Are Hauppauge cards the best for capturing from DTV?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I've heard good things about the Hauppauge TV Tuner cards, but I'd like
some advice from those who have experience capturing from sat tv.
A friend of mine used one of the Canopus converters to capture from
Satellite and the videos looked somewhat soft--loss of sharpness, I assume
it's because of the extra DV compression. So, I think it would be best to
capture with an excellent TV tuner card using HuffyUV, and capture the audio
seperately to another HD so as to avoid sync problems, would that be the way
to do it?


Another question:

Is there a need for filters on a Satellite capture? Being that a video
captured from sat tv is 'clean', why would there be a need to apply noise
filters? Can it just go directly into dvd burning?

Thank you in advance.
72 answers Last reply
More about hauppauge cards capturing
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > I've heard good things about the Hauppauge TV Tuner cards, but I'd like
    > some advice from those who have experience capturing from sat tv.
    > A friend of mine used one of the Canopus converters to capture from
    > Satellite and the videos looked somewhat soft--loss of sharpness, I assume
    > it's because of the extra DV compression. So, I think it would be best to
    > capture with an excellent TV tuner card using HuffyUV, and capture the audio
    > seperately to another HD so as to avoid sync problems, would that be the way
    > to do it?

    I have just installed a Hauppauge PVR-250 / Beyond-TV combo in my
    Pentium 4 1.5GHz PC (from Dell) on last Saturday to capture TV shows
    from DirecTV. If I set the video quality to "Good", I can see that the
    picture can be a bit soft. But if I set the video quality to "Best", I
    can see that the picture becomes sharp; actually, I should say it is
    sharp "enough" for me; my eyes are just not that good to tell the
    difference between a very good picture and a very-very-very good
    picture. I have not tried the two "DVD Quality" video capturing
    settings yet; I don't know if these two settings will be better or
    less than the "Best" setting.

    Hauppauge PVR-350 comes with a S-video output port, and it comes with
    hardware MPEG decoder. But I heard that Beyond-TV doesn't support that
    port (as of now not sure if it supports it in the next version), and
    it costs more than PVR-250. If you intend to keep your video card, you
    may consider getting the PVR-350. But you need to compare the cost of
    buying Hauppauge PVR-350 and Beyond-TV separately, and the cost of
    buying the combo of Hauppauge PVR-250 with Beyond-TV. The latter
    option is much cheaper. You will have to work out the numbers.

    I don't know anything about HuffyUV.

    I don't know anything about capturing video and audio separately. I
    just use the "default" setting, and I don't hear anything unusual
    about the audio. But I am no audio-expert.

    > Is there a need for filters on a Satellite capture? Being that a video
    > captured from sat tv is 'clean', why would there be a need to apply noise
    > filters? Can it just go directly into dvd burning?

    I don't know. Hopefully, experts in this area can help you with these.

    Hope you will get your PC-PVR working soon. As of my PVR, I am still
    testing it. At this point, I am not sure whether I should recommend it
    or not to other people. But I know it works for me, and I intend to
    keep it (and retire the VCR).

    Jay Chan
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    No. Get a Canopus ADVC (I have the 100 one) along with good quality
    cables (I have MIT cables, see www.mitcables.com). If you are going
    to be editing and burning onto DVDs, you really want to capture to DV
    anyway. I don't think the Hauppauge's do that.

    K

    "kev" <tkevbell1@att.worldnet> wrote in message news:<cc64b85a67a3032c8ea7ee136234dd87@news.teranews.com>...
    > I've heard good things about the Hauppauge TV Tuner cards, but I'd like
    > some advice from those who have experience capturing from sat tv.
    > A friend of mine used one of the Canopus converters to capture from
    > Satellite and the videos looked somewhat soft--loss of sharpness, I assume
    > it's because of the extra DV compression. So, I think it would be best to
    > capture with an excellent TV tuner card using HuffyUV, and capture the audio
    > seperately to another HD so as to avoid sync problems, would that be the way
    > to do it?
    >
    >
    > Another question:
    >
    > Is there a need for filters on a Satellite capture? Being that a video
    > captured from sat tv is 'clean', why would there be a need to apply noise
    > filters? Can it just go directly into dvd burning?
    >
    > Thank you in advance.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Mon, 17 May 2004 07:41:05 GMT) it happened "kev"
    <tkevbell1@att.worldnet> wrote in
    <cc64b85a67a3032c8ea7ee136234dd87@news.teranews.com>:

    > I've heard good things about the Hauppauge TV Tuner cards, but I'd like
    >some advice from those who have experience capturing from sat tv.
    >A friend of mine used one of the Canopus converters to capture from
    >Satellite and the videos looked somewhat soft--loss of sharpness, I assume
    >it's because of the extra DV compression. So, I think it would be best to
    >capture with an excellent TV tuner card using HuffyUV, and capture the audio
    >seperately to another HD so as to avoid sync problems, would that be the way
    >to do it?
    I am about to scream, but alas, the DTV in that, the D stands for DIGITAL
    So, and the DIGIOTAL is in MPEG2 format.
    AND you can record that directlky to disk as a DIGITAL signal.
    So I never want to hear about this HuffyUV again, comprendere?


    >
    >Another question:
    >
    >Is there a need for filters on a Satellite capture? Being that a video
    >captured from sat tv is 'clean', why would there be a need to apply noise
    >filters? Can it just go directly into dvd burning?
    >
    >Thank you in advance.
    Your authoring program would at least have to accept the MPEG2 and the
    digital audio, since I dunno where you are, AC3 in the US should work.
    In Europe it is mainly mp2

    Some DVD authoring programs may want to demux, that will make the process
    slow.
    The Hauppauge cards like the Nexus are OK, but they may change spec without
    notice.
    I can only speak for European DTV.

    If you use a converter to first get analog from the sat receiver, then encode
    it again in real time to mpeg2, you always lose quality.

    JP
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:c8aq5n$om1$1@news.epidc.co.kr...
    > On a sunny day (Mon, 17 May 2004 07:41:05 GMT) it happened "kev"
    > <tkevbell1@att.worldnet> wrote in
    > <cc64b85a67a3032c8ea7ee136234dd87@news.teranews.com>:
    >
    > > I've heard good things about the Hauppauge TV Tuner cards, but I'd
    like
    > >some advice from those who have experience capturing from sat tv.
    > >A friend of mine used one of the Canopus converters to capture from
    > >Satellite and the videos looked somewhat soft--loss of sharpness, I
    assume
    > >it's because of the extra DV compression. So, I think it would be best to
    > >capture with an excellent TV tuner card using HuffyUV, and capture the
    audio
    > >seperately to another HD so as to avoid sync problems, would that be the
    way
    > >to do it?
    > I am about to scream, but alas, the DTV in that, the D stands for DIGITAL
    > So, and the DIGIOTAL is in MPEG2 format.
    > AND you can record that directlky to disk as a DIGITAL signal.
    > So I never want to hear about this HuffyUV again, comprendere?
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > >Another question:
    > >
    > >Is there a need for filters on a Satellite capture? Being that a video
    > >captured from sat tv is 'clean', why would there be a need to apply noise
    > >filters? Can it just go directly into dvd burning?
    > >
    > >Thank you in advance.
    > Your authoring program would at least have to accept the MPEG2 and the
    > digital audio, since I dunno where you are, AC3 in the US should work.
    > In Europe it is mainly mp2
    >
    > Some DVD authoring programs may want to demux, that will make the process
    > slow.
    > The Hauppauge cards like the Nexus are OK, but they may change spec
    without
    > notice.
    > I can only speak for European DTV.
    >
    > If you use a converter to first get analog from the sat receiver, then
    encode
    > it again in real time to mpeg2, you always lose quality.
    >
    > JP

    I can't speak to European DTV, but the DirecTv that is provided
    to the USA is not totally DVD compliant. So far, the "Digital" part
    is not easily available to a consumer. Even the "Linux" based "TY
    Files" that are placed on a "DirecTiVo" unit's hard drive, which are
    basically just the digital satellite signal and are MPEG in nature, are
    not DVD compliant, as I understand it.

    It would be great if an actual Digital Video output were provided
    from the satellite receiver, but I haven't seen any that do. It would
    be even better if you could input the same kind of digital signal back
    to the DTR's decoder, for playback. Then you could transfer the
    digital signal to your PC for manipulation/editing and storage; in
    some format that you would be able to playback as the original
    digital signal.

    For now at least, the "Digital MPEG" satellite signal must be
    "decoded" into an analog signal, before it is available to the user.
    (There are hardware and software "hacks" but not for many of
    the satellite boxes in use, including the "DirecTiVo units.)

    This isn't as bad as you might think, as the analog signal provided
    is consistently of a very high quality and makes for very good
    captures direct to MPEG.

    Luck;
    Ken
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > I can't speak to European DTV, but the DirecTv that is provided
    > to the USA is not totally DVD compliant. So far, the "Digital" part
    > is not easily available to a consumer. Even the "Linux" based "TY
    > Files" that are placed on a "DirecTiVo" unit's hard drive, which are
    > basically just the digital satellite signal and are MPEG in nature,
    are
    > not DVD compliant, as I understand it.

    Dish Network is exactly the same. The signal is mpeg'd in some weird
    format that is totally unusable in it's native form and is unavailable
    to the end user.

    > For now at least, the "Digital MPEG" satellite signal must be
    > "decoded" into an analog signal, before it is available to the user.
    > (There are hardware and software "hacks" but not for many of
    > the satellite boxes in use, including the "DirecTiVo units.)

    I think even with the Tivo hacks, the raw mpeg data is not available to
    the end user. Even if it was, it would still have to be re-encoded to
    DVD format to be burnable so you're still going to have to re-encode.

    > This isn't as bad as you might think, as the analog signal provided
    > is consistently of a very high quality and makes for very good
    > captures direct to MPEG.

    Absolutely. I have seen no info on any built in filters for the Hauppage
    or any other video capture cards in the consumer range for that matter.
    They're simply not needed for satellite transmissions. The disadvantage
    of using the Hauppauge cards is the data is automatically mpeg'd so
    anything beyond basic slice and dice editing available with Womble or
    other MPEG editors is exceedingly difficult. The advantage of using the
    Hauppage cards is if the computer being used is underpowered or has
    limitied disk space, then the hardware encoder takes the processing
    strain off the processor and automatically encoding to mpeg saves disk
    space.

    Jan's comprende' comment aside, I always capture uncompressed Huffy avi
    to my hd, edit/manipulate with Premier Pro and encode in dual pass vbr
    mode with ProCoder. I'm exceedingly happy with the results. Nothing like
    adding video/audio fades, crawling/rolling titles and adding my own
    commercials before encoding to DVD's for viewing. <g>
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > HuffyUV

    I've seen this written this way several times in this thread. I believe
    it's "HuffYUV", as in "Huff" from "Huffman coding" and "YUV" like the color
    model.

    --
    -eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
    VIRGO: All Virgos are extremely friendly and intelligent - except
    for you. Expect a big surprise today when you wind up with your
    head impaled upon a stick. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Mon, 17 May 2004 13:26:18 -0500) it happened "Ken Maltby"
    <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
    <40a903cd$0$17288$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>:
    For now at least, the "Digital MPEG" satellite signal must be
    >"decoded" into an analog signal, before it is available to the user.
    >(There are hardware and software "hacks" but not for many of
    >the satellite boxes in use, including the "DirecTiVo units.)
    >
    > This isn't as bad as you might think, as the analog signal provided
    >is consistently of a very high quality and makes for very good
    >captures direct to MPEG.
    >
    >Luck;
    > Ken
    For a card like the Nexus http://www.hauppauge.de/prod_nexus_s.htm
    there exist software both for MS windows and Linux to record mpeg2.
    One such soft program for windows is Multidec.
    One for Linux is VDR
    The signal is transmitted in what is called 'transport stream'.
    This is a sequential stream with in it audio (ac3 or mp2, depends
    on where you are), and mpeg2, and other info.
    Some of these programs DO have an option to extract the mpeg2.
    In fact you can go much further, I use for example a SkyStar1 card,
    a lot like the nexus, and on http://ip51cf87c4.direct-adsl.nl/panteltje/dvd/
    you can see how I can record 8 PIDS at the time in Linux, and author to
    DVD all digitally of cause (and network broadcast too).
    Some simple tools to extract the mpeg2 or pes, or demux are there too.
    Using the nexus there should be no need to go analog.
    JP
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Mon, 17 May 2004 17:16:46 -0400) it happened "Morrmar"
    <morrmar@myway.com-no spam> wrote in
    <QS9qc.13431$yF6.5860@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:

    >
    >> I can't speak to European DTV, but the DirecTv that is provided
    >> to the USA is not totally DVD compliant. So far, the "Digital" part
    >> is not easily available to a consumer. Even the "Linux" based "TY
    >> Files" that are placed on a "DirecTiVo" unit's hard drive, which are
    >> basically just the digital satellite signal and are MPEG in nature,
    >are
    >> not DVD compliant, as I understand it.
    >
    >Dish Network is exactly the same. The signal is mpeg'd in some weird
    >format that is totally unusable in it's native form and is unavailable
    >to the end user.
    >
    >> For now at least, the "Digital MPEG" satellite signal must be
    >> "decoded" into an analog signal, before it is available to the user.
    >> (There are hardware and software "hacks" but not for many of
    >> the satellite boxes in use, including the "DirecTiVo units.)
    >
    >I think even with the Tivo hacks, the raw mpeg data is not available to
    >the end user. Even if it was, it would still have to be re-encoded to
    >DVD format to be burnable so you're still going to have to re-encode.
    >
    >> This isn't as bad as you might think, as the analog signal provided
    >> is consistently of a very high quality and makes for very good
    >> captures direct to MPEG.
    >
    >Absolutely. I have seen no info on any built in filters for the Hauppage
    >or any other video capture cards in the consumer range for that matter.
    >They're simply not needed for satellite transmissions. The disadvantage
    >of using the Hauppauge cards is the data is automatically mpeg'd so
    >anything beyond basic slice and dice editing available with Womble or
    >other MPEG editors is exceedingly difficult. The advantage of using the
    >Hauppage cards is if the computer being used is underpowered or has
    >limitied disk space, then the hardware encoder takes the processing
    >strain off the processor and automatically encoding to mpeg saves disk
    >space.
    >
    >Jan's comprende' comment aside, I always capture uncompressed Huffy avi
    >to my hd, edit/manipulate with Premier Pro and encode in dual pass vbr
    >mode with ProCoder. I'm exceedingly happy with the results. Nothing like
    >adding video/audio fades, crawling/rolling titles and adding my own
    >commercials before encoding to DVD's for viewing. <g>
    No offence ment.
    I write my own subs, and add these, with effects if needed, to the digital
    mpeg2, but in such a case I demultiplex (to mpv es).
    http://ip51cf87c4.direct-adsl.nl/panteltje/subtitles/
    In fact I made many many DivX 720x576 CDR in the past from the sat stream.
    Womble should work OK on the video stream, but the version I tried
    lost AV sync on the mpeg2 pes (av bitrate problem?), no prob, I process
    sound separately, decode the mp2 here, make multichannel multiple languages
    (in sync !) and add subtitles and for that recode to AC3 if more then just
    2 channels.
    See also the link to my DVD page from there.
    For the US stuff... I have not done it, cannot get it here, but
    NTSC or PAL pes should both work.
    I have feedback from the states from people using the stuff I wrote that
    it works there too, so I believe that.
    JP
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    kev <tkevbell1@att.worldnet> wrote:
    : I've heard good things about the Hauppauge TV Tuner cards, but I'd like
    : some advice from those who have experience capturing from sat tv.
    : A friend of mine used one of the Canopus converters to capture from
    : Satellite and the videos looked somewhat soft--loss of sharpness, I assume

    What signal does Satellite give you? If it gives an analog signal, then you
    should avoid Hauppauge 'cause their analog to digital converters are conexant.
    Conexant are not very good converters. I did compare Hauppauge WinTV with
    Huffyuv to Pinnacle DV500 DV and sure enough Pinnacle gave MUCH better quality.
    Canopus should be even better than Pinnacle.

    Another opportunity is to take Philips based TV Tuner card.

    However, if the signal is digital and Hauppauge card takes a digital signal as
    it is, then go with Hauppauge 'cause their drivers are pretty good.

    --Leonid
  10. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Hi,

    Go here: http://www.offeryn.de/dv.htm#pvas

    and download PVAStrumento (Free) to convert sat transport-stream
    video to MPEG-2 program stream. Work great !!!
  11. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:c8bk8s$n0n$2@news3.bu.edu...
    > kev <tkevbell1@att.worldnet> wrote:
    > : I've heard good things about the Hauppauge TV Tuner cards, but I'd
    like
    > : some advice from those who have experience capturing from sat tv.
    > : A friend of mine used one of the Canopus converters to capture from
    > : Satellite and the videos looked somewhat soft--loss of sharpness, I
    assume
    >
    > What signal does Satellite give you? If it gives an analog signal, then
    you
    > should avoid Hauppauge 'cause their analog to digital converters are
    conexant.
    > Conexant are not very good converters.
    > I did compare Hauppauge WinTV with
    > Huffyuv to Pinnacle DV500 DV and sure enough Pinnacle gave MUCH better
    quality.
    > Canopus should be even better than Pinnacle.

    Yes, analog.

    I guess I didn't research the Hauppauge cards enough. Actually what I want
    to do is capture *uncompressed* avi from the receiver to my HD, edit if
    necessary, then encode with something like TMPGenc or Procoder 2. Like I
    said, the video from DTV that he captured using a Canopus converter wasn't
    as sharp as it could've been. It didn't look terrible, but he was hoping to
    get a much better quality capture. We even saw some light artifacts during
    motion.

    Also, I'm not really trying to create a TiVo like set up, it's just for a
    few recordings now and then. So a simple card with no software will do, i
    guess.

    > Another opportunity is to take Philips based TV Tuner card.
    >
    which is the best one in your opinion?

    Thanks
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Morrmar" <morrmar@myway.com-no spam> wrote in message
    news:QS9qc.13431$yF6.5860@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > > I can't speak to European DTV, but the DirecTv that is provided
    > > to the USA is not totally DVD compliant. So far, the "Digital" part
    > > is not easily available to a consumer. Even the "Linux" based "TY
    > > Files" that are placed on a "DirecTiVo" unit's hard drive, which are
    > > basically just the digital satellite signal and are MPEG in nature,
    > are
    > > not DVD compliant, as I understand it.
    >
    > Dish Network is exactly the same. The signal is mpeg'd in some weird
    > format that is totally unusable in it's native form and is unavailable
    > to the end user.
    >
    > > For now at least, the "Digital MPEG" satellite signal must be
    > > "decoded" into an analog signal, before it is available to the user.
    > > (There are hardware and software "hacks" but not for many of
    > > the satellite boxes in use, including the "DirecTiVo units.)
    >
    > I think even with the Tivo hacks, the raw mpeg data is not available to
    > the end user. Even if it was, it would still have to be re-encoded to
    > DVD format to be burnable so you're still going to have to re-encode.
    >
    > > This isn't as bad as you might think, as the analog signal provided
    > > is consistently of a very high quality and makes for very good
    > > captures direct to MPEG.
    >
    > Absolutely. I have seen no info on any built in filters for the Hauppage
    > or any other video capture cards in the consumer range for that matter.
    > They're simply not needed for satellite transmissions. The disadvantage
    > of using the Hauppauge cards is the data is automatically mpeg'd so
    > anything beyond basic slice and dice editing available with Womble or
    > other MPEG editors is exceedingly difficult. The advantage of using the
    > Hauppage cards is if the computer being used is underpowered or has
    > limitied disk space, then the hardware encoder takes the processing
    > strain off the processor and automatically encoding to mpeg saves disk
    > space.
    >
    > Jan's comprende' comment aside, I always capture uncompressed Huffy avi
    > to my hd, edit/manipulate with Premier Pro and encode in dual pass vbr
    > mode with ProCoder. I'm exceedingly happy with the results. Nothing like
    > adding video/audio fades, crawling/rolling titles and adding my own
    > commercials before encoding to DVD's for viewing. <g>
    >
    Morrmar, do you have access to binary groups? is there any way you could
    post a small sample of an mpeg2 clip from a sat capture?
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Morrmar, do you have access to binary groups? is there any way you
    could
    > post a small sample of an mpeg2 clip from a sat capture?


    Yes, but without the original uncompressed file to compare it to, I
    doubt it'll give you the info you need to make an objective comparison.
    I'm jammed up now but in a couple of days, I'll record something off HBO
    and put up a small clip in alt.binaries.test.

    I'm getting ready to swear off Usenet for a while. <g>
  14. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <72be9649ccc1e229a8405feb299f7e7b@news.teranews.com>,
    tkevbell1@att.worldnet says...
    > Yes, analog.
    >
    > I guess I didn't research the Hauppauge cards enough. Actually what I want
    > to do is capture *uncompressed* avi from the receiver to my HD, edit if
    > necessary, then encode with something like TMPGenc or Procoder 2. Like I
    > said, the video from DTV that he captured using a Canopus converter wasn't
    > as sharp as it could've been. It didn't look terrible, but he was hoping to
    > get a much better quality capture. We even saw some light artifacts during
    > motion.
    >
    > Also, I'm not really trying to create a TiVo like set up, it's just for a
    > few recordings now and then. So a simple card with no software will do, i
    > guess.
    >
    > > Another opportunity is to take Philips based TV Tuner card.
    > >
    > which is the best one in your opinion?
    >
    > Thanks
    >

    One thing you might want to consider is time. Capturing to DV might
    sound nice but the time spent editing and then re encoding for DVD will
    equal that of the show you recorded where as if you capture in DVD
    bitrate and resolution you can make some quick cuts in the mpeg with
    Womble Mpeg Video Wizard, copy it back to disk and author the DVD right
    away.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (17 May 2004 22:49:33 -0700) it happened Phil_12345@hotmail.com
    (Phil) wrote in <ab57986.0405172149.6218c2c9@posting.google.com>:

    >Hi,
    >
    >Go here: http://www.offeryn.de/dv.htm#pvas
    >
    >and download PVAStrumento (Free) to convert sat transport-stream
    >video to MPEG-2 program stream. Work great !!!
    Confirmed, I use it all the time, there is even a statically linked
    Linux version.
    JP
  16. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    kev <tkevbell1@att.worldnet> wrote:
    : I guess I didn't research the Hauppauge cards enough. Actually what I want
    : to do is capture *uncompressed* avi from the receiver to my HD, edit if

    Why uncompressed? Use Huffyuv! I actually tried uncompressed RGB with my
    older Hauppauge WinTV card and found that Huffyuv gives far better quality.

    : said, the video from DTV that he captured using a Canopus converter wasn't
    : as sharp as it could've been. It didn't look terrible, but he was hoping to
    : get a much better quality capture. We even saw some light artifacts during
    : motion.

    Well, I'm pretty sure you can tweak settings to make it sharp. I don't believe
    that Canopus wouldn't give you such an opportunity.

    :> Another opportunity is to take Philips based TV Tuner card.
    :>
    : which is the best one in your opinion?

    I have FlyVideo 3000FM. And I use it with:
    Native Philips drivers
    Fly2000 capture software that was designed for this card.

    This capture software is $25 and can work in 2 modes:
    1. Native WDM drivers - less control with this mode. Same as iu_vcr or VirtualVCR.
    2. Direct mode - bypassing some of the WDM drivers capabilities. This gives
    much more control and options such as GAIN.

    The only problem is that the USA TV Tuner is only working if you install
    LifeView drivers and use WDM mode. However, s-video and composite work fine.

    A year ago I was also thinking what to get:
    Canopus ADVC or Philips based capture card. I went with Philips 'cause Canopus
    didn't support SECAM format. And I needed it. Now they support it, but I don't
    think I'll go with Canopus set up unless they have a really better ADC.

    --Leonid
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
    : One thing you might want to consider is time. Capturing to DV might
    : sound nice but the time spent editing and then re encoding for DVD will
    : equal that of the show you recorded where as if you capture in DVD
    : bitrate and resolution you can make some quick cuts in the mpeg with
    : Womble Mpeg Video Wizard, copy it back to disk and author the DVD right
    : away.

    Capturing in MPEG-2 in realtime with a capture card is a very bad idea. You win
    in time - you lose in quality. If time is important, than get Canopus card
    that capture directly in MPEG-2. However, one trick. It only captures in MPEG-2
    so you won't be able to separate streams. When I author DVDs, very offten I
    need an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack. With Canopus card that captures in MPEG-2
    you can't do that.

    --Leonid
  18. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:c8e94c$n0v$2@news3.bu.edu...
    > Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
    > : One thing you might want to consider is time. Capturing to DV might
    > : sound nice but the time spent editing and then re encoding for DVD will
    > : equal that of the show you recorded where as if you capture in DVD
    > : bitrate and resolution you can make some quick cuts in the mpeg with
    > : Womble Mpeg Video Wizard, copy it back to disk and author the DVD right
    > : away.
    >
    > Capturing in MPEG-2 in realtime with a capture card is a very bad idea.
    You win
    > in time - you lose in quality. If time is important, than get Canopus card
    > that capture directly in MPEG-2. However, one trick. It only captures in
    MPEG-2
    > so you won't be able to separate streams. When I author DVDs, very offten
    I
    > need an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack. With Canopus card that captures in
    MPEG-2
    > you can't do that.
    >
    > --Leonid

    Oh to the contrary, Leonid; it's a very GOOD idea, if done
    properly with good equipment. Capturing a DTV source it is
    even more so, as the analog output is quite clean and compresses
    well.

    Capturing to MPEG-2 does not preclude essential streams, or
    capturing video and audio separately. I don't know if the OP's
    card/capture software can or not, but my old Adaptec AVC-2000
    with Movie Mill (260 version) can. Even if not, I'm unaware of
    any significant loss associated with de-muxing a MPEG sys/prog
    stream.

    I don't know why you would "need" uncompressed LPCM, but
    it wouldn't be my choice for the audio on a DVD made from the
    output of a satellite receiver. If for no other reason than it takes
    up an enormous amount of space.

    The softening effects the OP's friend saw from the Canopus card,
    probably come from the settings for its extensive prefiltering set
    of features. It even has a TBC component.

    Luck;
    Ken
  19. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Ken Maltby <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    : Oh to the contrary, Leonid; it's a very GOOD idea, if done
    : properly with good equipment. Capturing a DTV source it is
    : even more so, as the analog output is quite clean and compresses
    : well.

    You're going to have a software compression. If your system powerful enough,
    I guess you could do it with just your regular TV Tuner. But I haven't seen
    such systems. Mine is Athlon 1.2GHz and I can successfully capture in MPEG-2
    at 352x480 (not 704x480) in WinDVD MPEG-2 codecs. The only problem is that
    the video is not going to be interlaced.

    : I don't know why you would "need" uncompressed LPCM, but
    : it wouldn't be my choice for the audio on a DVD made from the
    : output of a satellite receiver. If for no other reason than it takes
    : up an enormous amount of space.

    You may not need it capturing from satellite receiver, but if you decide to
    capture from other sources like LaserDisc, it is a good idea to have an audio
    uncompressed.

    --Leonid
  20. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <c8e94c$n0v$2@news3.bu.edu>, venom@cs.bu.edu says...
    > Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
    > : One thing you might want to consider is time. Capturing to DV might
    > : sound nice but the time spent editing and then re encoding for DVD will
    > : equal that of the show you recorded where as if you capture in DVD
    > : bitrate and resolution you can make some quick cuts in the mpeg with
    > : Womble Mpeg Video Wizard, copy it back to disk and author the DVD right
    > : away.
    >
    > Capturing in MPEG-2 in realtime with a capture card is a very bad idea. You win
    > in time - you lose in quality. If time is important, than get Canopus card
    > that capture directly in MPEG-2. However, one trick. It only captures in MPEG-2
    > so you won't be able to separate streams. When I author DVDs, very offten I
    > need an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack. With Canopus card that captures in MPEG-2
    > you can't do that.
    >
    > --Leonid
    >

    I wouldn't waste money ont he Canopus when the Hauppauge does the same
    job unless the Canopus has come down in price in recent months. The
    Hauppauge card I believe will do Mpeg-1 also but I never tried it. You
    can separate the streams with it because you have the option of
    capturing with your sound card or directly through the Hauppauge card.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  21. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <c8h496$hif$1@news3.bu.edu>, venom@cs.bu.edu says...
    > Ken Maltby <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    > : Oh to the contrary, Leonid; it's a very GOOD idea, if done
    > : properly with good equipment. Capturing a DTV source it is
    > : even more so, as the analog output is quite clean and compresses
    > : well.
    >
    > You're going to have a software compression. If your system powerful enough,

    Why would you have software compression with a hardware encoder card?

    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  22. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
    : Why would you have software compression with a hardware encoder card?

    We were talking about a simple TV Tuner. And the suggestion was to capture in
    MPEG-2 direct. TV Tuners normally don't have hardware compression.

    --Leonid
  23. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

    > Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
    > : Why would you have software compression with a hardware encoder card?
    >
    > We were talking about a simple TV Tuner. And the suggestion was to capture in
    > MPEG-2 direct. TV Tuners normally don't have hardware compression.
    >

    Well with DTV you don't need conversion because the signal is already mpeg-2.

    If you're talking about an analog tuner, yes, there are cards with hardware mpeg
    encoding.

    The Hauppauge PVR-250 card can be had for as little as $99 for the "Media Center
    Edition", which is simply the same as the $149 version but minus the box or
    remote control.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    : Well with DTV you don't need conversion because the signal is already mpeg-2.

    Well, I asked the original poster and he said that the signal was analog - not
    mpeg-2. If the signal is mpeg-2, then of course it's best to capture it directly.

    : If you're talking about an analog tuner, yes, there are cards with hardware mpeg
    : encoding.

    : The Hauppauge PVR-250 card can be had for as little as $99 for the "Media Center
    : Edition", which is simply the same as the $149 version but minus the box or
    : remote control.

    You're right. I don't know what I've been smoking. But Hauppauge are conexant
    chip based. These are not very good analog to digital converters.

    I don't know about TV Tuners with Philips based converters that have H/W mpeg
    encoder.

    --Leonid
  25. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

    >
    > You're right. I don't know what I've been smoking. But Hauppauge are conexant
    > chip based. These are not very good analog to digital converters.
    >

    Compared to what, I guess. I'm pretty happy with whatever chip is in my PVR-250 card,
    I have no complaints.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    :> You're right. I don't know what I've been smoking. But Hauppauge are conexant
    :> chip based. These are not very good analog to digital converters.
    :>

    : Compared to what, I guess. I'm pretty happy with whatever chip is in my PVR-250 card,

    Compared to Philips.
    Conexant:
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTV_Composite.jpg
    Philips:
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Fly2000.jpg

    --Leonid
  27. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

    > Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > :> You're right. I don't know what I've been smoking. But Hauppauge are conexant
    > :> chip based. These are not very good analog to digital converters.
    > :>
    >
    > : Compared to what, I guess. I'm pretty happy with whatever chip is in my PVR-250 card,
    >
    > Compared to Philips.
    > Conexant:
    > http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTV_Composite.jpg
    > Philips:
    > http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Fly2000.jpg
    >
    > --Leonid

    Why don't you give the full technical details regarding each capture. Bitrate, CBR/VBR,
    hardware vs software encoding, etc. Also were the cards in the same system, same PCI slot,
    hooked to the same physical cable.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <c8jd3e$rld$1@news3.bu.edu>, venom@cs.bu.edu says...
    > Subject: Re: Are Hauppauge cards the best for capturing from DTV?
    > From: Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu>
    > Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
    >
    > Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
    > : Why would you have software compression with a hardware encoder card?
    >
    > We were talking about a simple TV Tuner. And the suggestion was to capture in
    > MPEG-2 direct. TV Tuners normally don't have hardware compression.
    >
    > --Leonid
    >
    >

    Well I was taking about a Hauppage PVR-350 which is what I have. As I
    said you don't have a choice of any format other than Mpeg with my card.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  29. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <c8uguo$o6$1@news3.bu.edu>, venom@cs.bu.edu says...
    > Subject: Re: Are Hauppauge cards the best for capturing from DTV?
    > From: Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu>
    > Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
    >
    > Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > :> You're right. I don't know what I've been smoking. But Hauppauge are conexant
    > :> chip based. These are not very good analog to digital converters.
    > :>
    >
    > : Compared to what, I guess. I'm pretty happy with whatever chip is in my PVR-250 card,
    >
    > Compared to Philips.
    > Conexant:
    > http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTV_Composite.jpg
    > Philips:
    > http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Fly2000.jpg
    >
    > --Leonid
    >
    >

    I suppose you see some sort of difference there, what card is being
    compared to what card? There are at least 5 different encoders used by
    Hauppauge and not all of them are Conexant. If you are comparing 8 bit
    to 10 bit well it won't really matter who makes it.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  30. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Chris Phillipo wrote:

    > In article <c8uguo$o6$1@news3.bu.edu>, venom@cs.bu.edu says...
    > > Subject: Re: Are Hauppauge cards the best for capturing from DTV?
    > > From: Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu>
    > > Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
    > >
    > > Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > :> You're right. I don't know what I've been smoking. But Hauppauge are conexant
    > > :> chip based. These are not very good analog to digital converters.
    > > :>
    > >
    > > : Compared to what, I guess. I'm pretty happy with whatever chip is in my PVR-250 card,
    > >
    > > Compared to Philips.
    > > Conexant:
    > > http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTV_Composite.jpg
    > > Philips:
    > > http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Fly2000.jpg
    > >
    > > --Leonid
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I suppose you see some sort of difference there, what card is being
    > compared to what card? There are at least 5 different encoders used by
    > Hauppauge and not all of them are Conexant. If you are comparing 8 bit
    > to 10 bit well it won't really matter who makes it.

    I'm unable to view them now, apparently his bandwidth limit has been exceeded.

    Anyway a slight difference in single frame captures may not be evident when viewing in normal
    analog TV mode at 30 FPS. If the intended use is to capture single frames, then that would be
    the definitive measure of best quality, but it's really hard to go by slight differences in
    single frames.

    Also, for single frame captures to be really judged, they should all be of the same frame,
    captured with different cards - like a test pattern for example. Some of the screen captures
    on his page show obvious interlace artifacts that wouldn't be present on a different frame.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Tue, 25 May 2004 14:36:05 -0300) it happened Chris Phillipo
    <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote in
    <MPG.1b1d5c1b9601b44598a5ee@news.eastlink.ca>:

    >In article <c8uguo$o6$1@news3.bu.edu>, venom@cs.bu.edu says...
    >> Subject: Re: Are Hauppauge cards the best for capturing from DTV?
    >> From: Leonid Makarovsky <venom@cs.bu.edu>
    >> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
    >>
    >> Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> :> You're right. I don't know what I've been smoking. But Hauppauge are conexant
    >> :> chip based. These are not very good analog to digital converters.
    >> :>
    >>
    >> : Compared to what, I guess. I'm pretty happy with whatever chip is in my PVR-250 card,
    >>
    >> Compared to Philips.
    >> Conexant:
    >> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTV_Composite.jpg
    >> Philips:
    >> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Fly2000.jpg
    >>
    >> --Leonid
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I suppose you see some sort of difference there, what card is being
    >compared to what card? There are at least 5 different encoders used by
    >Hauppauge and not all of them are Conexant. If you are comparing 8 bit
    >to 10 bit well it won't really matter who makes it.
    I have looked at those pics, and from a technical point of view,
    I think 8 or 10 bits makes no difference in sharpness, and
    sharpness is what is very different here.
    Makes one think about the pre-filtering (before the AD conversion process),
    also if any peaking was used.
    We need some more data, indeed, to make a guess at what causes this.
    But 10 to 1 it is not the AD only.
    (But could be the AD chip if the filters are build in).
    JP
  32. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    :> Compared to Philips.
    :> Conexant:
    :> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTV_Composite.jpg
    :> Philips:
    :> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Fly2000.jpg
    :>
    :> --Leonid

    : Why don't you give the full technical details regarding each capture. Bitrate, CBR/VBR,
    : hardware vs software encoding, etc. Also were the cards in the same system, same PCI slot,
    : hooked to the same physical cable.

    Sorry.

    The conexant capture was done with Hauppauge WinTV Radio using Hauppauge VFW
    drivers. Program used: VirtualDub. Capture at 720x576 HUFFYUV compression.
    Philips capture was done with FlyVideo 3000FM with Philips WDM drivers.
    Program used: Fly2000. Capture at 720x576 HUFFYUV compression.

    Both captures were done using the same VCR. VHS was SECAM source (not PAL,
    and not NTSC).

    AVI files were then converted to a PAL DVD compliant MPEG-2 using TMGEnc.

    I allocated the same frame and snapshot it.

    Note that the sharpness on Philips was only 50%. If I had boosted it up at
    100%, it would've given even sharper image.

    These's another test capture was done by my friend from the same VCR but with
    his system using Pinnacle DV500. He captured in dv. I then took this DV avi
    file and converted it to MPEG-2 DVD compliant file. Here's the shot:
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Pinnacle_Composite.jpg

    It looks just a bit better than Fly 'cause, as I said earlier, I didn't
    boost the sharpness all the way up.

    --Leonid
  33. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    : Anyway a slight difference in single frame captures may not be evident when viewing in normal

    I described my procedure in the previous post. No, of course I wasn't
    snapshotting from VHS. I was capturing from it.

    One more thing. I was talking about Pinnacle DV500. This pro capture board
    uses Philips ADC. The same ADC is used by FlyVideo 3000FM.

    BTW, this wasn't the first test I did. It was the first that I upped to the
    website.

    I can do more experiments, but right now I don't have time.

    --Leonid

    PS. On NTSC the difference is less noticeable.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > The conexant capture was done with Hauppauge WinTV Radio using Hauppauge
    VFW
    > drivers. Program used: VirtualDub. Capture at 720x576 HUFFYUV compression.
    > Philips capture was done with FlyVideo 3000FM with Philips WDM drivers.
    > Program used: Fly2000. Capture at 720x576 HUFFYUV compression.
    >
    > Both captures were done using the same VCR. VHS was SECAM source (not PAL,
    > and not NTSC).
    >
    > AVI files were then converted to a PAL DVD compliant MPEG-2 using TMGEnc.
    >
    > I allocated the same frame and snapshot it.
    >
    > Note that the sharpness on Philips was only 50%. If I had boosted it up at
    > 100%, it would've given even sharper image.
    >
    > These's another test capture was done by my friend from the same VCR but
    with
    > his system using Pinnacle DV500. He captured in dv. I then took this DV
    avi
    > file and converted it to MPEG-2 DVD compliant file. Here's the shot:
    > http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/Pinnacle_Composite.jpg
    >
    > It looks just a bit better than Fly 'cause, as I said earlier, I didn't
    > boost the sharpness all the way up.

    I am not going to call you a liar, but you either did something wrong, have
    a faulty WinTV card, or maybe a bad driver, because my Hauppauge WinTV
    produces a much sharper picture than your sample. Your WinTV sample looks
    completely butchered, almost like the sample is half horizontal res and from
    the final MPEG encode.

    When I went capture card shopping, I compared a Pinnacle to a WinTV over a
    few days myself, and I found the WinTV to be a little bit better. The
    Pinnacle card had a tendency to oversaturate and bleed out colors and detail
    a little bit more. I have never tried the Philips card, but there is no
    doubt in my mind that the Hauppauge sample is completely wrong.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
    : I am not going to call you a liar, but you either did something wrong, have

    Believe me I really didn't want to buy a new card in place of Hauppauge WinTV.
    That card was working fine. But once I got to see how image quality of Pinnacle
    DV500 was superior to WinTV, I decided to try Philips based TV Tuners.

    : a faulty WinTV card, or maybe a bad driver, because my Hauppauge WinTV
    : produces a much sharper picture than your sample. Your WinTV sample looks
    : completely butchered, almost like the sample is half horizontal res and from
    : the final MPEG encode.

    Nothing wrong with the drivers. The drivers were VFW from Hauppauge. The
    drivers from Jose Eduardo produced even blurrier results.

    It is a known fact that Philips' ADC produces a much better quality. Take a
    look:

    http://auzol.narod.ru/index_e.html

    Just think about it. Until recently Philips ADC was used only in pro/semi-pro
    boards like Pinnacle PRO-ONE, Pinnacle DV500, Fast AV Master, Miro. A few years
    back these cards were more than $600. Only recently a few companies started to
    use Philips ADC in TV Tuners. Has any Brooktree chip been used in any
    professional boards?

    : When I went capture card shopping, I compared a Pinnacle to a WinTV over a

    Which Pinnacle card?

    : few days myself, and I found the WinTV to be a little bit better. The
    : Pinnacle card had a tendency to oversaturate and bleed out colors and detail

    Well, if I was to shop for brooktree based cards, my first choice would be
    AverMedia followed by Hauppauge. Both have very good drivers - no doubts about
    it. And moreover these drivers are probably more stable than what I use for
    FlyVideo 3000FM. However, if you have a hardware limitation, there's nothing
    you can do.

    : a little bit more. I have never tried the Philips card, but there is no
    : doubt in my mind that the Hauppauge sample is completely wrong.

    Try a Philips based card with program Fly2000.

    --Leonid
  36. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Try a Philips based card with program Fly2000.
    >

    Actually, the problem with your WinTV sample is most likely caused by the
    Secam source. I have a friend who captures from Secam with a WinTV. I
    checked with him, and his results were similarly skanky. I don't know if
    this is a hardware limitation or a driver issue, but the Secam captures are
    clearly considerably worse than PAL captures.

    When capturing from TV or VHS sources, there is normally very little
    difference between the various capture cards, it's certainly a very
    subjective thing to judge. From the cards I tested, I preferred the WinTV,
    but if you say the Philips card in your view is better, I am not going to
    argue with that, but I would say that your samples are quite misleading, as
    most people won't use their WinTV on Secam material, and will get much
    better results than your sample.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
    : Actually, the problem with your WinTV sample is most likely caused by the
    : Secam source. I have a friend who captures from Secam with a WinTV. I

    Maybe.

    : When capturing from TV or VHS sources, there is normally very little
    : difference between the various capture cards, it's certainly a very
    : subjective thing to judge. From the cards I tested, I preferred the WinTV,
    : but if you say the Philips card in your view is better, I am not going to
    : argue with that, but I would say that your samples are quite misleading, as
    : most people won't use their WinTV on Secam material, and will get much
    : better results than your sample.

    Ok, I think I found NTSC samples and upped them. I still think Philips is a
    bit better, but not much difference. However, I didn't boost sharpness all the
    way up on Philips.

    Jose Eduardo drivers:
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTVJoseEduardoNTSC.04.20.2003.JPG
    Hauppauge drivers:
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTVNTSC.04.20.2003.JPG
    FlyVideo 3000FM card:
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/FlyVideoNTSC.04.20.2003.JPG

    --Leonid
  38. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Ok, I think I found NTSC samples and upped them. I still think Philips is
    a
    > bit better, but not much difference. However, I didn't boost sharpness all
    the
    > way up on Philips.
    >
    > Jose Eduardo drivers:
    >
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTVJoseEduardoNTSC.04.20.2
    003.JPG
    > Hauppauge drivers:
    > http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTVNTSC.04.20.2003.JPG
    > FlyVideo 3000FM card:
    >
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/FlyVideoNTSC.04.20.2003.JPG
    >
    > --Leonid

    That is a lot more "competitive". In these samples, they are so close there
    isn't much point in arguing over which one is better.

    The Hauppauge card doesn't do any processing, so any sharpness you can add
    to the Philips capture is a processing filter, and it could be done to the
    Hauppauge capture in post-processing as well. Anyway, if you don't sit 5cm
    from your TV and analyze every single pixel, I think you would find it
    difficult to distinguish the two in any realistic viewing situation.

    Where in the World are you? I am in the UK. If we have any channels that are
    available in both our territories, we could each do a PAL capture of the
    same channel, or program even, and compare which one is better, as the
    original question was about which card is better for DTV captures, and VHS
    isn't that great source material for comparison. I am fairly confident my
    WinTV will match your Philips, maybe even beat it :-)
  39. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in message
    news:c90v8b$f7t$1@news3.bu.edu...
    > Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
    > : I am not going to call you a liar, but you either did something wrong,
    have
    >
    > Believe me I really didn't want to buy a new card in place of Hauppauge
    WinTV.
    > That card was working fine. But once I got to see how image quality of
    Pinnacle
    > DV500 was superior to WinTV, I decided to try Philips based TV Tuners.
    >
    > : a faulty WinTV card, or maybe a bad driver, because my Hauppauge WinTV
    > : produces a much sharper picture than your sample. Your WinTV sample
    looks
    > : completely butchered, almost like the sample is half horizontal res and
    from
    > : the final MPEG encode.
    >
    > Nothing wrong with the drivers. The drivers were VFW from Hauppauge. The
    > drivers from Jose Eduardo produced even blurrier results.
    >
    > It is a known fact that Philips' ADC produces a much better quality. Take
    a
    > look:
    >
    > http://auzol.narod.ru/index_e.html
    >
    > Just think about it. Until recently Philips ADC was used only in
    pro/semi-pro
    > boards like Pinnacle PRO-ONE, Pinnacle DV500, Fast AV Master, Miro. A few
    years
    > back these cards were more than $600. Only recently a few companies
    started to
    > use Philips ADC in TV Tuners. Has any Brooktree chip been used in any
    > professional boards?
    >

    Actually I am very impressed with the Philips SAA 7114H ADC on my
    old, no longer in production, Adaptec VideOh! PCI, AVC-2000. Sense
    its output is directly to a Broadcom BCM7040 (Kfir-II) MPEG encoding
    chip [the same chip used in the Series 2 TiVo units]; it may be slightly OT.
    But, as with most major IC products, you can acquire data on these chips
    from the manufacturers. It might be interesting if you were to compare the
    claimed performance and capabilities of each IC. I think you will find the
    Philips SAA-7000 series chips quite interesting. (and impressive)

    (Broadcom's Hardware encoders are neat too.) I just wish OEMs would
    give out what ICs they are using, so comparisons could be made on that
    level. I still haven't found out what Plextor is using with their ConvertX
    M402.

    http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/cgi-bin/pldb/pip/SAA7114H/V1

    http://www.broadcom.com/products/product.php?product_id=BCM7040&cookiecheck=1

    http://www.conexant.com/products/entry.jsp?id=10

    (The second one might wrap.) You can navigate their sites for other chips
    in
    question.

    Luck;
    Ken


    > : When I went capture card shopping, I compared a Pinnacle to a WinTV over
    a
    >
    > Which Pinnacle card?
    >
    > : few days myself, and I found the WinTV to be a little bit better. The
    > : Pinnacle card had a tendency to oversaturate and bleed out colors and
    detail
    >
    > Well, if I was to shop for brooktree based cards, my first choice would be
    > AverMedia followed by Hauppauge. Both have very good drivers - no doubts
    about
    > it. And moreover these drivers are probably more stable than what I use
    for
    > FlyVideo 3000FM. However, if you have a hardware limitation, there's
    nothing
    > you can do.
    >
    > : a little bit more. I have never tried the Philips card, but there is no
    > : doubt in my mind that the Hauppauge sample is completely wrong.
    >
    > Try a Philips based card with program Fly2000.
    >
    > --Leonid
  40. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

    > another test capture was done by my friend from the same VCR but with
    > his system using Pinnacle DV500. He captured in dv. I then took this DV avi
    > file and converted it to MPEG-2 DVD compliant file.

    No offense intended, but that's not a valid test case in my opinion.

    We're talking about hardware compression on TV tuner cards, or so I thought.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

    >
    > The conexant capture was done with Hauppauge WinTV Radio using Hauppauge VFW
    > drivers. Program used: VirtualDub. Capture at 720x576 HUFFYUV compression.
    > Philips capture was done with FlyVideo 3000FM with Philips WDM drivers.
    > Program used: Fly2000. Capture at 720x576 HUFFYUV compression.
    >

    OK - so two different programs were used to do the capturing, and neither uses hardware encoding
    right?

    So there's still quite a few variables going into image quality here. It's almost impossible to
    tell definitively at this point whether the better image is due to software or hardware.

    For example I have a WinTV-GO card which is only software encoding. Depending on which OS and
    which program I used for capture, the result was either "pretty good" or "marginal".

    Since neither of the cards are DTV capable, they're not really applicable to the original
    question. No problem here, I was just pointing it out...

    I'm not challenging your opinion at all, please don't be offended, I'm just pointing out that
    this isn't as scientific a test as it could be.

    Anyway, I haven't seen anything to make me regret buying a PVR-250 with hardware mpeg-2
    encoding. The quality is night and day better than what I was getting with a WinTV-Go and
    software encoding. Whether that's due to analog filtering, A/D convertor signal quality, or the
    mpeg-2 encoder chip is beyond me, but all I care about is that the image looks excellent on the
    TV.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jan Panteltje wrote:

    >
    > Philips claims analog anti-alias filters are integrated on chip,
    > and specifies a 3dB video bandwith of 7MHz.
    > If these specs are correct, then indeed this is a very good chip!

    Anything less shouldn't be allowed to be sold. Those are pretty much bare minimum
    specs for video.

    > Makes you wonder what the sample frequency is for video, 3x4.43 so 13 would
    > not get that, so AHA it samples at 27MHz!
    >

    Nyquist says the sampling frequency should be a minimum of 2X the maximum
    frequency being sampled. Of course more is better...
  43. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (26 May 2004 02:26:19 GMT) it happened Leonid Makarovsky
    <venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in <c90v8b$f7t$1@news3.bu.edu>:

    >It is a known fact that Philips' ADC produces a much better quality. Take a
    >look:
    >
    >http://auzol.narod.ru/index_e.html
    I think you are makeing a lot of speculation.
    the Philips datasheet is here (download pdf):
    http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/pip/SAA7133.html#datasheet
    (or google SAA7133HL_1.pdf)
    Philips claims analog anti-alias filters are integrated on chip,
    and specifies a 3dB video bandwith of 7MHz.
    If these specs are correct, then indeed this is a very good chip!
    Makes you wonder what the sample frequency is for video, 3x4.43 so 13 would
    not get that, so AHA it samples at 27MHz!

    OK, so I looked up the bt848 datasheet ('google bt848a_specs_sheet.pdf'),
    and it also samples at 8 * fc.
    But in the application diagram they show an optional noise reducing filter.
    (for noisy source).
    IF these other cards have this filter, then it could explain what you see.
    If one knows electronics, you could check if the pi filter (330p 3.3uH 330p)
    is in the 75 Ohm input path (and remove it and replace by a wire).
    I have only looked at the alias filter before the AD.
    No idea about the rest.
    I do see the bt chip has an 'optional' comb filer, has the card / soft
    designer enabled this?
    More questions.
    I like the sharper picture better, but also see some artifacts that look mpeg2
    like, or jpeg compression originated, that are perhaps smoothed out in the
    first pic).
    OK, was fun to look at these chips.

    JP
  44. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jan Panteltje wrote:

    > On a sunny day (Wed, 26 May 2004 19:15:36 GMT) it happened Keith Clark
    > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <40B4ECD6.E34B6ED5@hotmail.com>:
    >
    > >Jan Panteltje wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> >Anything less shouldn't be allowed to be sold. Those are pretty much bare minimum
    > >> >specs for video.
    > >> mm the guy was talking about VHS, do you know the bandwidth of VHS?
    > >> In many cases sampling at 3x fc is fine, that gives 13.3 Mhz or so for PAL.
    > >> The bandwidth would be about 5.5Mhz (depends on filter).
    > >> You would NOT be able to see the difference on VHS I think.
    > >> In fact, in case of VHS, a bit of low-pass may improve quality (this is what
    > >> they refer to as 'noisy source').
    > >> Noisy source is also noisy analog reception of cause.
    > >> When you receive NTSC you have even much less bandwidth.
    > >> It makes no sense to leave things wide open, that only adds noise.
    > >> But indeed no quality loss should be perceivable on VHS..
    > >>
    > >> JP
    > >
    > >I was talking about NTSC, not VHS...
    > >
    > >More bandwidth does not automatically "add" noise - noise must be present first. More
    > >bandwidth will *allow* more noise to be captured if the source is noisy in that range.
    > >A wider bandwidth with a "clean" source only results in a better image. I stand by my
    > >assertion that anything with a bandwidth of less than 7 MHz isn't suitable for sale as
    > >a capture device as some sources will go up that high.
    > >
    > >When I was working with NTSC cameras in medical imaging systems for a living, the
    > >specs we had to work with was a bandwidth of 6 MHz. All the cameras we shipped were
    > >flat to 6 MHz when tested with a sweep generator.
    > >
    > >Now if you mean "broadcast" bandwidth, then yes, I agree - this is 4.2 MHz.
    > >
    > >http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/750
    > >
    > >But since a TV tuner card also has S-video input connectors, it makes sense to support
    > >a video bandwidth of greater than broadcast, that way consumers wanting an easy way of
    > >capturing from an S-VHS deck or other device with good bandwidth, will get good
    > >quality too.
    > >
    > VHS does not exclude NTSC, it can be: PAL NTSC or SECAM for example.
    > We were talking broadcast, it is a TV card.
    > SVHS does not work that way, in SVHS you have the chrominance on a
    > separate channel.
    > The bandwidth is a bit more in the Y channel.
    > But this chip digitizes only composite (as composite) and so the chroma
    > will be added to the Y before digitizing for all I know.
    > It must be pointed out, that even in normal VHS, the chroma is processed
    > different (takes a different path).
    > While the video is FM modulated and applied to the recording heads, the chroma
    > is mixed down to about 560kHz (can't remember the exact value) and superimposed
    > on the FM carrier, very much like the bias frequency in an audio tape recorder,
    > so the FM would be the bias, the chroma the audio.
    > From this we can see that it is technically possible to modify a VHS to
    > have separate chroma too.
    > (I have redesigned a BW video tape recorder in the long ago past to add color).
    > As for sweeping a camera, that makes little sense. You can sweep a video amp,
    > but the camera (if it was an analog I do not know how long ago you did that)
    > video pre-amps (say plumbicon pre-amp) and corrections (aperture, gamma) are
    > by no means flat.
    > You would have to put a special test card in front, with frequency bands, and
    > look at the scope how these come out.
    > Focus, lenses, the works, light, it all affects it.
    > So if you sweeped something you probably only looked at a video amp.
    > Good video amps are wider then 6MHz, even in broadcast.
    > There are factors that are AS important in video amps as freq., response,
    > for example differential phase, differential gain, linearity, transient
    > response, phase characteristics.
    > In the current digital world things are in one way simpler, but a lot more
    > digital processing makes it very complicated (look at those data sheets I
    > referred to, and look at such things as scaling etc.).
    > Finally you should always limit you input bandwidth to what you need.
    > Hang a spectrum analyzer on the VHS or whatever output and you will likely
    > see why.
    >
    > >Here's an interesting test scenario :
    > >
    > >http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/sweep/sweep.html
    > That haze you see (fuzziness of the waveform) is NOISE.
    > There is a lot that can be improved...
    > JP

    Good points.

    For reference, we swept the video amp only, not the entire camera.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Wed, 26 May 2004 10:04:41 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
    <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <40B4CE29.2D85E2D6@hotmail.com>:

    >
    >
    >Jan Panteltje wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Philips claims analog anti-alias filters are integrated on chip,
    >> and specifies a 3dB video bandwith of 7MHz.
    >> If these specs are correct, then indeed this is a very good chip!
    >
    >Anything less shouldn't be allowed to be sold. Those are pretty much bare minimum
    >specs for video.
    mm the guy was talking about VHS, do you know the bandwidth of VHS?
    In many cases sampling at 3x fc is fine, that gives 13.3 Mhz or so for PAL.
    The bandwidth would be about 5.5Mhz (depends on filter).
    You would NOT be able to see the difference on VHS I think.
    In fact, in case of VHS, a bit of low-pass may improve quality (this is what
    they refer to as 'noisy source').
    Noisy source is also noisy analog reception of cause.
    When you receive NTSC you have even much less bandwidth.
    It makes no sense to leave things wide open, that only adds noise.
    But indeed no quality loss should be perceivable on VHS..

    JP
  46. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jan Panteltje wrote:

    >
    > >Anything less shouldn't be allowed to be sold. Those are pretty much bare minimum
    > >specs for video.
    > mm the guy was talking about VHS, do you know the bandwidth of VHS?
    > In many cases sampling at 3x fc is fine, that gives 13.3 Mhz or so for PAL.
    > The bandwidth would be about 5.5Mhz (depends on filter).
    > You would NOT be able to see the difference on VHS I think.
    > In fact, in case of VHS, a bit of low-pass may improve quality (this is what
    > they refer to as 'noisy source').
    > Noisy source is also noisy analog reception of cause.
    > When you receive NTSC you have even much less bandwidth.
    > It makes no sense to leave things wide open, that only adds noise.
    > But indeed no quality loss should be perceivable on VHS..
    >
    > JP

    I was talking about NTSC, not VHS...

    More bandwidth does not automatically "add" noise - noise must be present first. More
    bandwidth will *allow* more noise to be captured if the source is noisy in that range.
    A wider bandwidth with a "clean" source only results in a better image. I stand by my
    assertion that anything with a bandwidth of less than 7 MHz isn't suitable for sale as
    a capture device as some sources will go up that high.

    When I was working with NTSC cameras in medical imaging systems for a living, the
    specs we had to work with was a bandwidth of 6 MHz. All the cameras we shipped were
    flat to 6 MHz when tested with a sweep generator.

    Now if you mean "broadcast" bandwidth, then yes, I agree - this is 4.2 MHz.

    http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/750

    But since a TV tuner card also has S-video input connectors, it makes sense to support
    a video bandwidth of greater than broadcast, that way consumers wanting an easy way of
    capturing from an S-VHS deck or other device with good bandwidth, will get good
    quality too.

    Here's an interesting test scenario :

    http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/sweep/sweep.html
  47. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Wed, 26 May 2004 19:15:36 GMT) it happened Keith Clark
    <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <40B4ECD6.E34B6ED5@hotmail.com>:

    >Jan Panteltje wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> >Anything less shouldn't be allowed to be sold. Those are pretty much bare minimum
    >> >specs for video.
    >> mm the guy was talking about VHS, do you know the bandwidth of VHS?
    >> In many cases sampling at 3x fc is fine, that gives 13.3 Mhz or so for PAL.
    >> The bandwidth would be about 5.5Mhz (depends on filter).
    >> You would NOT be able to see the difference on VHS I think.
    >> In fact, in case of VHS, a bit of low-pass may improve quality (this is what
    >> they refer to as 'noisy source').
    >> Noisy source is also noisy analog reception of cause.
    >> When you receive NTSC you have even much less bandwidth.
    >> It makes no sense to leave things wide open, that only adds noise.
    >> But indeed no quality loss should be perceivable on VHS..
    >>
    >> JP
    >
    >I was talking about NTSC, not VHS...
    >
    >More bandwidth does not automatically "add" noise - noise must be present first. More
    >bandwidth will *allow* more noise to be captured if the source is noisy in that range.
    >A wider bandwidth with a "clean" source only results in a better image. I stand by my
    >assertion that anything with a bandwidth of less than 7 MHz isn't suitable for sale as
    >a capture device as some sources will go up that high.
    >
    >When I was working with NTSC cameras in medical imaging systems for a living, the
    >specs we had to work with was a bandwidth of 6 MHz. All the cameras we shipped were
    >flat to 6 MHz when tested with a sweep generator.
    >
    >Now if you mean "broadcast" bandwidth, then yes, I agree - this is 4.2 MHz.
    >
    >http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/750
    >
    >But since a TV tuner card also has S-video input connectors, it makes sense to support
    >a video bandwidth of greater than broadcast, that way consumers wanting an easy way of
    >capturing from an S-VHS deck or other device with good bandwidth, will get good
    >quality too.
    >
    VHS does not exclude NTSC, it can be: PAL NTSC or SECAM for example.
    We were talking broadcast, it is a TV card.
    SVHS does not work that way, in SVHS you have the chrominance on a
    separate channel.
    The bandwidth is a bit more in the Y channel.
    But this chip digitizes only composite (as composite) and so the chroma
    will be added to the Y before digitizing for all I know.
    It must be pointed out, that even in normal VHS, the chroma is processed
    different (takes a different path).
    While the video is FM modulated and applied to the recording heads, the chroma
    is mixed down to about 560kHz (can't remember the exact value) and superimposed
    on the FM carrier, very much like the bias frequency in an audio tape recorder,
    so the FM would be the bias, the chroma the audio.
    From this we can see that it is technically possible to modify a VHS to
    have separate chroma too.
    (I have redesigned a BW video tape recorder in the long ago past to add color).
    As for sweeping a camera, that makes little sense. You can sweep a video amp,
    but the camera (if it was an analog I do not know how long ago you did that)
    video pre-amps (say plumbicon pre-amp) and corrections (aperture, gamma) are
    by no means flat.
    You would have to put a special test card in front, with frequency bands, and
    look at the scope how these come out.
    Focus, lenses, the works, light, it all affects it.
    So if you sweeped something you probably only looked at a video amp.
    Good video amps are wider then 6MHz, even in broadcast.
    There are factors that are AS important in video amps as freq., response,
    for example differential phase, differential gain, linearity, transient
    response, phase characteristics.
    In the current digital world things are in one way simpler, but a lot more
    digital processing makes it very complicated (look at those data sheets I
    referred to, and look at such things as scaling etc.).
    Finally you should always limit you input bandwidth to what you need.
    Hang a spectrum analyzer on the VHS or whatever output and you will likely
    see why.

    >Here's an interesting test scenario :
    >
    >http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/sweep/sweep.html
    That haze you see (fuzziness of the waveform) is NOISE.
    There is a lot that can be improved...
    JP
  48. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
    :> Hauppauge drivers:
    :> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/WinTVNTSC.04.20.2003.JPG
    : That is a lot more "competitive". In these samples, they are so close there
    : isn't much point in arguing over which one is better.

    All right. I took my time and found the same VHS, same spot and did test
    capture boosting sharpness and manually controlling gain. Then used TMPGenc's
    same template as for Hauppauge. Now take a look.
    http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/WinTV/FlyVideo05.26.2004.JPG

    See those artifacts? They are on the VHS from the broadcasting and not
    pixelization. They are supposed to be there.

    Keep in mind if I did the same capture with SECAM footage, then the difference
    between WinTV and Philips' SECAM snapshots would be even bigger.

    : The Hauppauge card doesn't do any processing, so any sharpness you can add
    : to the Philips capture is a processing filter, and it could be done to the

    Wait a sec. Are brightness, contrast, hue considered to be filters? I don't
    believe so. Sharpness and gain are just part of the pre ADC adjustment
    I believe. I maybe wrong.

    : Hauppauge capture in post-processing as well. Anyway, if you don't sit 5cm

    If the image is blurry, how can you make it sharper?

    : from your TV and analyze every single pixel, I think you would find it
    : difficult to distinguish the two in any realistic viewing situation.

    Please compare snapshots now.

    : Where in the World are you? I am in the UK. If we have any channels that are

    I'm in US.

    : available in both our territories, we could each do a PAL capture of the
    : same channel, or program even, and compare which one is better, as the
    : original question was about which card is better for DTV captures, and VHS
    : isn't that great source material for comparison. I am fairly confident my
    : WinTV will match your Philips, maybe even beat it :-)

    I have a UK DVD of Eyes Wide Shot. If you have it, let's compare just for the
    sake of it.

    --Leonid
  49. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    : OK - so two different programs were used to do the capturing, and neither uses hardware encoding
    : right?

    Correct.

    : I'm not challenging your opinion at all, please don't be offended, I'm just pointing out that
    : this isn't as scientific a test as it could be.

    I'm not offended, but I was testing with the best *practical* software that I
    thought was available for each card.

    : Anyway, I haven't seen anything to make me regret buying a PVR-250 with hardware mpeg-2
    : encoding. The quality is night and day better than what I was getting with a WinTV-Go and
    : software encoding.

    First off all, what do you mean by software encoding? Did you capture into
    MPEG-2 directly with WinTV-Go or did you capture in HUFFYUV AVI and then
    converted it to MPEG-2 with the encoder? Both scenarios are software encoding.
    Of course, converting on the fly using s/w encoder will give you an awful quality.
    Second, the bottleneck is not in hardware encoding. The bottleneck is in A/D
    converter. Once an analog signal is converted to digital with the worse
    converter, you can't make the resulting video better than if the same thing has
    been done with a better converter.

    --Leonid
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards TV Hauppauge Graphics