ATI AIW use without ATI Software

[HogDog]

ATI appears to build fairly good hardware but based on my personal experience and many from the forum, their software simply isn't acceptable or worth the hassle.

Can one utilize an ATI AIW card for good analog capture without using any of the ATI software?

I'm thinking about giving them another go if I can avoid using their software. Just looking for the best quality VHS to VCD capture I can manage without going to expensive hardware.

Thanks, HogDog

[Thorn]

I don't think you can use the mpeg capture with out the ati software, but the quality is much better if you capture losslessly anyway (say using Huffyuv). I used virtualdub with my ati aiw 128 for a long time with great results. The only problem with newer ati cards is that they don't include VfW drivers, so you have to use the VfW wrapper (and I think that only works on nt/2k/xp based systems). There are a lot of threads covering how that can be done.

[hwoodwar]

There are many models of the ATI All-In-Wonder card. I personally use an ATI AIW Radeon 7500 with Windows XP Pro (service pack 1), the WDM WFW wrapper, VirtualDub and the HuffyUV codec to capture, with no problems. I know from reading at this site that some people have had problems getting the WDM WFW wrapper working properly with their configuration. I have also heard from this site that some people are using AIW cards with VirtualVCR. I rarely use the ATI MMC to capture.

I just got done with a three hour capture from a VHS tape, recorded over 12 years ago. After a short 5 minute test to decide wether I want to apply any filters, or change settings, I'll be editing out commercials and beginning to encode.

[miamicanes]

Prior to about 4 days ago, I had a fairly low opinion of ATI's capture software and its capabilities... but then I managed to get MMC 7.7 to work with my AIW 128 pro (actually, I got 7.6 to work, then spent another 2 days working on 7.7).

As you probably know, the AIW 128 pro, and all the AIW models since, have hardware-assisted compression. That's not the same as "hardware compression" (like the Dazzle products), where the hardware itself produces MPEG-2 output, but it's a huge improvement over all-software approaches. Basically, the Rage Theatre's chipset has hardware to do some of the more time-consuming operations, like motion detection and DCT computation.

Prior to 7.6, the AIW's capture software didn't try to use that hardware acceleration (at least, not under Win2k or XP), and its all-software approach was mediocre at best, and sucked outright at worst.

7.6 changed everything. As it stands now, with 7.7, I can capture full DVD resolution MPEG-2 with basically no dropped frames unless something accidentally triggers a torrent of activity on the computer (like Norton Antivirus deciding it's time to do the weekly checkup mid-capture, or absentmindedly inserting a CD or DVD into the drive), and quality that's about 95% as good as the best results I normally got with TMPGenc, but 30-60% larger. Put another way, if I'm capturing from VHS and don't mind filling the whole disc with 2 to 2 1/2 hours of video, there's basically no reason to bother with TMPGEnc anymore.

In other words, if you aren't particularly concerned with maximizing storage efficiency and packing more than 2 hours of video on a DVD, or the video doesn't need any post-capture editing beyond slicing and dicing the clip on I-frame boundaries, there's little reason to bother with TMPGenc, because MMC 7.6/7 will give you video that looks almost as good, with a hell of a lot less hassle and inconvenience. For xVCDs, or if you want to pack 4-6 hours of VHS quality video on a DVD, TMPGEnc is still necessary because there's no real alternative to hardcore aggressive non-realtime compression when it comes to packing 90+ minutes of video into 800mb or 4+ hours of video into 4.4gb.

[NiVZ]

I'm using the ATI AIW Radeon 7500 and have had good results using MMC 7.7 and VirtualDub (am currently working on dropping less frames, but I've not done much testing).

Just a quick question though, what does the WDM Wrapper do, and where can I get it?

Cheers,

NiVZ.

[miamicanes]

Here's the short, somewhat simplified explanation:

Back in the dark ages of yore, an OS called Windows95 arrived to shine light into the formerly dark recesses of the PC universe. And it was good. Well, ok... it didn't suck as badly as the Windows 3.x driver model.

Shortly thereafter, amidst a loud rumbling from the foothills of Mt. Rainier, came a parallel driver model for Windows NT -- utterly, totally, and completely incompatible with the Windows 95 driver model. But that was ok (kind of) because NT's driver model was designed to maximize stability at the expense of performance -- a compromise that would have fallen flat on its face among Windows 95 users who simply wouldn't have ever accepted molasses-slow performance in the name of reliability.

Months passed, and Microsoft realized it had screwed up with both driver models. Well, ok... "Screwed up" is a bit strong. Basically, they realized that they made too many compromises at the altar of 16-bit compatibility for Win95's driver model, and went overboard to the point of anal retentiveness with Windows NT's. So... they went back to the drawing board, determined to Do It Right for Windows 2000, Regardless of How Many Hardware Manufacturers It Pissed Off.

The result was WDM. A driver model with most of the stability of the original NT driver model, but almost as much bare-metal performance as Windows 95's. Even better, it meant that going forward, hardware manufacturers could create a single driver and use it with every version of Windows (Except Windows 95 and Windows NT themselves).

WDM support debuted with Windows 98SE, and was formally declared to be the preferred driver model for Windows 2000.

Have you ever thrown a party, then had nobody show up? Well, that's basically what happened. The problem was, for the sake of compatibility, Windows 98SE (and later, ME) were backwards-compatible with the old Windows 95 driver model. And Windows 2000 was backwards-compatible with the old Windows NT driver model (though it DID bitch and moan a bit if you tried to make it use one). So manufacturers had five choices:

* Create three drivers: 9x (for Windows 95), NT (for Windows NT 4 and older), and WDM (for 98SE, 98ME, and 2000).

* create WDM and NT drivers, and eliminate support for Windows 95

* create WDM and Windows 95 drivers, and eliminate support for Windows NT 4 and earlier

* create ONLY WDM drivers, and eliminate support for Windows 95 and all versions of Windows NT.

* ignore WDM, create drivers for 9x and NT, and support all available versions of Windows.

It doesn't take an accountant to realize which of the five choices was the most attractive to manufacturers -- the last one. By ignoring WDM, they had to maintain 2 driver bases, but kept everyone except Microsoft content. Until VERY recently, Windows 95 was still semi-common, and Windows NT is likely to haunt the world's server rooms for years to come.

Naturally, Microsoft wasn't happy about WDM apathy. They were proud of WDM, and had every right to be. WDM *IS* superior in every way to both the 9x and NT driver models. Software engineers passionately *hated* the old driver models, and prayed for the day they could live in eternal bliss with WDM -- if only the )(#@$)(* suits holding the checkbook would let them.

Finally, Microsoft decided to Do Something About It. It released Windows XP, put its foot down, and decreed that for certain classes of drivers, particularly scanners, printers, and videocards, henceforth nothing but the best (WDM) would do. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, from both hardware manufacturers angry about being forced to finally develop WDM drivers and consumers angry that old peripherals without WDM drivers (98% of them, more or less) no longer worked.

Amazingly, when the dust settled, most older products DID somehow manage to acquire WDM drivers. And everyone was happy.

Well, almost. ATI, in its Endless Benevolence and Goodwill, decided to hurriedly cobble together a quasi-WDM driver that basically thunked calls to the same old driver classes for the 128pro, and develop new drivers -- CATALYST -- only for the Radeons. Ergo, the ATI Radeons sailed forth into the new Millennium, and 128 pros were consigned to the scrap heap by default. Until, that is, some brave trailblazer realized that the Radeon's WDM capture drivers worked just fine with a 128 pro. Suddenly, the 128pro became viable again, and the formerly bitter, angry owners were still irate, but generally happy that their cards finally worked right.