Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Analog video capture quality

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 2:25:23 PM

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

I am trying to capture analog video from a Hi8 video tape source. I
am using the All-in-Wonder 9800 series card with TV/Capture via
s-video. I've tried the basic cheap versions of Studio 8 and Sonic-My
DVD. The original video streams quite well on my system, video quality
is quite acceptable. When I capture to mpeg the quality degrades
significantly. There are some very strange video artifacts when the
camera pans, or on certain "busy" scenes. There is also general loss of
quality thoughout.

My questions are:

Is this just standard - to be expected - when going from analog
video to digital (mpeg)?

My ultimate destination is to go to DVD, is there a better way to
capture the video that would produce better results?

Is the problem with my capture hardware, do I need one of the more
expensive dedicated capture systems? Or is it software related, is
there a specific codec I should be using?
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 3:14:16 PM

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

"mikea_59" wrote ...
> I am trying to capture analog video from a Hi8 video
> tape source. I am using the All-in-Wonder 9800 series
> card with TV/Capture via s-video. I've tried the basic
> cheap versions of Studio 8 and Sonic-My DVD.

The quality of the *capture* has little or nothing to do with the
edit application, but is a function of the capture hardware.

> The original video streams quite well on my system, video
> quality is quite acceptable. When I capture to mpeg the quality
> degrades significantly. There are some very strange video
> artifacts when the camera pans, or on certain "busy" scenes.
> There is also general loss of quality thoughout.
>
> My questions are:
>
> Is this just standard - to be expected - when going from analog
> video to digital (mpeg)?

Yes and No. Yes, it is to be expected from highly-compressed
codecs like MPEG. No, it is not expected from lower-compression
digital codecs like DV, and not at all from zero-compression
codecs like Huffy.

Remember that "digital" and "MPEG" are not equivalent.
All MPEG is digital, but *NOT* all digital is MPEG.

> My ultimate destination is to go to DVD, is there a better
> way to capture the video that would produce better results?

Capture with a less-lossy codec such as DV (or Huffy if you
have a fast enough computer and scads of disk space). Do
whatever editing, etc. Then compress to MP2 (DVD) using a
higher-quality, 2-pass application (like TMPGenc, etc.)

I'd guess that your complaint is mainly from low-end MP2
compression products.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:30:49 PM

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

Can I capture to DV using my cheap capture board (All-in-Wonder), or
do I have to use something like a DV camcorder?
Related resources
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:46:22 PM

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

I think I tried AVI and still got poor results. I guess I will have
to spend some $ on better capture hardware - any recommendations for
entry level hardware - what's the minimum I would have to pay to get
reasonable quality - I know that's a very subjective question, but any
recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 6:28:59 PM

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

The specs on the ATI 7500 don't say anything about analog inputs -
does it have analog video capture capability?
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 6:43:42 PM

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

These video cards use software to encode, hence frame accuracy and sync
problems.

Get true hardware encoding. You should expect to pay about $140.

Hauppauge and ADS Instant DVD 2 (nothing less) work well and are macrovision
free.



"mikea_59" <mikea_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108334782.281518.127390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I think I tried AVI and still got poor results. I guess I will have
> to spend some $ on better capture hardware - any recommendations for
> entry level hardware - what's the minimum I would have to pay to get
> reasonable quality - I know that's a very subjective question, but any
> recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
>
February 13, 2005 8:06:33 PM

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

mikea_59 wrote:
> Can I capture to DV using my cheap capture board (All-in-Wonder),
> or do I have to use something like a DV camcorder?

You can. I capture analog with my ATI 7500 to AVI then edit and convert to
Mpeg for DVD format or streaming. Once it is on your hard drive it is
digital. The quality will look as good as it did when it was viewed on TV as
analog. The methods and codecs may vary but the results should remain the
same.

J.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 8:06:34 PM

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

His original point was that his cheap analog capture device resulted in out
of sync conditions.

Look at the Hauppauge series and get a real card.

Canopus DVD Storm 2 HD is excellent, but very expensive.


"Jimmy" <JimmyCliff@xemaps.com> wrote in message
news:K4mdnX8XJ-mOTZLfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> mikea_59 wrote:
>> Can I capture to DV using my cheap capture board (All-in-Wonder),
>> or do I have to use something like a DV camcorder?
>
> You can. I capture analog with my ATI 7500 to AVI then edit and convert to
> Mpeg for DVD format or streaming. Once it is on your hard drive it is
> digital. The quality will look as good as it did when it was viewed on TV
> as
> analog. The methods and codecs may vary but the results should remain the
> same.
>
> J.
>
>
February 13, 2005 8:49:05 PM

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

mikea_59 wrote:
> I think I tried AVI and still got poor results. I guess I will have
> to spend some $ on better capture hardware - any recommendations for
> entry level hardware - what's the minimum I would have to pay to get
> reasonable quality - I know that's a very subjective question, but any
> recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Like I said I use an ATI 7500 and it works flawlessly. If your system is
tweaked just right you should have no problems producing video for any needs
from any source.

J.
February 13, 2005 9:18:43 PM

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

mikea_59 wrote:
> I think I tried AVI and still got poor results. I guess I will have
> to spend some $ on better capture hardware - any recommendations for
> entry level hardware - what's the minimum I would have to pay to get
> reasonable quality - I know that's a very subjective question, but any
> recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Try using Virtual Dub instread of S8.
http://www.virtualdub.org/index

Capture to uncompressed AVI and convert to Mpeg with TMPGEnc
http://www.pegasys-inc.com/en/index.html and burn to DVD with burning SW
that comes with burner.

J.
February 13, 2005 10:49:22 PM

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

mikea_59 wrote:
> The specs on the ATI 7500 don't say anything about analog inputs -
> does it have analog video capture capability?

There is a cable that allows connection of S-video-composite-stereo audio.

J.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 11:04:40 PM

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

I tried capturing to uncompressed AVI using Virtual Dub and results
aren't bad so far. I guess I'll try encoding to mpeg and do some
editing. Would sure like to know if it would make much difference
before I go spending a bunch of money a new hardware. Too bad there is
no way to try before you buy. Anyway, Thanks everyone.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 11:13:03 PM

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

> His original point was that his cheap analog capture device resulted in
out
> of sync conditions.

Then he has a problem with his s/w, not his h/w.

> Look at the Hauppauge series and get a real card.

Yeah, a hardware encoder with a 5 year old mpeg encoding algorithm is a
_real_ card, right? I'll match my dual pass VBR Procoder encode from an
uncompressed avi file captured with my AIW 9600 with _any_ h/w encode from
_any_ Hauppage card. There's a reason why professionals use a $2000 _s/w_
encoders (Cinema Craft Encoder) rather than a $150 hardware card from
Hauppage for DVD production, it's called quality.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 11:42:01 PM

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

On 13 Feb 2005 11:25:23 -0800, "mikea_59" <mikea_59@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I am trying to capture analog video from a Hi8 video tape source. I
>am using the All-in-Wonder 9800 series card with TV/Capture via
>s-video. I've tried the basic cheap versions of Studio 8 and Sonic-My
>DVD. The original video streams quite well on my system, video quality
>is quite acceptable. When I capture to mpeg the quality degrades
>significantly. There are some very strange video artifacts when the
>camera pans, or on certain "busy" scenes. There is also general loss of
>quality thoughout.
>
> My questions are:
>
> Is this just standard - to be expected - when going from analog
>video to digital (mpeg)?
>
> My ultimate destination is to go to DVD, is there a better way to
>capture the video that would produce better results?
>
> Is the problem with my capture hardware, do I need one of the more
>expensive dedicated capture systems? Or is it software related, is
>there a specific codec I should be using?

I would try to capture with a DV codec or another codec that doesn't
use intra-frames (mjpeg, Huffyuv) and then encode to mpeg-2 with
two-pass. Using two-pass gives maximum quality to mpeg-2 encoding.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 11:42:26 PM

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:110vphh5ag2g65e@corp.supernews.com...
> These video cards use software to encode, hence frame accuracy and sync
> problems.
>
> Get true hardware encoding. You should expect to pay about $140.
>
> Hauppauge and ADS Instant DVD 2 (nothing less) work well and are
> macrovision free.
>

The problem is that he will need to have his home movies in
a less compressed format to do the kind of editing he'll be
doing. So, his best option is to capture into the native format
of the editing package he wants to use.

I know, I know, I'm a big advocate of Hardware direct to DVD
compliant MPEG Capture, but that's for material that has already
been professionally edited. With that kind of material it makes no
sense to spend the time and effort involved in an AVI capture and
latter a many hour transcoding to DVD compliant MPEG.

In the OP's case he doesn't have the option of a nice quick and
easy MPEG capture, if he will be doing image altering editing.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:31:58 AM

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

"mikea_59" <mikea_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108353880.621362.55220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I tried capturing to uncompressed AVI using Virtual Dub and results
> aren't bad so far. I guess I'll try encoding to mpeg and do some
> editing. Would sure like to know if it would make much difference
> before I go spending a bunch of money a new hardware. Too bad there is
> no way to try before you buy. Anyway, Thanks everyone.
>

You should be doing your editing in AVI, then only encode to
MPEG when you are ready to author a DVD. You can do a
number of things when you edit in AVI that actually alter the
video image. With MPEG you can only do frame accurate cuts
(with the new editors) and that's all. That's all you need if you
are dealing with material that has been professionally edited,
but you will want to do a lot more with your home movies.

If your AVI source is unedited camera footage, then you
should give some thought to what Editing package you will
want to be able to use. Many of these Editors include both
capture interfaces and encoders for their output.

One cheap but very effective Editor that includes the "Ligos
Go Motion" Encoder, is the "Magix Video Deluxe 2.0 plus"
which may still be available for ~$10 from "J&R Music World
Computer World" 800-221-8180. If not try using Google's
Froogle search engine at www.google.com .

If your source were downloads you may want to give
DVDSanta and WinAVI some consideration.

Finally, if you are capturing from an interlaced analog
source like TV or a VCR, you should consider a
real-time hardware MPEG encoding approach. There
are a number of inexpensive PCI cards and USB2 or
Firewire boxes out there.

Look through the Capture options at
www.videohelp.com and www.digitalfaq.com or
www.doom9.net

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:31:59 AM

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

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4bCdnbedPoAotI3fRVn-1A@giganews.com...
>
> "mikea_59" <mikea_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1108353880.621362.55220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I tried capturing to uncompressed AVI using Virtual Dub and results
>> aren't bad so far. I guess I'll try encoding to mpeg and do some
>> editing. Would sure like to know if it would make much difference
>> before I go spending a bunch of money a new hardware. Too bad there is
>> no way to try before you buy. Anyway, Thanks everyone.
>>
>
> You should be doing your editing in AVI, then only encode to
> MPEG when you are ready to author a DVD. You can do a
> number of things when you edit in AVI that actually alter the
> video image. With MPEG you can only do frame accurate cuts
> (with the new editors) and that's all.

This is patently wrong. Ken, I am tired of your incorrect mantra on this.
You can add titles, Sfx etc in Mpeg.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:24:47 AM

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:1110h0on68n2853@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4bCdnbedPoAotI3fRVn-1A@giganews.com...
>>
>> "mikea_59" <mikea_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108353880.621362.55220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I tried capturing to uncompressed AVI using Virtual Dub and results
>>> aren't bad so far. I guess I'll try encoding to mpeg and do some
>>> editing. Would sure like to know if it would make much difference
>>> before I go spending a bunch of money a new hardware. Too bad there is
>>> no way to try before you buy. Anyway, Thanks everyone.
>>>
>>
>> You should be doing your editing in AVI, then only encode to
>> MPEG when you are ready to author a DVD. You can do a
>> number of things when you edit in AVI that actually alter the
>> video image. With MPEG you can only do frame accurate cuts
>> (with the new editors) and that's all.
>
> This is patently wrong. Ken, I am tired of your incorrect mantra on this.
> You can add titles, Sfx etc in Mpeg.
>

I'm assuming that you mean that you can do it in MPEG with
an Editing setup under $10,000; so name one? In fact you can't
alter the image of the frames that are compressed in MPEG.
(unless you are talking "I-Frame" Only MPEG; which is only
compressed in the same sense that DV AVI is.) MPEG must
be rendered before each frame is complete enough to be altered.
If you shell out the big bucks, you can get a real-time hardware
transcoder assisted editing setup. These aren't things you just
buy, you have to contract with the people who make them.

If you had read the rest of my post, you know the parts you
snipped, you would have a better understanding of where I stand
on this issue. Check out my "Can someone help "PTravel" ..."
thread.

Lastly, I wish I could introduce you to: "PTravel", "Chuck U.
Farley", some juvenile delinquent called "nap", and even the
normally astute "Richard Crowley".

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:24:48 AM

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

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YbKdncUMR4zZ_Y3fRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:1110h0on68n2853@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:4bCdnbedPoAotI3fRVn-1A@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "mikea_59" <mikea_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1108353880.621362.55220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> I tried capturing to uncompressed AVI using Virtual Dub and results
>>>> aren't bad so far. I guess I'll try encoding to mpeg and do some
>>>> editing. Would sure like to know if it would make much difference
>>>> before I go spending a bunch of money a new hardware. Too bad there is
>>>> no way to try before you buy. Anyway, Thanks everyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You should be doing your editing in AVI, then only encode to
>>> MPEG when you are ready to author a DVD. You can do a
>>> number of things when you edit in AVI that actually alter the
>>> video image. With MPEG you can only do frame accurate cuts
>>> (with the new editors) and that's all.
>>
>> This is patently wrong. Ken, I am tired of your incorrect mantra on
>> this. You can add titles, Sfx etc in Mpeg.
>>
>
> I'm assuming that you mean that you can do it in MPEG with
> an Editing setup under $10,000; so name one? In fact you can't
> alter the image of the frames that are compressed in MPEG.
> (unless you are talking "I-Frame" Only MPEG; which is only
> compressed in the same sense that DV AVI is.) MPEG must
> be rendered before each frame is complete enough to be altered.
> If you shell out the big bucks, you can get a real-time hardware
> transcoder assisted editing setup. These aren't things you just
> buy, you have to contract with the people who make them.
>
> If you had read the rest of my post, you know the parts you
> snipped, you would have a better understanding of where I stand
> on this issue. Check out my "Can someone help "PTravel" ..."
> thread.
>
> Lastly, I wish I could introduce you to: "PTravel", "Chuck U.
> Farley", some juvenile delinquent called "nap", and even the
> normally astute "Richard Crowley".
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:24:48 AM

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

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YbKdncUMR4zZ_Y3fRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:1110h0on68n2853@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:4bCdnbedPoAotI3fRVn-1A@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "mikea_59" <mikea_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1108353880.621362.55220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> I tried capturing to uncompressed AVI using Virtual Dub and results
>>>> aren't bad so far. I guess I'll try encoding to mpeg and do some
>>>> editing. Would sure like to know if it would make much difference
>>>> before I go spending a bunch of money a new hardware. Too bad there is
>>>> no way to try before you buy. Anyway, Thanks everyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You should be doing your editing in AVI, then only encode to
>>> MPEG when you are ready to author a DVD. You can do a
>>> number of things when you edit in AVI that actually alter the
>>> video image. With MPEG you can only do frame accurate cuts
>>> (with the new editors) and that's all.
>>
>> This is patently wrong. Ken, I am tired of your incorrect mantra on
>> this. You can add titles, Sfx etc in Mpeg.
>>
>
> I'm assuming that you mean that you can do it in MPEG with
> an Editing setup under $10,000; so name one? In fact you can't
> alter the image of the frames that are compressed in MPEG.
> (unless you are talking "I-Frame" Only MPEG; which is only
> compressed in the same sense that DV AVI is.) MPEG must
> be rendered before each frame is complete enough to be altered.
> If you shell out the big bucks, you can get a real-time hardware
> transcoder assisted editing setup. These aren't things you just
> buy, you have to contract with the people who make them.
>
> If you had read the rest of my post, you know the parts you
> snipped, you would have a better understanding of where I stand
> on this issue. Check out my "Can someone help "PTravel" ..."
> thread.
>
> Lastly, I wish I could introduce you to: "PTravel", "Chuck U.
> Farley", some juvenile delinquent called "nap", and even the
> normally astute "Richard Crowley".
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>

Why do you think they only work with I-frames? Ever heard of Canopus? What
is wrong with the effects in DVD Author etc?
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 6:01:27 AM

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:1110pcgni3cqmea@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:YbKdncUMR4zZ_Y3fRVn-iA@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>> news:1110h0on68n2853@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4bCdnbedPoAotI3fRVn-1A@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "mikea_59" <mikea_59@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1108353880.621362.55220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried capturing to uncompressed AVI using Virtual Dub and results
>>>>> aren't bad so far. I guess I'll try encoding to mpeg and do some
>>>>> editing. Would sure like to know if it would make much difference
>>>>> before I go spending a bunch of money a new hardware. Too bad there
>>>>> is
>>>>> no way to try before you buy. Anyway, Thanks everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should be doing your editing in AVI, then only encode to
>>>> MPEG when you are ready to author a DVD. You can do a
>>>> number of things when you edit in AVI that actually alter the
>>>> video image. With MPEG you can only do frame accurate cuts
>>>> (with the new editors) and that's all.
>>>
>>> This is patently wrong. Ken, I am tired of your incorrect mantra on
>>> this. You can add titles, Sfx etc in Mpeg.
>>>
>>
>> I'm assuming that you mean that you can do it in MPEG with
>> an Editing setup under $10,000; so name one? In fact you can't
>> alter the image of the frames that are compressed in MPEG.
>> (unless you are talking "I-Frame" Only MPEG; which is only
>> compressed in the same sense that DV AVI is.) MPEG must
>> be rendered before each frame is complete enough to be altered.
>> If you shell out the big bucks, you can get a real-time hardware
>> transcoder assisted editing setup. These aren't things you just
>> buy, you have to contract with the people who make them.
>>
>> If you had read the rest of my post, you know the parts you
>> snipped, you would have a better understanding of where I stand
>> on this issue. Check out my "Can someone help "PTravel" ..."
>> thread.
>>
>> Lastly, I wish I could introduce you to: "PTravel", "Chuck U.
>> Farley", some juvenile delinquent called "nap", and even the
>> normally astute "Richard Crowley".
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Why do you think they only work with I-frames? Ever heard of Canopus?
> What is wrong with the effects in DVD Author etc?
>
>

Sure I've heard of Canopus; which one of their packages? and
how much does it cost with all the parts needed to do real-time
native MPEG editing?

Which DVD Author do you mean? TMPGEnc DVD Author?
There are no effects applied in TDA.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 6:51:36 AM

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

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:p USPd.5332$u16.5009@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> His original point was that his cheap analog capture device resulted in
> out
>> of sync conditions.
>
> Then he has a problem with his s/w, not his h/w.
>
>> Look at the Hauppauge series and get a real card.
>
> Yeah, a hardware encoder with a 5 year old mpeg encoding algorithm is a
> _real_ card, right? I'll match my dual pass VBR Procoder encode from an
> uncompressed avi file captured with my AIW 9600 with _any_ h/w encode from
> _any_ Hauppage card. There's a reason why professionals use a $2000 _s/w_
> encoders (Cinema Craft Encoder) rather than a $150 hardware card from
> Hauppage for DVD production, it's called quality.
>

So how do you avoid using the 5 year old hardware MPEG
Decoding algorithm in your settop DVD player?

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 4:22:23 PM

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

> So how do you avoid using the 5 year old hardware MPEG
> Decoding algorithm in your settop DVD player?

Where in this thread was the word "mpeg _decoder_" used and what does a
_decoder_ have to do with analog video capture?
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:07:46 PM

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

On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:24:47 -0600) it happened "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <YbKdncUMR4zZ_Y3fRVn-iA@giganews.com>:

> I'm assuming that you mean that you can do it in MPEG with
>an Editing setup under $10,000; so name one?
You can, for free, in Linux, with my soft subtitler for example.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/subtitles/
The process involves decoding the mpeg2, doing whatever it is you want
to do in YUV space, and then encoding it gaian.
So it implies some quality loss.
Depending on how you tweek the encoder that quality loos need not be
prohibitive in many cases.
Transcode with subtitler (it is a plugin for it) allows one to take almost
any input format, decode to YUV (or RGB, but why) and then encode to almost
any output format, including DivX etc.
There is also a subtitler-yuv that can accept mjpeg YUV input and feed
into the mpg2enc mpeg2 encoder (or anything else that speaks that YUV
format).
And transcode is also free.



>In fact you can't
>alter the image of the frames that are compressed in MPEG.
>(unless you are talking "I-Frame" Only MPEG; which is only
>compressed in the same sense that DV AVI is.) MPEG must
>be rendered before each frame is complete enough to be altered.
Yes, indeed.
But once decoded you can change any individual frame of cause, then
re-encode.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:07:47 PM

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

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108390084.afbb1e036bd76207693d36950af58beb@teranews...
> On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:24:47 -0600) it happened "Ken Maltby"
> <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <YbKdncUMR4zZ_Y3fRVn-iA@giganews.com>:
>
>> I'm assuming that you mean that you can do it in MPEG with
>>an Editing setup under $10,000; so name one?
> You can, for free, in Linux, with my soft subtitler for example.
> http://panteltje.com/panteltje/subtitles/
> The process involves decoding the mpeg2, doing whatever it is you want
> to do in YUV space, and then encoding it gaian.
> So it implies some quality loss.
> Depending on how you tweek the encoder that quality loos need not be
> prohibitive in many cases.
> Transcode with subtitler (it is a plugin for it) allows one to take almost
> any input format, decode to YUV (or RGB, but why) and then encode to
> almost
> any output format, including DivX etc.
> There is also a subtitler-yuv that can accept mjpeg YUV input and feed
> into the mpg2enc mpeg2 encoder (or anything else that speaks that YUV
> format).
> And transcode is also free.
>
>
>
>>In fact you can't
>>alter the image of the frames that are compressed in MPEG.
>>(unless you are talking "I-Frame" Only MPEG; which is only
>>compressed in the same sense that DV AVI is.) MPEG must
>>be rendered before each frame is complete enough to be altered.
> Yes, indeed.
> But once decoded you can change any individual frame of cause, then
> re-encode.
>

Yes, what you are describing is what most any "non-destructive"
editor does. They render the source then convert it to their native
format to do their image altering editing. You are then offered a
wide range of output formats that you can encode to.

Of course this is not editing in the MPEG format. That said,
I have used this approach and not suffered any noticeable loss.
That was with only short clips and I used a multi-pass encoding
for the output, but I can't see why it wouldn't work with a
normal sized project. But if the option is available to capture
to a low compression "editable" format like AVI and do all
such editing in that format, I would do that instead of capturing
to MPEG. ( And I'm still a big proponent of Direct to DVD
Compliant MPEG Capture, for most cases)

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 7:10:47 PM

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

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:8_5Qd.30$Le5.19@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> So how do you avoid using the 5 year old hardware MPEG
>> Decoding algorithm in your settop DVD player?
>
> Where in this thread was the word "mpeg _decoder_" used and what does a
> _decoder_ have to do with analog video capture?
>

I'm sorry if that went over your head. I'll try and explain so
that you can understand.

You, rather sarcastically, said : "Yeah, a hardware encoder with a
5 year old mpeg encoding algorithm is a _real_ card, right?" ; this
would imply that you found something wrong and to be avoided
with such chips.

Considering that the hardware decoder chips used in settop
players are, at least, as old as the encoder chips, it follows
that you should have the same objection to using them.

Conversely, if you have no problem with the 5+ year old
decoder chip, why do you have one with the encoder chips?

There do you understand now?

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:08:34 PM

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

> You, rather sarcastically, said : "Yeah, a hardware encoder with a
> 5 year old mpeg encoding algorithm is a _real_ card, right?" ; this
> would imply that you found something wrong and to be avoided
> with such chips.

I do, as we've discussed in other threads.

> Considering that the hardware decoder chips used in settop
> players are, at least, as old as the encoder chips, it follows
> that you should have the same objection to using them.

You assuming decoder chips in current set top boxes are 5 years old and
further assuming I have an objection to using them, and we know what people
who ASSume are.

> Conversely, if you have no problem with the 5+ year old
> decoder chip, why do you have one with the encoder chips?

Because a multiple pass VBR s/w encode with recently released s/w will
_always_ be of higher quality than a realtime h/w encode with a 5 year old
encoder chip from a $150 USD card. Now you go on thinking h/w capture and
slicing and dicing with VideoReDo is real video editing and the "best" way
to edit video, it's of no consequence to me. But since I've already
determined you cannot perceive what constitutes quality in a video display,
further discussion with you regarding video technology is rather pointless.

> There do you understand now?

Yeah, you think a $150 card and $50 s/w gives the ultimate in video quality.
As PTRAVEL advised, spend a little time over at rec.video.production and
www.dvinfo.net and run your theories by them.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:28:45 PM

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

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:_8aQd.1105$3b7.869@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> You, rather sarcastically, said : "Yeah, a hardware encoder with a
>> 5 year old mpeg encoding algorithm is a _real_ card, right?" ; this
>> would imply that you found something wrong and to be avoided
>> with such chips.
>
> I do, as we've discussed in other threads.
>
>> Considering that the hardware decoder chips used in settop
>> players are, at least, as old as the encoder chips, it follows
>> that you should have the same objection to using them.
>
> You assuming decoder chips in current set top boxes are 5 years old and
> further assuming I have an objection to using them, and we know what
> people
> who ASSume are.
>
>> Conversely, if you have no problem with the 5+ year old
>> decoder chip, why do you have one with the encoder chips?
>
> Because a multiple pass VBR s/w encode with recently released s/w will
> _always_ be of higher quality than a realtime h/w encode with a 5 year old
> encoder chip from a $150 USD card. Now you go on thinking h/w capture and
> slicing and dicing with VideoReDo is real video editing and the "best" way
> to edit video, it's of no consequence to me. But since I've already
> determined you cannot perceive what constitutes quality in a video
> display,
> further discussion with you regarding video technology is rather
> pointless.
>
>> There do you understand now?
>
> Yeah, you think a $150 card and $50 s/w gives the ultimate in video
> quality.
> As PTRAVEL advised, spend a little time over at rec.video.production and
> www.dvinfo.net and run your theories by them.
>

Of course the fact is that I've never claimed any process "gives
the ultimate in video quality", my claim was and is that my results
are not in any way worse than the analog sources that I have as
input to my process. Why you find this so threatening and
unacceptable, is between you and your therapist.

Maybe I can help your therapist along; just because I can use
a much cheaper, faster and easier process to save up professionally
edited entertainment doesn't mean that your expensive, slow and
more difficult process isn't needed and useful. Anyone working
with unedited material would be much better off using your
methods and tools. All that time and effort won't be wasted.
Baby steps, ... Baby steps.

Luck
Ken
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:49:13 PM

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

On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:22:23 -0500) it happened "Chuck U. Farley"
<chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in <8_5Qd.30$Le5.19@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:

>> So how do you avoid using the 5 year old hardware MPEG
>> Decoding algorithm in your settop DVD player?
>
>Where in this thread was the word "mpeg _decoder_" used and what does a
>_decoder_ have to do with analog video capture?
PAL decoder, NTSC decoder, and likely your ANALOG card would have a digital
decoder chip for those analog systems.....
hehe
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:49:14 PM

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

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108407320.bb98612735fed7a9d1271644a9866f1e@teranews...
> On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:22:23 -0500) it happened "Chuck U.
> Farley"
> <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in
> <8_5Qd.30$Le5.19@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>> So how do you avoid using the 5 year old hardware MPEG
>>> Decoding algorithm in your settop DVD player?
>>
>>Where in this thread was the word "mpeg _decoder_" used and what does a
>>_decoder_ have to do with analog video capture?
> PAL decoder, NTSC decoder, and likely your ANALOG card would have a
> digital
> decoder chip for those analog systems.....
> hehe

True, and in the case of my capture card, a very good one: the
Phillips SAA 7114H. (Check it out at the Philips Web Site)

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 1:25:30 AM

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

On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:15:27 -0600) it happened "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <iMGdnacPX7Bpv4zfRVn-rQ@giganews.com>:

> True, and in the case of my capture card, a very good one: the
>Phillips SAA 7114H. (Check it out at the Philips Web Site)
>
>Luck;
> Ken
Oh yes, in linux type this:
panteltje:~# locate 7114
/usr/src/linux-2.4.25/drivers/media/video/swarm_saa7114h.c
/usr/src/linux-2.6.10/drivers/media/video/saa7114.c
Chip is supported!
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 4:32:02 AM

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

Alpha wrote:

>His original point was that his cheap analog capture device resulted in out
>of sync conditions.
>
>Look at the Hauppauge series and get a real card.
>
>Canopus DVD Storm 2 HD is excellent, but very expensive.
>
>
>
Didn't you read the first few replies ? It might no tbe the hardware
he's using at all. He's capturing directly to a compressed MPeg file. He
needs to use a lossless codec , edit it, and then do a final compress to
Mpeg-2 using TMPGenc.

jason

>"Jimmy" <JimmyCliff@xemaps.com> wrote in message
>news:K4mdnX8XJ-mOTZLfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>
>
>>mikea_59 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Can I capture to DV using my cheap capture board (All-in-Wonder),
>>>or do I have to use something like a DV camcorder?
>>>
>>>
>>You can. I capture analog with my ATI 7500 to AVI then edit and convert to
>>Mpeg for DVD format or streaming. Once it is on your hard drive it is
>>digital. The quality will look as good as it did when it was viewed on TV
>>as
>>analog. The methods and codecs may vary but the results should remain the
>>same.
>>
>>J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


--
((¯`'·.¸(¯`'·.((¯`'·.¸ * jason bean* ¸.·'´¯))¸.·'´¯)¸.·'´¯))

For me , said Sherlock Holmes, "there still remains the cocaine bottle,"
and he reached his hand up for it.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jabean
http://musicpage.kicks-ass.org/
!