video capture

[Richard]

I need a video capture device for transferring VHS tapes to DVD. I have
tried several systems, only to find that they screw up my computer most of
the time. It's either audio but no video, or vice versa. Occasionally I'll
get both, but the next day nothing. I don't know how many times I've had to
reboot my computer and reinstall the device, only to be frustrated once
more. Tech support tried to be helpful, but to no avail. I do not need a TV
tuner, as that adds more problems, e.g., maybe the TV works but video input
doesn't, and so on. Is there anyone out there who can recommend a system
that really works? My machine is WindowsXP Home SP2, AMD Athlon 64+
processor running @ 2.41 gigs, 1 gig RAM. Any advice would be appreciated.
Richard

 

[Ken Maltby]

I need a video capture device for transferring VHS tapes to DVD. I have
tried several systems, only to find that they screw up my computer most of
the time. It's either audio but no video, or vice versa. Occasionally I'll
get both, but the next day nothing. I don't know how many times I've had to
reboot my computer and reinstall the device, only to be frustrated once
more. Tech support tried to be helpful, but to no avail. I do not need a TV
tuner, as that adds more problems, e.g., maybe the TV works but video input
doesn't, and so on. Is there anyone out there who can recommend a system
that really works? My machine is WindowsXP Home SP2, AMD Athlon 64+
processor running @ 2.41 gigs, 1 gig RAM. Any advice would be appreciated.
Richard

I find that, generally speaking, VHS tapes are best converted to
DVD+RW on a standalone DVD Recorder with built-in Time Base
Correction (TBC) and Noise Reduction (NR). The DVD+RW disks
can then be taken to your PC and edited then authored to a new DVD
with menus and any other features you want them to have. You might
want to consider using printable DVD blanks in an ink jet printer to add
photo quality DVD covers.

A good, refurbished, quality DVD Recorder can normally be had for
less than $150. ( I use a RCA DRC8000N, these older units were
built much sturdier and designed with a greater expectation that VHS
would be the source.)

If you really want a capture card for making DVDs:

There are a number of companies making capture cards, but the
main factors involve the "chipsets" used. Many prefer the Philips
SAA 7xxxH series video decoder/digitizer over the other A/D
chips in use.

Do a Google and check the listings at www.videohelp.com

The Snazzi* III DVD series uses the chipset I prefer, but there are
a number of other good cards to find.

www.snazzishop.com


For editing your imported DVD or captured MPEG and then
authoring a new DVD, you might consider:

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/...56716&random=2d456a45fbee2bb3ea2d859d83815d8f
($140)

[If you get a capture card it will come with some software to
work with what it can capture. Sometimes it even works.]


Luck;
Ken

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

I find that, generally speaking, VHS tapes are best converted to

DVD+RW on a standalone DVD Recorder with built-in Time Base
Correction (TBC) and Noise Reduction (NR). The DVD+RW disks
can then be taken to your PC and edited then authored to a new DVD
with menus and any other features you want them to have. You might
want to consider using printable DVD blanks in an ink jet printer to add
photo quality DVD covers.

A good, refurbished, quality DVD Recorder can normally be had for
less than $150. ( I use a RCA DRC8000N, these older units were
built much sturdier and designed with a greater expectation that VHS
would be the source.)

Very sound advice from one I've frequently disagreed with. For the vast
majority of people, this is the cheapest and most trouble free way to
convert.

If you really want a capture card for making DVDs:

There are a number of companies making capture cards, but the
main factors involve the "chipsets" used. Many prefer the Philips
SAA 7xxxH series video decoder/digitizer over the other A/D
chips in use.

Do a Google and check the listings at www.videohelp.com

Great link that should be viewed by _everyone_ thinking of taking on this
process.

The Snazzi* III DVD series uses the chipset I prefer, but there are
a number of other good cards to find.

www.snazzishop.com

You've moved up from the Hauppage cards you used to hawk, which is a _very_
good thing. Still recommending h/w based mpeg encoding cards, however is
not. There's no reason a reletively recent computer, which his obviously is,
cannot capture to mpeg in real time while still being used for normal tasks.
Any used ATI AIW card will do the trick.

For editing your imported DVD or captured MPEG and then
authoring a new DVD, you might consider:

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/...56716&random=2d456a45fbee2bb3ea2d859d83815d8f
($140)

Damn. You're not pimping VideoReDo anymore?? You have certainly learned more
about video than you used to know, that's for sure. My choice would be
Premier Elements but then again, I'm not limited to only using an mpeg
editor for my avi files because I can capture in something other than mpeg
format, which was not an easily editible format until recently. At least the
algorithm for this encoder isn't over 5 years old like the Hauppage cards.

[If you get a capture card it will come with some software to
work with what it can capture. Sometimes it even works.]

For anyone of even low to moderate intelligence, hooking up a ATI AIW and
using the included MMC s/w, connect an S-video output from the vcr to the
input of the AIW, Left and Right audio cables out to in on the AIW and then
pressing a button to capture in uncompressed avi form is not that difficult.
As long as the source tape is in halfway decent shape, there's no need for a
stand alone TBC or ham-fisted h/w based noise reduction in PC based capture.

Just because you couldn't master doing it doesn't mean it's rocket science.
But hey, you've come a long way in the last couple of years. Must have
finally got an ATI card since you're in this ng, advice I gave you several
years ago.

Has the copyright lawyer bitch-slapped you recently?

 

[Richard]

To Chuck and Ken, you are the North Star in troubled waters. At last there
is some sense in what began to appear to me as a conspiracy against the
average PC user. I shall heed your advice, and thanks ever so much.
Richard

 

[Ken Maltby]

Very sound advice from one I've frequently disagreed with. For the vast
majority of people, this is the cheapest and most trouble free way to
convert.


Great link that should be viewed by _everyone_ thinking of taking on this
process.


You've moved up from the Hauppage cards you used to hawk, which is a
_very_
good thing. Still recommending h/w based mpeg encoding cards, however is
not. There's no reason a reletively recent computer, which his obviously
is,
cannot capture to mpeg in real time while still being used for normal
tasks.
Any used ATI AIW card will do the trick.

I don't know if you just have me mixed up with some other
rational poster, or you are still incapable of reading anyone's
post and comprehending what is said.

To set the record straight I never owned or recommended
Hauppage cards.

I most certainly have always recommended Direct to DVD
compliant MPEG hardware capture, for those working
with video material that has already been professionally
edited. (TV, LaserDisk, VHS, Cable, Satellite, ect...)
Especially if they are going to be making a DVD.

Capturing with an ATI AIW card is certainly an option,
but you can certainly find a large number of users who
have their share of problems. Check the user comments
for those cards at www.videohelp.com

But how is it that you, who wanted nothing to do with
MPEG, are now "hawking" software real-time MPEG
capture?

Damn. You're not pimping VideoReDo anymore?? You have certainly learned
more
about video than you used to know, that's for sure. My choice would be
Premier Elements but then again, I'm not limited to only using an mpeg
editor for my avi files because I can capture in something other than mpeg
format, which was not an easily editible format until recently. At least
the
algorithm for this encoder isn't over 5 years old like the Hauppage cards.

VideoReDo is a great tool, that anyone working with MPEG
should have. There are some things that it can do that no other
program attempts, but Womble's new product was a better fit
for what the OP wanted to do.

[If you get a capture card it will come with some software to
work with what it can capture. Sometimes it even works.]

For anyone of even low to moderate intelligence, hooking up a ATI AIW and
using the included MMC s/w, connect an S-video output from the vcr to the
input of the AIW, Left and Right audio cables out to in on the AIW and
then
pressing a button to capture in uncompressed avi form is not that
difficult.
As long as the source tape is in halfway decent shape, there's no need for
a
stand alone TBC or ham-fisted h/w based noise reduction in PC based
capture.

Well they probably won't find those features on the AIW card.

Just because you couldn't master doing it doesn't mean it's rocket
science.
But hey, you've come a long way in the last couple of years. Must have
finally got an ATI card since you're in this ng, advice I gave you several
years ago.

I doubt that, but I would be unlikely to take any advice from an
obnoxious poster like you. If anyone were interested I went from
a 3DFX Voodoo 5 5500 AGP to ATI Radeon and have used ATI
vid cards ever since. It's been a long time since you and I were
arguing about the practicality of MPEG editing, as I remember it
you took the position that it was impossible, but not so long ago
that I wouldn't have been using an ATI vid card.

Has the copyright lawyer bitch-slapped you recently?

I see you still have that selective memory thing, or did
you think it's been long enough that no one would call
you on it.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

I don't know if you just have me mixed up with some other

rational poster, or you are still incapable of reading anyone's
post and comprehending what is said.

No, I haven't mixed you up and usually you are a great distance from
rational when it comes to VHS to DVD conversions.

To set the record straight I never owned or recommended
Hauppage cards.

You have previously said the _any_ capture card that captures directly to
mpg format is superior ATI's AIW cards, repeatedly. When I asked you about
the Hauppage cards, you said yes even then because then all you had to do
was edit with VideoReDo, a piece of s/w that you attached near mythical
status to regarding it's "frame accurate" edits. If this doesn't ring a
bell, you must suffer from Alzheimers.

I most certainly have always recommended Direct to DVD
compliant MPEG hardware capture, for those working
with video material that has already been professionally
edited. (TV, LaserDisk, VHS, Cable, Satellite, ect...)
Especially if they are going to be making a DVD.

Capturing with an ATI AIW card is certainly an option,
but you can certainly find a large number of users who
have their share of problems. Check the user comments
for those cards at www.videohelp.com

Of course you're going to have large numbers of users who have problems, the
AIW is the dominant PC card for video capture. As I said, those with even
low to moderate intelligence don't have a problem. I'm sorry you couldn't
figure it out.

But how is it that you, who wanted nothing to do with
MPEG, are now "hawking" software real-time MPEG
capture?

Not hawking anything at all. Just saying it can easily be done, if that's
what the user wants. Can't capture to uncompressed AVI with those mpeg cards
now, can you? I _always_ recommend capturing to uncompressed AVI, editing it
in Premier Pro, Vegas or any other standard video editing program and then
encoding the resultant file with a quality 2 pass s/w encoder that gives
superior quality to _any_ h/w based capture. You were always the one who
said capturing mpeg in real time lead to video degradation and that was the
reason you preferred a h/w based mpeg capture card. Even with a 5 year old
encoding algorithm.

VideoReDo is a great tool, that anyone working with MPEG
should have. There are some things that it can do that no other
program attempts, but Womble's new product was a better fit
for what the OP wanted to do.

Why would the OP want to edit mpeg? It's much more difficult than AVI
because you're dealing with data in a _compressed_ format.

Well they probably won't find those features on the AIW card.

Because they're usually not needed. Only in cases where the source tapes are
in terrible shape is a TBC required. And NR is much better handled from a
s/w perspective.

I doubt that, but I would be unlikely to take any advice from an
obnoxious poster like you. If anyone were interested I went from

I know, I confused you with the facts.

a 3DFX Voodoo 5 5500 AGP to ATI Radeon and have used ATI
vid cards ever since. It's been a long time since you and I were
arguing about the practicality of MPEG editing, as I remember it
you took the position that it was impossible, but not so long ago
that I wouldn't have been using an ATI vid card.

You would be incorrect, yet again. My point always was, and still is, there
is absolutely no reason to capture directly to mpeg format and then edit the
resulting file like you always recommend. And I used Mayah EditPro, one of
the very first pieces of s/w to directly edit an mpeg file, long before you
had even discovered VideoReDo so I was well aware of the s/w available. I
didn't say it _couldn't_ be done, I said it _shouldn't_ be done, because it
was needed and it was harder to edit precisely. My point, which you still
seem to have difficulty comprehending, is that it is much easier in these
days of cheap hd's, memory and fast processors to use a cheap-ass ATI AIW
card to capture to uncompressed AVI format, easily edit the resulting file
to remove Uncle John from farting at the Christmas table and then encode the
edited file with a double pass s/w encoder. It all can be done, with high
quality, by using shareware/freeware.

I see you still have that selective memory thing, or did
you think it's been long enough that no one would call
you on it.

If you think I'm the lawyer, you're even more dense than I thought. I just
remember him logically and methodically explaining why editing uncompressed
files was easier, faster and more efficient than mpeg files and you
continued to say that capturing with a h/w based card and editing with
VideoReDo was the superior. It was rather comical, if pathetic. He was much
more diplomatic than me and you still didn't get it.

And still don't.

 

[Ken Maltby]

No, I haven't mixed you up and usually you are a great distance from
rational when it comes to VHS to DVD conversions.


You have previously said the _any_ capture card that captures directly to
mpg format is superior ATI's AIW cards, repeatedly. When I asked you about
the Hauppage cards, you said yes even then because then all you had to do
was edit with VideoReDo, a piece of s/w that you attached near mythical
status to regarding it's "frame accurate" edits. If this doesn't ring a
bell, you must suffer from Alzheimers.

First that is a plain lie. It also, again, confirms your inability
to comprehend. Second I would not use "any" or "all" or "none"
on one side of an equation. You are just misrepresenting what I
actually said knowing that people can't just look in the thread
to see the truth, because it was so long ago

( Google [Groups] "Ken Maltby Chuck U. Farley" , then
read the whole threads.)

While I did not make any comparison to ATI cards, I would
have certainly pointed out having DVD Compliant MPEG
captured in real-time (by whatever card) of professionally edited
material (TV, Cable, Satellite, VHS tapes, ect...) and being able
to do frame accurate edits with VideoReDo, made it a much
quicker process to create DVDs.


What you are not saying is that back in FEB-MAY of 2005,
you were saying MPEG frame accurate cuts were impossible.
I was saying that they were possible with VideoReDo. You
were joined in that position by a number of the old time DV-AVI
is the only way it can be done crowd. Some gave lengthy
technical sounding explanations as to why it was impossible.

Of course you're going to have large numbers of users who have problems,
the
AIW is the dominant PC card for video capture. As I said, those with even
low to moderate intelligence don't have a problem. I'm sorry you couldn't
figure it out.


Not hawking anything at all. Just saying it can easily be done, if that's
what the user wants. Can't capture to uncompressed AVI with those mpeg
cards
now, can you? I _always_ recommend capturing to uncompressed AVI, editing
it
in Premier Pro, Vegas or any other standard video editing program and then
encoding the resultant file with a quality 2 pass s/w encoder that gives
superior quality to _any_ h/w based capture.

Your opinion. Which you are entitled to, but there are plenty of
h/w based MPEG encoded programs that you are watching on your
cable or satellite

You were always the one who
said capturing mpeg in real time lead to video degradation and that was
the
reason you preferred a h/w based mpeg capture card. Even with a 5 year old
encoding algorithm.

Huh? How does that even fit with what you claim I said? All h/w
encoding is basically real-time. The algorithm for DVD compliant
MPEG cannot change, in any real way, and still be playable in DVD
Players. Five years, Ten years, 500 Years, it needs to be the same,
or you are talking about something other than the current DVD.

Why would the OP want to edit mpeg? It's much more difficult than AVI
because you're dealing with data in a _compressed_ format.



Because they're usually not needed. Only in cases where the source tapes
are
in terrible shape is a TBC required. And NR is much better handled from a
s/w perspective.


You would be incorrect, yet again. My point always was, and still is,
there
is absolutely no reason to capture directly to mpeg format and then edit
the
resulting file like you always recommend. And I used Mayah EditPro, one of
the very first pieces of s/w to directly edit an mpeg file, long before
you
had even discovered VideoReDo so I was well aware of the s/w available.

That would certainly mean you position in FEB 2005 was a lie, or
your claim of having used an MPEG Editor back then is a lie, you
can't have it both ways.

I
didn't say it _couldn't_ be done, I said it _shouldn't_ be done, because
it
was needed and it was harder to edit precisely.

Your point in FEB 2005 was that frame accurate cuts in MPEG were
impossible.

My point, which you still
seem to have difficulty comprehending, is that it is much easier in these
days of cheap hd's, memory and fast processors to use a cheap-ass ATI AIW
card to capture to uncompressed AVI format, easily edit the resulting file
to remove Uncle John from farting at the Christmas table and then encode
the
edited file with a double pass s/w encoder. It all can be done, with high
quality, by using shareware/freeware.

No one ever said it couldn't or even shouldn't be done that way, for
the unedited material you imply now. For the "VHS to DVD" (that
this thread was about), it is more likely that the material will be taped
TV broadcasts, than camcorder tapes. If it is unedited home movies
and if it needs more extensive editing than is available with MPEG Editors,
then your much more lengthy process would be a way to go.

If you think I'm the lawyer, you're even more dense than I thought. I just
remember him logically and methodically explaining why editing
uncompressed
files was easier, faster and more efficient than mpeg files and you
continued to say that capturing with a h/w based card and editing with
VideoReDo was the superior. It was rather comical, if pathetic. He was
much
more diplomatic than me and you still didn't get it.

And still don't.

(Google [Groups] "Ken Maltby PTravel")

You seem to think you can misrepresent a whole series of
posts and you will get away with it because no one will take
the trouble to find and read the original threads - you could
be right, it would take some effort.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

First that is a plain lie. It also, again, confirms your inability

<snip blathering drivel>

Don't have the time nor the inclination to continue this as it's blatantly
obvious you still don't have a clue. Anyone can go here:

http://tinyurl.com/ra6tj

and read for themselves.

Remember, you said:

"What I posted is there for all to see, as is what you have said. I
leave it to the reader."

As it is in this thread. You thought you knew it all then, and you didn't.
And you still don't. Rambling on like that just embarrasses you further, if
that's even possible.

Now run along to another ng where you can try to impress people with your
"knowledge". People in this ng, like rec.video.desktop, actually know what
they're talking about... unlike you.

 

[Ken Maltby]

<snip blathering drivel>

Don't have the time nor the inclination to continue this as it's blatantly
obvious you still don't have a clue. Anyone can go here:

http://tinyurl.com/ra6tj

and read for themselves.

Remember, you said:

"What I posted is there for all to see, as is what you have said. I
leave it to the reader."

As it is in this thread. You thought you knew it all then, and you didn't.
And you still don't. Rambling on like that just embarrasses you further,
if
that's even possible.

Now run along to another ng where you can try to impress people with your
"knowledge". People in this ng, like rec.video.desktop, actually know what
they're talking about... unlike you.

Good of you to post a link to that thread. One thing that it proves
is that I said Frame accurate MPEG editing could be done with
VideoReDo and other MPEG Editors, while your crowd claimed
it was impossible.

None of you are making that claim now I see.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

Good of you to post a link to that thread. One thing that it proves

is that I said Frame accurate MPEG editing could be done with
VideoReDo and other MPEG Editors, while your crowd claimed
it was impossible.

Do you actually _comprehend_ what you read? Here's a quote from PTravel from
that thread:

"Ken, who cares if it can produce frame-accurate edits. The bottom line is
this: if you're editing video, use video editing software. VideoReDo is not
substitute for FCP. Premiere, Liquid Edition, or even Studio or Microsoft
MovieMaker."

And here's a quote from _me_, again in that same thread:

"For simple slicing and dicing of material already encoded into mpeg format,
V-Redo, Womble, etc are fine. And they can, in fact, do frame accurate
edits."

None of you are making that claim now I see.

See above. I _never_ made that claim.

The original title of the thread, before you hijacked it, was "What product
do you think is best for AVI to DVD?" which had absolutely _nothing_ to do
with your obsession with VideoReDo being able to do frame accurate cuts. The
thread was about _quality_ in going from AVI to DVD, not frame accurate mpeg
editing.

Your assertion that, "Me I'll settle for MPEG-2 video captures that are
ready to author into DVDs what, when played, provide video that looks
exactly the same the source." was the statement that everyone, and I mean
_everyone_, in that thread disagreed with. Again, just because _you_ can't
tell the difference in mpeg encoded video from the original source,
especially with a h/w encoder, doesn't mean no one else can. That was the
whole point of the thread. Why do you think Hollywood producers spend $2000
USD on Cinema Craft Encoder rather than $150 on a Snazzi h/w encoder?

Any further communication with you is pointless because you obviously don't
understand mpeg compression, the difference between h/w and s/w encoders and
what "editing" really means in video.

So go ahead and slice and dice your Survivor episodes, while doing FRAME
ACCURATE edits, so you can think you are doing _real_ video editing. Those
of us who actually know what we're doing understand the difference, unlike
you.

 

[Bill's News]

Ken, I've read many of your posts in the past couple years and have
learned some from them. As one who captures TV shows, hoping for good
quality and speed, I finally opted for the Hauppauge PCI 250 several
years ago, perhaps 6? Its only drawback then was the lack of MPEG2
editing software that was a) quick, b) self contained, c) worth the
effort - namely, frame accurate. The mickey-mouse freeware available
previously was not worth the effort, nor was the iframe accurate cut
editor which Hauppauge included at that time - a poor spokesman for
its fee-based edition, as it was grossly inadequate for the task. So
I was quite happy too when VideoReDo appeared on the scene. Sadly, I
missed hearing of Womble until just about that time:-(

However, I also convert some captures (primarily serialized shows) to
xvid, and in this case I wish that my H250 (or my later purchased
H-USB2) offered full frame DV. Not that I'm unhappy with the xvid
results I do get, just that I would expend less CPU time and resources
with better, and VDub editable, source material.

You have (always?) said that hardware based, DVD compliant, MPEG2
capture is fine for professionally edited material (namely TV
broadcasts) and I agree wholeheartedly, as I have no interest in VHS
conversion or video cam captures.

Now, however, for compliant MPEG2, standalone DVD recorders probably
do the Hauppauge job with equal finesse and some HDD based units may
even have adequate cut editors (I don't know, as I don't use a DVDR).

I suspect that multi-pass encoding to VBR MPEG2 might benefit the end
result as much as it obviously does in conversion to xvid, but I doubt
that that applies to CBR capture, which seems to me to be the best way
to use the Hauppauge and at a higher bit rate than the DVD spec
allows. After all, why should WE capture TV to an antiquated spec
which does not allow us to get the best we can get from the hardware
at hand? Any contemporary DVD player that does not handle MPEGISO
files at higher than DVD specs, or AVI structures using any of the
MPEG4-ish encoders, isn't worthy of purchase.

Just a minor chastisement, which agrees with one of Chuck's comments -
you do proselytize any hardware/software of which you are fond at the
moment. I probably opted for the Buffalo LT player with less research
than adequate because of your glowing posts. Yet it is a POS, no?

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

However, I also convert some captures (primarily serialized shows) to

xvid, and in this case I wish that my H250 (or my later purchased
H-USB2) offered full frame DV. Not that I'm unhappy with the xvid
results I do get, just that I would expend less CPU time and resources
with better, and VDub editable, source material.

By capturing with the Hauppage and converting to Xvid, you do realize you're
compressing material with the Xvid codec that's already been compressed once
by the Hauppage card and at least once or twice before you even get it,
right? Even OTA broadcasts are compressed before they are broadcast.

Lossy compression + lossy compression + lossy compression = subpar encode,
and that's a fact.

I suspect that multi-pass encoding to VBR MPEG2 might benefit the end
result as much as it obviously does in conversion to xvid, but I doubt

That is as true now as it was five years ago.

that that applies to CBR capture, which seems to me to be the best way
to use the Hauppauge and at a higher bit rate than the DVD spec
allows. After all, why should WE capture TV to an antiquated spec
which does not allow us to get the best we can get from the hardware

TMPEnc has been able to encode at a higher bitrate than the DVD standard for
at least five years as well.

at hand? Any contemporary DVD player that does not handle MPEGISO
files at higher than DVD specs, or AVI structures using any of the
MPEG4-ish encoders, isn't worthy of purchase.

I just feed S-video and audio out from my AIW to my home theater so I never
had to worry about DVD players not playing Xvid, or any other format for
that matter.

Just a minor chastisement, which agrees with one of Chuck's comments -
you do proselytize any hardware/software of which you are fond at the
moment. I probably opted for the Buffalo LT player with less research
than adequate because of your glowing posts. Yet it is a POS, no?

As with _all_ recommendations, especially on Usenet, nothing replaces asking
professionals what's best. You should have hung in rec.video.desktop at the
time, the advice there is far superior to what you received.

 

[Bill's News]

By capturing with the Hauppauge and converting to Xvid, you do
realize
you're compressing material with the Xvid codec that's already been
compressed once by the Hauppauge card

Yes, I do. However, the result is very good - even when displayed on
a 42" 1080p monitor. My comment to Ken is that: I'd rather capture in
DV for this purpose - because I believe it would save time. However a
Canopus converter is still sitting in my Amazon "buy later" bag
because I'm basically happy with what I'm doing, save its speed.

However, it's only TV shows - not the jewels;-0) Never-the-less, very
few visitors can tell the difference between my xvid 2.192 mbps
conversions and DVDs when played either from the PC or an OPPO player.
On the SD TV there was virtually no difference whatever - leading to
my often picking up the wrong remote;-0)

and at least once or twice before you even get it, right?
Even OTA broadcasts are compressed before they are broadcast.

The quality of the image arriving via TV (digital cable in my case)
would be exactly the same for whatever method I'd use to capture. So,
I'm missing your point?

Lossy compression + lossy compression + lossy compression = subpar
encode, and that's a fact.

Yes, I got it the first time. And, believe it or not, I got it long
ago too. Still, all of what I've said is true!

That is as true now as it was five years ago.

Hmmmm!! Some reason why you chose to comment on VBR but not CBR?

which seems to me to be the best

TMPEnc has been able to encode at a higher bitrate than the DVD
standard for at least five years as well.

I've never had occasion to use TMPE. Is it a capture thingy? (just
kidding).
What difference does it make what TMPE can do unless its source
material is already in excess of the DVD spec? I presume you meant
here that it can convert DV to DVD or better bit rates? And, I'm
guessing you mean that you'd use it in 2 passes to do so. Then you'd
watch the video and discard it.

When I do not convert to xvid, I simply play the MPEG2, 12 mbps CBR
captures from the PC to 42" monitor. I don't use the Hauppauge
player's time-shift feature because the VSO player does a better job
of scaling letter-box to 16:9. So I view sometime after capture is
complete - whether or not I edit out undesirable material.

I just feed S-video and audio out from my AIW to my home theater so
I
never had to worry about DVD players not playing Xvid, or any other
format for that matter.

I also have been a proponent for years of playing video to the monitor
directly from the PC, via HDMI at the moment. And I've even situated
a PC near each TV in the house in years gone by. Now, I use a DVD
player, presently an OPPO, in the one other room which has a TV while
the main display is still driven by a tower supporting 1.12 TB of hard
disk space. Still, I love buying gadgets - and current generation DVD
players fall into that category. Several of my non-PC neighbors have
benefited from my foibles, as they now have my one-time LiteOn,
Phillips, and Buffalo players.

As with _all_ recommendations, especially on Usenet, nothing
replaces
asking professionals what's best. You should have hung in
rec.video.desktop at the time, the advice there is far superior to
what you received.

I didn't receive advice, nor ask for it. I like Ken's general
enthusiasm for video capture and conversion and I like his ability to
express himself in properly written English. His presentation, in the
case of the Buffalo LT player, was over stated a tad but generally I
"feel" he has a far better grasp of this subject than I and I'll
probably be swayed again by his enthusiasms. I share his interest in
H264 compression, but I see no value in that for me at the moment -
since my sources are MPEG2 captures and the plethora of divx capable
players in my community will not handle H264.

Any way, thanks for your presenting a view different from Ken's. I
think you two are merely talking about different aspects of capture
and are probably not as far apart on the tech modes as your
personalities would pretend.

I side with Ken for TV capture in MPEG2 and cutting out commercials
with VideoReDo, as that's what I do. I'd probably side with you, were
I a home video enthusiast, whether using contemporary cameras or
converting old home made VHS tapes.

Given a more whimsical budget than I already have, I KNOW that I'd
have both types of capture equipment.

 

[Bill's News]

Bill's News wrote:

I also have been a proponent for years of playing video to the
monitor
directly from the PC, via HDMI at the moment.

Correction, the PC is using DVI not HDMI.

<snip>

 

[Ken Maltby]

Do you actually _comprehend_ what you read? Here's a quote from PTravel
from
that thread:

"Ken, who cares if it can produce frame-accurate edits. The bottom line
is
this: if you're editing video, use video editing software. VideoReDo is
not
substitute for FCP. Premiere, Liquid Edition, or even Studio or Microsoft
MovieMaker."

And here's a quote from _me_, again in that same thread:

"For simple slicing and dicing of material already encoded into mpeg
format,
V-Redo, Womble, etc are fine. And they can, in fact, do frame accurate
edits."


See above. I _never_ made that claim.

But that was the claim you were supporting, including the claim
that you tried but couldn't do it. I can quote from the thread also:

"Given the GOP structure of VBR or CBR MPEG-2, whether the video
is captured to or encoded to that format, frame accurate editing is not -
and I repeat NOT possible. The program and the manufacturer that claims
this frame accurate editing is in short stretching the truth, and anyone who
believes it is easily fooled."

But I would prefer that people read the whole thread and see what
was said - in context, without the Farley (or Maltby) interpretation of
what was said.

The original title of the thread, before you hijacked it, was "What
product
do you think is best for AVI to DVD?" which had absolutely _nothing_ to do
with your obsession with VideoReDo being able to do frame accurate cuts.
The
thread was about _quality_ in going from AVI to DVD, not frame accurate
mpeg
editing.

Hopefully anyone reading that thread will scroll to the top, and
see that - I started that thread. They will see that the only thing I
referenced from that earlier thread was your claimed inability to
do a frame accurate cut using VideoReDo. I started that thread
deliberately for the express purpose of avoiding the hijacking of the
earlier thread, just to respond to your (and your buddies)
misinformation.

Your assertion that, "Me I'll settle for MPEG-2 video captures that are
ready to author into DVDs what, when played, provide video that looks
exactly the same the source." was the statement that everyone, and I mean
_everyone_, in that thread disagreed with. Again, just because _you_ can't
tell the difference in mpeg encoded video from the original source,
especially with a h/w encoder, doesn't mean no one else can. That was the
whole point of the thread.

That is how you are trying to characterize "the whole point of the
thread",
but as the original poster, perhaps what I wrote in the subject line should
be the guide.


Why do you think Hollywood producers spend $2000

USD on Cinema Craft Encoder rather than $150 on a Snazzi h/w encoder?

They can afford better toys? But the reality is that they
spend $10s of thousands on Hardware Encoders.

Any further communication with you is pointless because you obviously
don't
understand mpeg compression, the difference between h/w and s/w encoders
and
what "editing" really means in video.

You are entitled to your opinion, but since you haven't used H/W
encoders only s/w encoders, it would be hard to call it an informed
opinion.

So go ahead and slice and dice your Survivor episodes, while doing FRAME
ACCURATE edits, so you can think you are doing _real_ video editing. Those
of us who actually know what we're doing understand the difference, unlike
you.

As with most of your postings, you warp the discussion so that you
can make the claim that it's your way, or it can't be done or done well.
When that doesn't work, you claim it's not Real or that it's beneath
your consideration.

This thread was about "video capture", capturing VHS taped material
to DVD. I recommended using a DVD Recorder and editing DVD+RW
disks on a PC, before authoring a new DVD. You couldn't leave it at that.

Ken

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

By capturing with the Hauppauge and converting to Xvid, you do

Yes, I do. However, the result is very good - even when displayed on
a 42" 1080p monitor. My comment to Ken is that: I'd rather capture in

If you're happy with what you see, cool.

DV for this purpose - because I believe it would save time. However a
Canopus converter is still sitting in my Amazon "buy later" bag
because I'm basically happy with what I'm doing, save its speed.

Canopus products are outstanding. I use Procoder to convert my AVI's to
mpeg, wmv and QT.

However, it's only TV shows - not the jewels;-0) Never-the-less, very

I just try to make the highest quality and the lowest cost, even if my
videos aren't coming out of Hollywood.

few visitors can tell the difference between my xvid 2.192 mbps
conversions and DVDs when played either from the PC or an OPPO player.
On the SD TV there was virtually no difference whatever - leading to
my often picking up the wrong remote;-0)

I use the universal remote that came with my Dish PVR so I don't have that

The quality of the image arriving via TV (digital cable in my case)
would be exactly the same for whatever method I'd use to capture. So,
I'm missing your point?

See below. Back in my mp3 days, people would take an original 128kbps encode
and re-encode it to 256 and think they were improving the "quality".

Yes, I got it the first time. And, believe it or not, I got it long
ago too. Still, all of what I've said is true!

I post not only for those who post but also for those who lurk. You may know
it, but they may not.

Hmmmm!! Some reason why you chose to comment on VBR but not CBR?

I haven't done any CBR encodes since I was doing mp3's with MP3Enc back in
99.

I've never had occasion to use TMPE. Is it a capture thingy? (just
kidding).

Nah, it's an freeware/shareware encoding thingy that's been around for many,
many years that does an outstanding job of encoding to mpeg format.

What difference does it make what TMPE can do unless its source
material is already in excess of the DVD spec? I presume you meant
here that it can convert DV to DVD or better bit rates? And, I'm
guessing you mean that you'd use it in 2 passes to do so. Then you'd
watch the video and discard it.

It doesn't matter if the source material was already in excess of the spec,
what most people are trying to accomplish with encoding any source to mpeg
format is to keep as much of the quality of the original as possible in the
smallest possible size. And yes it can use even more than 2 passes in VBR.

When I do not convert to xvid, I simply play the MPEG2, 12 mbps CBR
captures from the PC to 42" monitor. I don't use the Hauppauge
player's time-shift feature because the VSO player does a better job
of scaling letter-box to 16:9. So I view sometime after capture is
complete - whether or not I edit out undesirable material.

Since you like what you see, you're doing it right.

disk space. Still, I love buying gadgets - and current generation DVD
players fall into that category. Several of my non-PC neighbors have
benefited from my foibles, as they now have my one-time LiteOn,
Phillips, and Buffalo players.

We're different in that respect. I have other things, like kids tuition and
their upcoming marriages to have a lot left over for gadgets. For me,

I didn't receive advice, nor ask for it. I like Ken's general
enthusiasm for video capture and conversion and I like his ability to
express himself in properly written English. His presentation, in the
case of the Buffalo LT player, was over stated a tad but generally I
"feel" he has a far better grasp of this subject than I and I'll
probably be swayed again by his enthusiasms. I share his interest in
H264 compression, but I see no value in that for me at the moment -
since my sources are MPEG2 captures and the plethora of divx capable
players in my community will not handle H264.

Enthusiam does not equal knowledge... unfortunately.

Any way, thanks for your presenting a view different from Ken's. I
think you two are merely talking about different aspects of capture
and are probably not as far apart on the tech modes as your
personalities would pretend.

Nah, we're a very long way away from each other on capture and convert, and
have been for a long time. But to each his own, I just like to present and
cheaper and higher quality alternative.

I side with Ken for TV capture in MPEG2 and cutting out commercials
with VideoReDo, as that's what I do. I'd probably side with you, were
I a home video enthusiast, whether using contemporary cameras or
converting old home made VHS tapes.

Given a more whimsical budget than I already have, I KNOW that I'd
have both types of capture equipment.

An AIW 9600 goes for less than $35 on ebay and TMPEnc is free so what do you
have to lose? <vbg>