Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Analog Capture - Digital Camera or Canopus ADVC 100

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 24, 2004 12:39:15 AM

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

After reading several threads on this group, I was all set to get a
ADVC 100 capture device. I bought a PCI firewire card, intending to
order the ADVC 100 tonight. On the way home, I stopped by a Costco
and browsed their digital camcorders. The low-end units, the
Panasonic PV-GS2 and the JVC GRD-72US, both sell for less than $350.
Both claim to be able to turn analog input into digital tape. This
seems attractive, given that the ADVC 100 is going to run about $250.
It's almost like getting a digital camcorder for $100.

I really want to get the highest-quality capture that is reasonably
priced, since I have several items that have sentimental value. I
know that the quality will be limited to begin with, since I am
digitizing HI8 and VHS, but I would like to lose as little as possible
in the digitization process.

Will the quality of the captured analog video (and subsequent DVD) be
substantially better if I use the ADVC 100 versus a digital camcorder
to do the capturing? If not, are there other considerations that
would point me toward the ADVC 100? (I know that if I use the
camcorder I wouldn't be able to send an analog signal back to a VHS or
Hi8 device, and that I wouldn't have a monitor output. I don't think
I care - Do I?)

Thanks,

Jim
November 24, 2004 2:43:59 AM

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

There are Canon and Sony ($350 or cheaper) camcorders that will do digital
pass-thru so you don't even need to tape the video first. Canon ZR-80 DV and
Sony 460 Digital 8 at Walmart.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2...
19&dept=3944&path=0%3A3944%3A3991%3A4549
and
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2...
19&dept=3944&path=0%3A3944%3A3991%3A4549

DV quality from camcorders is usually very good and very comparable. Its the
camera section where the real differences are between different DV cameras.
IMHO
UB



"JAWs" <jaws@jaws.net> wrote in message
news:23a7q0d1g2kmone046bhiog52aga9ticts@4ax.com...
> After reading several threads on this group, I was all set to get a
> ADVC 100 capture device. I bought a PCI firewire card, intending to
> order the ADVC 100 tonight. On the way home, I stopped by a Costco
> and browsed their digital camcorders. The low-end units, the
> Panasonic PV-GS2 and the JVC GRD-72US, both sell for less than $350.
> Both claim to be able to turn analog input into digital tape. This
> seems attractive, given that the ADVC 100 is going to run about $250.
> It's almost like getting a digital camcorder for $100.
>
> I really want to get the highest-quality capture that is reasonably
> priced, since I have several items that have sentimental value. I
> know that the quality will be limited to begin with, since I am
> digitizing HI8 and VHS, but I would like to lose as little as possible
> in the digitization process.
>
> Will the quality of the captured analog video (and subsequent DVD) be
> substantially better if I use the ADVC 100 versus a digital camcorder
> to do the capturing? If not, are there other considerations that
> would point me toward the ADVC 100? (I know that if I use the
> camcorder I wouldn't be able to send an analog signal back to a VHS or
> Hi8 device, and that I wouldn't have a monitor output. I don't think
> I care - Do I?)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 3:11:19 AM

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

There is one thing you should be aware of. Every one says they are
interchangable but it is simply not true. For one thing the audio output of
myDSR20 is MUCH better than that of any cheap camera. I can AB them here
and the difference is very audible. I suspect the Canopus uses higher
quality convertors for both video and audio.

You will see visual differences between all of them.


"JAWs" <jaws@jaws.net> wrote in message
news:23a7q0d1g2kmone046bhiog52aga9ticts@4ax.com...
> After reading several threads on this group, I was all set to get a
> ADVC 100 capture device. I bought a PCI firewire card, intending to
> order the ADVC 100 tonight. On the way home, I stopped by a Costco
> and browsed their digital camcorders. The low-end units, the
> Panasonic PV-GS2 and the JVC GRD-72US, both sell for less than $350.
> Both claim to be able to turn analog input into digital tape. This
> seems attractive, given that the ADVC 100 is going to run about $250.
> It's almost like getting a digital camcorder for $100.
>
> I really want to get the highest-quality capture that is reasonably
> priced, since I have several items that have sentimental value. I
> know that the quality will be limited to begin with, since I am
> digitizing HI8 and VHS, but I would like to lose as little as possible
> in the digitization process.
>
> Will the quality of the captured analog video (and subsequent DVD) be
> substantially better if I use the ADVC 100 versus a digital camcorder
> to do the capturing? If not, are there other considerations that
> would point me toward the ADVC 100? (I know that if I use the
> camcorder I wouldn't be able to send an analog signal back to a VHS or
> Hi8 device, and that I wouldn't have a monitor output. I don't think
> I care - Do I?)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
Related resources
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 8:04:53 PM

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

nappy-iou wrote:

> There is one thing you should be aware of. Every one says they are
> interchangable but it is simply not true. For one thing the audio output of
> myDSR20 is MUCH better than that of any cheap camera. I can AB them here
> and the difference is very audible. I suspect the Canopus uses higher
> quality convertors for both video and audio.
>
> You will see visual differences between all of them.

I'm not so sure about that, but I only have the high end Sony VX-2000
camera to speak for. But I wouldn't think the transfer would be that
much different from a less expensive camera, especially a Sony, and the
economy is undeniable. I say try it, and if there is a problem,
experiment with the ADVC.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
November 24, 2004 8:50:38 PM

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Va3pd.64244$8G4.33574@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> nappy-iou wrote:
>
>> There is one thing you should be aware of. Every one says they are
>> interchangable but it is simply not true. For one thing the audio output
>> of myDSR20 is MUCH better than that of any cheap camera. I can AB them
>> here and the difference is very audible. I suspect the Canopus uses
>> higher quality convertors for both video and audio.
>>
>> You will see visual differences between all of them.
>
> I'm not so sure about that, but I only have the high end Sony VX-2000
> camera to speak for. But I wouldn't think the transfer would be that much
> different from a less expensive camera, especially a Sony, and the economy
> is undeniable. I say try it, and if there is a problem, experiment with
> the ADVC.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Digital transfers DV transfers are not what I am talking about. Conversions
are. And they will be different on every device.

So, if you are using a camera to convert analog video and audio you will be
using its converters. Which are going to be different on every device. And
on better gear the converteres are better.
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 5:32:17 PM

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

nappy-iou wrote:
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Va3pd.64244$8G4.33574@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > nappy-iou wrote:
> >
> >> There is one thing you should be aware of. Every one says they are
> >> interchangable but it is simply not true. For one thing the audio output
> >> of myDSR20 is MUCH better than that of any cheap camera. I can AB them
> >> here and the difference is very audible. I suspect the Canopus uses
> >> higher quality convertors for both video and audio.
> >>
> >> You will see visual differences between all of them.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that, but I only have the high end Sony VX-2000
> > camera to speak for. But I wouldn't think the transfer would be that much
> > different from a less expensive camera, especially a Sony, and the economy
> > is undeniable. I say try it, and if there is a problem, experiment with
> > the ADVC.

I use both a camcorder and the ADVC 100 to do digital conversion, and
both have the same quality. The ADVC 100 is more convenient because I
can leave it hooked up to my computer all the time.

Here is something to consider. It has been reported that the newer ADVC
100's will not pass a macrovision copy protected signal. I purposely
bought an older model so mine will.

A lot of camcorders will allow you to convert a copy protected signal
(VHS or DVD for example). You should test out a particular model if
that feature is important to you.
Anonymous
November 26, 2004 9:16:29 PM

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

<xeaglecrest@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:41A5ECF0.13D0@worldnet.att.net...
> nappy-iou wrote:
>>
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:Va3pd.64244$8G4.33574@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > nappy-iou wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is one thing you should be aware of. Every one says they are
>> >> interchangable but it is simply not true. For one thing the audio
>> >> output
>> >> of myDSR20 is MUCH better than that of any cheap camera. I can AB
>> >> them
>> >> here and the difference is very audible. I suspect the Canopus uses
>> >> higher quality convertors for both video and audio.
>> >>
>> >> You will see visual differences between all of them.
>> >
>> > I'm not so sure about that, but I only have the high end Sony VX-2000
>> > camera to speak for. But I wouldn't think the transfer would be that
>> > much
>> > different from a less expensive camera, especially a Sony, and the
>> > economy
>> > is undeniable. I say try it, and if there is a problem, experiment with
>> > the ADVC.
>
> I use both a camcorder and the ADVC 100 to do digital conversion, and
> both have the same quality. The ADVC 100 is more convenient because I
> can leave it hooked up to my computer all the time.

All of them are different. They HAVE to be unless they use the exact same
circuitry, parts and software. So I suspect your assumption that they are
the same is based on your eyes and ears. So they may be close. In cheap
cameras they cut corners. You should understand that I am talking about the
conversions. not digital transfers to the computer.
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 6:32:22 PM

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

> > I use both a camcorder and the ADVC 100 to do digital conversion, and
> > both have the same quality.

> All of them are different. They HAVE to be unless they use the exact same
> circuitry, parts and software. So I suspect your assumption that they are
> the same is based on your eyes and ears. So they may be close. In cheap
> cameras they cut corners. You should understand that I am talking about the
> conversions. not digital transfers to the computer.

You are absolutely correct. In fact I am going to rephrase my response
from above. " I use both a camcorder and the ADVC 100 to do digital
conversion, and if I do an A/B comparison, using my specific equipment,
I cannot tell which unit did the conversion."

Keep in mind there is no absolutely perfect video signal. Each
individual perceives color and detail differently. Even identical units
are made up of components that have individual tolerances; so even they
will not be technically identical.
!