The old "war of opinion" - Capture 8mm tapes in DV or lossless?

[Marvolo]

The other format is uncompressed 8bit422 as UYVY . Those 2 uncompressed YUV formats are ideal for NLE's and treated correctly in most Windows commercial NLE's like Premiere, vegas, resolve .

That's what I now did until I have found a suitable codec to convert them in. However, I chose "uncompressed 4:2:2 (YUYV, YUY2) instead of (UYVY). Does that make any difference?

[poisondeathray]

The other format is uncompressed 8bit422 as UYVY . Those 2 uncompressed YUV formats are ideal for NLE's and treated correctly in most Windows commercial NLE's like Premiere, vegas, resolve .

That's what I now did until I have found a suitable codec to convert them in. However, I chose "uncompressed 4:2:2 (YUYV, YUY2) instead of (UYVY). Does that make any difference?

Yes it makes a difference. YUY2 / YUYV will get clipped. It has to be UYVY

Converting uncompressed 8bit422 to another 8bit422 fourcc can be lossless if done properly

The way the data is arranged is slightly different, and that causes commercial NLE's to mishandle the data
https://fourcc.org/pixel-format/yuv-uyvy/
https://fourcc.org/pixel-format/yuv-yuy2/

[Marvolo]

OK, so based on what you said I should go for the 4:2:2 YCbCr 10-bit (v210) instead of the UYVY?

[poisondeathray]

OK, so based on what you said I should go for the 4:2:2 YCbCr 10-bit (v210) instead of the UYVY?

UYVY is fine for this scenario and filesizes will be lower .

v210 in MOV container will be better if you plan on using Resolve. AVI container doesn't play nice with Resolve

[thecoalman]

I'll throw my 2 cents in here. Back in the early 2000's I purchased a AIW. Not sure if this is still an issue but it was impossible to get a clean capture. No matter what I did including new VCR, cables etc it would always trigger the Macrovision protection. These weren't poor tapes either, they were rarely viewed home tapes that were stored well.

The company I had purchased the computer from sent me upgraded card with a whopping 256MB of RAM. This wasn't a ATI card but it did have VIVO. First try with capturing went well however the capture quality wasn't on par with the frames from the ATI, here is where it gets funny. I upgraded the drivers and now I'm getting a box over the capture about copyright.

That's when I went and bought a ADVC 110 and never looked back. Plugged it in and 5 minutes later I was capturing, it just worked. I didn't have a TBC at the time or a VCR with one but I'm sure both cards would of worked if I did have one.

Quick bit of trivia here, the big difference between the ADVC 100 and 110 is you can't disable Macrovision detection on the 110.

[Marvolo]

For the sake of clarity, here's a new thread I opened soley for the comparison of my two different capturing routes. I thought it would be useful, as this thread (under the current headline) has more or less become a place for (sometimes rather philosophical) beliefs, convictions and debates, which are certainly justified and helpful.

The other thread now, however, is supposed to be a strictly technical comparison of two different capturing routes. Much less beliefs and anecdotes. If technically there is no clear winner between the two, then so be it. Then I might as well go for the lower file size / heavier compression (DV).

[thecoalman]

My opinion on the ADVC is not technical in nature. My opinion and the facts are it just works. It may not be the very best method but "best" is subjective.

[Marvolo]

My opinion on the ADVC is not technical in nature. My opinion and the facts are it just works. It may not be the very best method but "best" is subjective.

I didn't mean you specifically. It was just a general statement on the perceived nature of this thread, probably owing much to the phrasing of the headline.

I have worked with the ADVC-300 in the past.. Good results, but in the end it's DV.