Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are Hauppauge cards the best for capturing from DTV? - Page 2

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 8:34:24 AM

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

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

Here are a few samples of some TV episodes I recorded from digital cable via
S-Video and encoded to DVD with TMPGenc 2-pass CQ 95% max bitrate 9000. I
couldn't be bothered to hook up my box to my PC, so I just grabbed these off
the DVD I made some time ago. Keep in mind they have been MPEG2 compressed,
so they are not the raw captures, but I doubt very much you can show me a
card that will produce significantly better results than this.

http://www.geocities.com/la_bandido/WinTV.htm

I am leeching some webspace from a friend, so I apologize if they are gone
by the time you see this post.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:34:24 PM

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

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

> 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.

Agreed. When I used the WinTV-Go card, I was using BeyondTV to capture directly to mpeg-2 in
real-time. I also used MythTV in Linux with that card, and I also used ShowShifter, and some other
Windows software mpeg-2 real-time capture programs. Of those, BeyondTV gave the most pleasing mpeg-2
capture.

I have replaced the WinTV-Go with a PVR-250, which outputs mpeg-2 directly and is of much higher
quality than I was getting previously. It's also better quality than capturing in Huffyuv and
converting to mpeg-2 offline.


>
> 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.

Agreed.
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 8:10:58 AM

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

Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
: Here are a few samples of some TV episodes I recorded from digital cable via
: S-Video and encoded to DVD with TMPGenc 2-pass CQ 95% max bitrate 9000. I
: couldn't be bothered to hook up my box to my PC, so I just grabbed these off
: the DVD I made some time ago. Keep in mind they have been MPEG2 compressed,
: so they are not the raw captures, but I doubt very much you can show me a
: card that will produce significantly better results than this.

: http://www.geocities.com/la_bandido/WinTV.htm

I recognized good ol' Brooktree Fusion 878 chip. The colors are relatively
pale. And this has always been limitation of the chip. Plus if you notice where
it says UKTV GOLD that the image is not that sharp. However, yes, the whole
thing is absolutely watchable. But I think superior ADCs will do a better job.

--Leonid
Related resources
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 8:14:59 AM

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

Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Agreed. When I used the WinTV-Go card, I was using BeyondTV to capture directly to mpeg-2 in
: real-time. I also used MythTV in Linux with that card, and I also used ShowShifter, and some other

[snip]
: I have replaced the WinTV-Go with a PVR-250, which outputs mpeg-2 directly and is of much higher
: quality than I was getting previously. It's also better quality than capturing in Huffyuv and
: converting to mpeg-2 offline.

That's interesting. I always thought if you capture in HUFFYUV and then encode
it with TMPGEnc, it should give you a better quality. Did you capture in RGB
or YUY2? If you captured in RGB, then it will give you pretty bad overall image.

Maybe your PVR card doesn't have the same ADC chip as your WinTV-Go. You know
that Hauppauge is now using the next generation Conexant ADCs for their cards.
These ADCs are 10 bits. Still the reviews say that 9 bit Philips is better.

--Leonid
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 8:33:54 AM

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

> I recognized good ol' Brooktree Fusion 878 chip. The colors are relatively
> pale. And this has always been limitation of the chip. Plus if you notice
where
> it says UKTV GOLD that the image is not that sharp. However, yes, the
whole
> thing is absolutely watchable. But I think superior ADCs will do a better
job.

Keep in mind these were recorded from TV and then encoded to DVD. I am
limited to the quality of the original source. Toonami isn't too bad, but
UKTV Gold isn't that great. It's all I had, though. In a blind test, I am
confident you wouldn't be able to tell which was the original broadcast and
which was the copy, certainly not from a normal viewing distance. The DVD
image is a fraction softer, but the colors are almost identical to the
original broadcast. "The Office" is a very pale/desaturated show, but even
if that wasn't the case, that can easily be modified in post processing,
which is actually often a better idea, as some capture cards tend to bleed
colors a little if the saturation is set too high. You would not get a
significantly better result with any other card in the same price range, or
even more expensive ADCs.

Are we still on-topic, btw? :-)
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 8:56:21 AM

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

Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
: colors a little if the saturation is set too high. You would not get a
: significantly better result with any other card in the same price range, or
: even more expensive ADCs.

I was doing some comparison with my WinTV Radio. I comparing the original VHS
to the DVD formatted mpeg-2 that I recorded with WinTV (you know HUFFYUV->
TMPGenc). I found that colors on mpeg-2 were paler than on original. That's
why I said I recognized the Fusion chip. Nothing I could do about it. I was
pre-adjusting brightness, contrast etc etc, still the copy was different
from original. Still that wasn't the reason why I finally decided to try
FlyVideo.

BTW, with FlyVideo I honestly can't tell the difference when I
play back to back original and DVD.

: Are we still on-topic, btw? :-)

Who cares? (-:

--Leonid
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 9:16:19 AM

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

> I was doing some comparison with my WinTV Radio. I comparing the original
VHS
> to the DVD formatted mpeg-2 that I recorded with WinTV (you know HUFFYUV->
> TMPGenc). I found that colors on mpeg-2 were paler than on original.
That's
> why I said I recognized the Fusion chip. Nothing I could do about it. I
was
> pre-adjusting brightness, contrast etc etc, still the copy was different
> from original. Still that wasn't the reason why I finally decided to try
> FlyVideo.

I have noticed TMPGenc has a tendency to desaturate the colors just a tad.



> BTW, with FlyVideo I honestly can't tell the difference when I
> play back to back original and DVD.

I woud say the same about my WinTV encodes. At the end of the day, there is
so little between these cards anyway. The real concern should be the quality
of the source material and compatibility with your particular PC set-up, as
that often seems to be the stumbling block for most capture cards.
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 1:41:27 PM

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

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Fri, 28 May 2004 12:29:09 GMT) it happened Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <40B73094.FD915CBE@hotmail.com>:
>
> >exported from Mpeg-VCR (www.womble.com). I didn't have control over the jpeg compression - BMP files
> >would have been sharper but these will give a good idea of overall clarity and general absence of noise
> >- and are faster to download than BMP.
>
> >The original mpeg-2 files were recorded @ 7000 mb/sec, 2 i-frames per GOP, and 4 predictive frames per
> >GOP. Noise reduction filter is disabled, and motion precision set to 1%. Mpeg-2 type is set to "Program
> >Stream", VBR is disabled (for editing out commercials with no audio sync issues), capture size is
> >720x480. This gives me files that I can import into Ulead DVD Movie Factory 2 with no rendering before
> >authoring to DVD.
> >
> >http://www.geocities.com/boomerang_562000/
> I think you got a whole lot of mpeg coding artefacts on the edges of those
> cartoons.
> At 7Mb/s (7000kbps) that should not need to be there in my view.
> Whatdoyouthink? Was already in source material?
> JP

Thanks for not flaming me about my typo. ;-> Yeah, I meant 7 megabits.

I'll have to go back and look - remember these are jpegs encoded at whatever the default quality that
Mpeg-VCR uses for snapshot exports. By the file size I'd say they're heavily recompressed, so I'm not
surprised there are artifacts. At any rate while watching Duckman, I'm usually laughing so hard I can barely
see, let alone notice edge artifacts at 30 FPS. ;->

Check back in a few hours or tomorrow and I'll post some BMP files, which won't have any re-compression. I
know BMPs can be a pain to view in Linux, but at least in SuSE 9.1, Mozilla 1.6 can view BMPs.
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 4:29:09 PM

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

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

> Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : Agreed. When I used the WinTV-Go card, I was using BeyondTV to capture directly to mpeg-2 in
> : real-time. I also used MythTV in Linux with that card, and I also used ShowShifter, and some other
>
> [snip]
> : I have replaced the WinTV-Go with a PVR-250, which outputs mpeg-2 directly and is of much higher
> : quality than I was getting previously. It's also better quality than capturing in Huffyuv and
> : converting to mpeg-2 offline.
>
> That's interesting. I always thought if you capture in HUFFYUV and then encode
> it with TMPGEnc, it should give you a better quality. Did you capture in RGB
> or YUY2? If you captured in RGB, then it will give you pretty bad overall image.
>
> Maybe your PVR card doesn't have the same ADC chip as your WinTV-Go. You know
> that Hauppauge is now using the next generation Conexant ADCs for their cards.
> These ADCs are 10 bits. Still the reviews say that 9 bit Philips is better.
>
> --Leonid

Always YUV2.

I'm sure the PVR card has a different chip than the WinTV-Go, It must, because I had a hell of time
trying to get the PVR-250 to work in Linux, which is why I used XP and BeyondTV rather then Myth for my
media-center box (the WinTV-Go worked in Linux with a default SuSE install but I wanted hardware
encoding).

I don't challenge your reviews... For my purposes, whatever chip the PVR-250 is using, I'm pretty happy
with it.

Here are some frame captures from some stuff I recorded yesterday. These are just random frames,
exported from Mpeg-VCR (www.womble.com). I didn't have control over the jpeg compression - BMP files
would have been sharper but these will give a good idea of overall clarity and general absence of noise
- and are faster to download than BMP.

The original mpeg-2 files were recorded @ 7000 mb/sec, 2 i-frames per GOP, and 4 predictive frames per
GOP. Noise reduction filter is disabled, and motion precision set to 1%. Mpeg-2 type is set to "Program
Stream", VBR is disabled (for editing out commercials with no audio sync issues), capture size is
720x480. This gives me files that I can import into Ulead DVD Movie Factory 2 with no rendering before
authoring to DVD.

http://www.geocities.com/boomerang_562000/
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 5:22:55 PM

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

Keith Clark wrote:

> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (Fri, 28 May 2004 12:29:09 GMT) it happened Keith Clark
> > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <40B73094.FD915CBE@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > >exported from Mpeg-VCR (www.womble.com). I didn't have control over the jpeg compression - BMP files
> > >would have been sharper but these will give a good idea of overall clarity and general absence of noise
> > >- and are faster to download than BMP.
> >
> > >The original mpeg-2 files were recorded @ 7000 mb/sec, 2 i-frames per GOP, and 4 predictive frames per
> > >GOP. Noise reduction filter is disabled, and motion precision set to 1%. Mpeg-2 type is set to "Program
> > >Stream", VBR is disabled (for editing out commercials with no audio sync issues), capture size is
> > >720x480. This gives me files that I can import into Ulead DVD Movie Factory 2 with no rendering before
> > >authoring to DVD.
> > >
> > >http://www.geocities.com/boomerang_562000/
> > I think you got a whole lot of mpeg coding artefacts on the edges of those
> > cartoons.
> > At 7Mb/s (7000kbps) that should not need to be there in my view.
> > Whatdoyouthink? Was already in source material?
> > JP
>
> I just uploaded some BMP images. Sorry they're not the same frames but I was in a hurry. If that's an issue
> let me know
>
> Look in the /images/bmp folder.

Apparently it's already exceeded it's bandwidth.

If anyone can suggest a better free place to post images please let me know.
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 7:16:35 PM

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

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 May 2004 12:29:09 GMT) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <40B73094.FD915CBE@hotmail.com>:

>exported from Mpeg-VCR (www.womble.com). I didn't have control over the jpeg compression - BMP files
>would have been sharper but these will give a good idea of overall clarity and general absence of noise
>- and are faster to download than BMP.

>The original mpeg-2 files were recorded @ 7000 mb/sec, 2 i-frames per GOP, and 4 predictive frames per
>GOP. Noise reduction filter is disabled, and motion precision set to 1%. Mpeg-2 type is set to "Program
>Stream", VBR is disabled (for editing out commercials with no audio sync issues), capture size is
>720x480. This gives me files that I can import into Ulead DVD Movie Factory 2 with no rendering before
>authoring to DVD.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/boomerang_562000/
I think you got a whole lot of mpeg coding artefacts on the edges of those
cartoons.
At 7Mb/s (7000kbps) that should not need to be there in my view.
Whatdoyouthink? Was already in source material?
JP
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 11:52:06 PM

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

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Fri, 28 May 2004 12:29:09 GMT) it happened Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <40B73094.FD915CBE@hotmail.com>:
>
> >exported from Mpeg-VCR (www.womble.com). I didn't have control over the jpeg compression - BMP files
> >would have been sharper but these will give a good idea of overall clarity and general absence of noise
> >- and are faster to download than BMP.
>
> >The original mpeg-2 files were recorded @ 7000 mb/sec, 2 i-frames per GOP, and 4 predictive frames per
> >GOP. Noise reduction filter is disabled, and motion precision set to 1%. Mpeg-2 type is set to "Program
> >Stream", VBR is disabled (for editing out commercials with no audio sync issues), capture size is
> >720x480. This gives me files that I can import into Ulead DVD Movie Factory 2 with no rendering before
> >authoring to DVD.
> >
> >http://www.geocities.com/boomerang_562000/
> I think you got a whole lot of mpeg coding artefacts on the edges of those
> cartoons.
> At 7Mb/s (7000kbps) that should not need to be there in my view.
> Whatdoyouthink? Was already in source material?
> JP

I just uploaded some BMP images. Sorry they're not the same frames but I was in a hurry. If that's an issue
let me know

Look in the /images/bmp folder.
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 4:23:31 AM

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

Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
: I have noticed TMPGenc has a tendency to desaturate the colors just a tad.

That depends on your settings.

: I woud say the same about my WinTV encodes. At the end of the day, there is
: so little between these cards anyway. The real concern should be the quality

I'm not so sure. If you compared the very latest picture of FlyVideo to WinTV,
you will notice a much bigger difference.

--Leonid
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 5:03:24 AM

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

> I'm not so sure. If you compared the very latest picture of FlyVideo to
WinTV,
> you will notice a much bigger difference.

I am not entirely sure I trust the quality of your WinTV samples.
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 6:51:39 AM

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

I just plugged my DVD player to my TV Tuner card with composite and S-video.
Then I did 5 seconds capture of the same fragment with each cable. Found the
same frame in VirtualDub (HUFFYUV AVI) and took a snapshot. Then I put
the DVD inside my DVD ROM and using WinDVD 2.1 took a snapshot of the same
frame directly from a DVD. I was truelly amazed with results:
http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...

--Leonid
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 8:33:22 AM

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

> I just plugged my DVD player to my TV Tuner card with composite and
S-video.
> Then I did 5 seconds capture of the same fragment with each cable. Found
the
> same frame in VirtualDub (HUFFYUV AVI) and took a snapshot. Then I put
> the DVD inside my DVD ROM and using WinDVD 2.1 took a snapshot of the same
> frame directly from a DVD. I was truelly amazed with results:
> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...


Didn't you know S-Video gives considerably better quality than Composite?
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 2:28:28 PM

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

In article <c98trr$ri3$1@news3.bu.edu>, venom@cs.bu.edu says...
> I just plugged my DVD player to my TV Tuner card with composite and S-video.
> Then I did 5 seconds capture of the same fragment with each cable. Found the
> same frame in VirtualDub (HUFFYUV AVI) and took a snapshot. Then I put
> the DVD inside my DVD ROM and using WinDVD 2.1 took a snapshot of the same
> frame directly from a DVD. I was truelly amazed with results:
> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
> http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
>
> --Leonid
>
>
#3 looks the worst to me, is that the frame extracted from the DVD?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 7:23:35 PM

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

On a sunny day (29 May 2004 02:51:39 GMT) it happened Leonid Makarovsky
<venom@cs.bu.edu> wrote in <c98trr$ri3$1@news3.bu.edu>:

>
>I just plugged my DVD player to my TV Tuner card with composite and S-video.
>Then I did 5 seconds capture of the same fragment with each cable. Found the
>same frame in VirtualDub (HUFFYUV AVI) and took a snapshot. Then I put
>the DVD inside my DVD ROM and using WinDVD 2.1 took a snapshot of the same
>frame directly from a DVD. I was truelly amazed with results:
>http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
>http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
>http://us.geocities.com/leonid_makarovsky/ALT_VIDEO_DES...
Hard to tell with that material, and what is what?
JP
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 7:23:43 PM

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

On a sunny day (Fri, 28 May 2004 19:52:06 GMT) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <40B79866.7D6EBEA6@hotmail.com>:

>> >http://www.geocities.com/boomerang_562000/

>I just uploaded some BMP images. Sorry they're not the same frames but I was in a hurry. If that's an issue
>let me know
>

>Look in the /images/bmp folder.

I tried, but you seem to have exceeded your data transfer limit.
Tomorrow or late tonight I will have an other go.
OK got it, see the same artifacts on these bitmaps, look for example at the yellow face in test9.bmp.

JP
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 8:51:15 PM

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

Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
: Didn't you know S-Video gives considerably better quality than Composite?

Not so much better but yes if you use when copy S-VHS or DVD through analog.
If you copy LaserDiscs, then composite gives a far better quality.

That wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to compare the frame taken directly
from DVD with the ones that were transferred through AD converter.

Picture 1 is S-Video AD.
Picture 2 was taken directly from DVD using WinDVD 2.1
Picture 3 was Composite AD.

To my eyes Composite and S-Video look sharper than the original frame. Why?
Beats me.

--Leonid
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 8:51:42 PM

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

Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
: #3 looks the worst to me, is that the frame extracted from the DVD?

Composite.

--Leonid
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 10:48:17 PM

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

> Not so much better but yes if you use when copy S-VHS or DVD through
analog.
> If you copy LaserDiscs, then composite gives a far better quality.

I am not 100% familiar with LD specs, but I seem to remember it is a
composite format, so that could make sense, although it should only be as
good as S-Video, not better.


> That wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to compare the frame taken
directly
> from DVD with the ones that were transferred through AD converter.
>
> Picture 1 is S-Video AD.
> Picture 2 was taken directly from DVD using WinDVD 2.1
> Picture 3 was Composite AD.
>
> To my eyes Composite and S-Video look sharper than the original frame.
Why?
> Beats me.

It's a bit difficult to tell because it's a very dark example, but composite
certainly has a tendency to add artefacts around edges that almost work a
bit like a sharpen filter would. It doesn't really give the image more
detail, it just sort of adds contrasting colors, so it's a bit of an
illusion. There is simply no way composite could produce better, or even
comparable, quality to a proper DVD rip.

The MPEG2 decoding on your videocard might also perform some processing you
are not aware of, such as real-time deinterlacing, which can tend to blur
things quite a bit.
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 5:20:11 PM

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

Adam H <dfghjkl@fghjkl.ur> wrote:
: I am not 100% familiar with LD specs, but I seem to remember it is a
: composite format, so that could make sense, although it should only be as
: good as S-Video, not better.

The LD players usually have much worse comb filter than capture cards. Thus
using S-Video out from LD player gives worse quality than using composite out.
I compared and realize that I was going to go with composite.

: The MPEG2 decoding on your videocard might also perform some processing you
: are not aware of, such as real-time deinterlacing, which can tend to blur
: things quite a bit.

It could be the case as well. I didn't deinterlace - so maybe it combined 2
fields together. I don't know.

But still the images were very close in colors and in sharpness.

--Leonid
      • 1
      • 2 / 2
!