, and so are most BluRay/AVCHD except for high-res film-based formats and 720p.
    Sorry, I meant to say do not de-interlace.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    It was Diamond Multimedia that marketed the ATI TV Wonder USB. There is a similar device, the Diamond VC500 One-Touch USB that seems popular. I believe it captures to lossless AVI using a colorspace simialr to YUY2. Users might correct me on that. http://www.walmart.com/ip/13215178?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&adid=2222222222...836432&veh=sem

    Most of the other cards capture to MPEG2 or DV-AVI.
    I just found this post of a comparison done for many different capture devices. The Diamond VC500 and the ATI 600 USB are both on the list.

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/360704-2013-my-video-capture-device-comparison-screenshots

    I'm not experienced enough to understand what it all means, nor which device is superior.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Many like the VC500. I used a buddy's copy ages and ages ago, but never got it myself because it didn't improve what my AIW's were doing. Didn't use it long enough to even remember what the interface looked like. The old AIW's are another story -- and you'd need XP and an AGP motherboard anyway, so that's not a good option.

    Basically, test patterns are one thing but typical VHS input is another. Between lossless cards around today capturing VHS to lossless AVI, you won't see a tremendous amount of difference with a decent capture device. You'll have to do a lot of cleanup anyway. The VC500 uses Diamonds's own software for capture to several formats. I believe the posts you linked to rank the VC500 and the 600 USB as more or less equal.

    Now you're getting an idea why so many video folks still use XP.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  28. Excellent. I'll grab the first one that comes along. Thanks!
    Quote Quote  
  29. Originally Posted by jadoggin View Post
    I just found this post of a comparison done for many different capture devices. The Diamond VC500 and the ATI 600 USB are both on the list.

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/360704-2013-my-video-capture-device-comparison-screenshots

    I'm not experienced enough to understand what it all means, nor which device is superior.
    The only one I saw that looked inferior (as far as VHS capture is concerned) was the EasyCap. It had more dot crawl artifacts than the others. Another thing to consider is which can capture blacker-than-black, and whiter-than-white. I don't think any of the charts had brighter-than-bright patches though.

    Since they're all basically the same, what you really want is something that you know will work with your OS.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Ok, so I my Diamond VC500 finally arrived. I installed the latest drivers from the Diamond website and plugged it in. Windows 8 shows it as USB2.0 Video Capture. However, I don't see it listed in VirtualDub after I select Capture AVI. I have to admit, I'm a bit discouraged with how difficult this whole process has been. Hopefully the quality that will soon be captured will make up for all the time this has required.

    *** Edit: So apparently it is the "Conexant Polaris Video Capture" device. I'm testing it out now...
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	547
Size:	29.2 KB
ID:	28486  

    Quote Quote