AIW 2006 PCI Express

  • Thread starter Thread starter mga
  • Start date Start date
mga said:
Do you know anthing about the quality of capture from these USB
devices?
Do you know if any of them capture in AVI format?
Click to expand...

If you are looking to capture from a VCR and actually care about quality,
then get a DV camcorder with analog pass-through and capture via the
Firewire port. Canopus makes some capture devices that take an analog
input and give you a Firewire output with excellent quality, but the least
expensive of them doesn't work demonstrably better than a camcorder and
isn't any cheaper. The Canopus ADVC100 IIRC ignored Macrovision, the newer
ADVC110 however recognizes it. Not sure whether current-production
camcorders recognize it.
 
J. Clarke said:
If you are looking to capture from a VCR and actually care about quality,
then get a DV camcorder with analog pass-through and capture via the
Firewire port. Canopus makes some capture devices that take an analog
input and give you a Firewire output with excellent quality, but the least
expensive of them doesn't work demonstrably better than a camcorder and
isn't any cheaper. The Canopus ADVC100 IIRC ignored Macrovision, the newer
ADVC110 however recognizes it. Not sure whether current-production
camcorders recognize it.
Click to expand...

Any specific recomendations on the DV camcorder?

Curious, I don't need to do any of this to capture in AVI or any other
format with the AIW 7500; I guess that's progress.
 
J. Clarke said:
If you are looking to capture from a VCR and actually care about quality,
then get a DV camcorder with analog pass-through and capture via the
Firewire port. Canopus makes some capture devices that take an analog
input and give you a Firewire output with excellent quality, but the least
expensive of them doesn't work demonstrably better than a camcorder and
isn't any cheaper. The Canopus ADVC100 IIRC ignored Macrovision, the newer
ADVC110 however recognizes it. Not sure whether current-production
camcorders recognize it.
Click to expand...

Which specific camcorders are you talking about?; the only ones I see
that have analog input and computer output are $600 or more at Circuit
City.
 
Some USB capture devices are good, some are bad, some capture in AVI,
some capture in compressed formats (MPEG2, most commonly).

The BEST capture device, BY FAR, is a Digital Camcorder with
"pass-through" conversion. Nothing else is even close, really. This
feature was found on all but a very few (of the lowest-end) Sony
Digital-8 camcorders. I'm not certain as to it's availability on other
brands or mini-DV models, but I think that some other formats/brands do
have it, although not as commonly (the feature was present in Digital-8
models to allow them to playback analog Hi-8 and 8mm tapes ....
"pass-through" conversion was almost an accident, but it was a truly
wonderful accident).

Also, if quality really counts, find a JVC Super-VHS VCR with
"Digi-Pure" technology (most of the HR-S7000U through HR-S9911U models
have this). It's digital time base correction and noise reduction, and
it gives spectacularly good rendition of VHS recordings. The models in
the 9000 series are the best ones, they have a large 4MB frame buffer
and more advanced circuitry. You can find these on E-Bay at reasonable
prices (sometimes under $100 for the low-end models to about $250 for
the top of the line late 9000-series models).
 
If you are willing to buy a digital camcorder as a video capture device,
look for a used Sony Digital-8 camcorder on E-Bay. Most, BUT NOT ALL,
of these have this feature. The model numbers are DCR-TRVnm0, where n
and m are numbers.

"n" is the "grade" within a product generation, e.g. a DCR-TRV330 is one
model up from a DCR-TRV230. Most of the "grade 2" models, and some
grade "3's", do not have this feature.

"m" is the "product generation", e.g. a DCR-TRV350 is "two generations"
later than a DCR-TRV330. [I think that the current, and probably last
generation is "8" [the Digital-8 format is dying, although personally I
like it very much].

Sony gave me this list of Digital-8 models which they say do have
pass-through digital conversion:

DCR-TRV330
DCR-TRV530
DCR-TRV730
DCR-TRV340
DCR-TRV350
DCR-TRV460
DCR-TRV380
DCR-TRV480

But I suggest that you verify this prior to purchase. Some of these can
be found used on E-Bay at good prices ($100 to $150 range).


mga wrote:
 
Barry said:
Some USB capture devices are good, some are bad, some capture in AVI,
some capture in compressed formats (MPEG2, most commonly).

The BEST capture device, BY FAR, is a Digital Camcorder with
"pass-through" conversion. Nothing else is even close, really. This
feature was found on all but a very few (of the lowest-end) Sony
Digital-8 camcorders. I'm not certain as to it's availability on other
brands or mini-DV models, but I think that some other formats/brands do
have it, although not as commonly (the feature was present in Digital-8
models to allow them to playback analog Hi-8 and 8mm tapes ....
"pass-through" conversion was almost an accident, but it was a truly
wonderful accident).

Also, if quality really counts, find a JVC Super-VHS VCR with
"Digi-Pure" technology (most of the HR-S7000U through HR-S9911U models
have this). It's digital time base correction and noise reduction, and
it gives spectacularly good rendition of VHS recordings. The models in
the 9000 series are the best ones, they have a large 4MB frame buffer
and more advanced circuitry. You can find these on E-Bay at reasonable
prices (sometimes under $100 for the low-end models to about $250 for
the top of the line late 9000-series models).
Click to expand...

Do you have any experience with the JVC super-VHS mentioned? I have 2
of the S3800 models.

Which of the USB capture devices are good, preferably talking from
first hand experience?

Do you have any experience with the Canopus devices (model 55 or 100)?
Are they better than using a camcorder with pass-through?
 
Yes, I have an HR-S9800U that I bought on E-Bay for this purpose, and it
is wonderful. I have some of the lower end products as well. But the
high-end models (9500U to 9911U) are noticeably better than the lower
end models.

I don't have first-hand experience with any of the stand-alone USB
capture devices.
 
Barry said:
Yes, I have an HR-S9800U that I bought on E-Bay for this purpose, and it
is wonderful.
Click to expand...

Are you using it in conjunction with the wonderfull AIW 2006 PCI
Express card? If not, which one?
 
No, I use the JVC VCR with a Sony DCR-TRV530 Digital-8 Camcorder to do
the conversion and capture.

I've owned almost every ATI AIW card since the first Rage-base cards a
decade ago, probably about 3 dozen cards in multiple systems over a
decade. I bought an AIW 2006 PCIx for the Conroe PC that I'm going to
build (I got a deal on it, $112 new retail); this system (my current
system) has an AIW 8500 in it. The AIW 2006 has thus not yet ever been
used.

But I would never use an ATI AIW card for serious recording (anything,
tuner or video), ATI's video quality really isn't that good, I just like
the convenience of having the tuner in the video card and the quality is
acceptable for watching TV while I'm working, which is what I use it
for. The media center PC in the family room has a Hauppauge tuner card
(two, in fact, PVR-150MCE) in it. There is no comparision in the video
quality. ATI's video quality is far inferior, not even in the same
league as the Hauppauge cards.
 
Barry said:
If you are willing to buy a digital camcorder as a video capture device,
look for a used Sony Digital-8 camcorder on E-Bay. Most, BUT NOT ALL,
of these have this feature. The model numbers are DCR-TRVnm0, where n
and m are numbers.

"n" is the "grade" within a product generation, e.g. a DCR-TRV330 is one
model up from a DCR-TRV230. Most of the "grade 2" models, and some
grade "3's", do not have this feature.

"m" is the "product generation", e.g. a DCR-TRV350 is "two generations"
later than a DCR-TRV330. [I think that the current, and probably last
generation is "8" [the Digital-8 format is dying, although personally I
like it very much].

Sony gave me this list of Digital-8 models which they say do have
pass-through digital conversion:

DCR-TRV330
DCR-TRV530
DCR-TRV730
DCR-TRV340
DCR-TRV350
DCR-TRV460
DCR-TRV380
DCR-TRV480

But I suggest that you verify this prior to purchase. Some of these can
be found used on E-Bay at good prices ($100 to $150 range).


mga wrote:

Which specific camcorders are you talking about?; the only ones I see
that have analog input and computer output are $600 or more at Circuit
City.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info.
 
Barry said:
No, I use the JVC VCR with a Sony DCR-TRV530 Digital-8 Camcorder to do
the conversion and capture.

I've owned almost every ATI AIW card since the first Rage-base cards a
decade ago, probably about 3 dozen cards in multiple systems over a
decade. I bought an AIW 2006 PCIx for the Conroe PC that I'm going to
build (I got a deal on it, $112 new retail); this system (my current
system) has an AIW 8500 in it. The AIW 2006 has thus not yet ever been
used.

But I would never use an ATI AIW card for serious recording (anything,
tuner or video), ATI's video quality really isn't that good, I just like
the convenience of having the tuner in the video card and the quality is
acceptable for watching TV while I'm working, which is what I use it
for. The media center PC in the family room has a Hauppauge tuner card
(two, in fact, PVR-150MCE) in it. There is no comparision in the video
quality. ATI's video quality is far inferior, not even in the same
league as the Hauppauge cards.
Click to expand...

You are starting to confuse me; If the quality in the PVR-150MCE is
better than the AIW cards, and they are cheaper ($65 at Amazon vs $129
I paid for the AIW), then why do you have the AIW in your work computer
and not the PVR-150MCE.

Not giving you a hard time, I just want to know as much as posible
before buying more stuff.
 
The AIW card is a video card and a tuner card "All-in-One" (catchy,
right? Might be the basis of a good product name).

The Hauppauge card is a tuner card only (you need a separate video card).
 
Barry said:
The AIW card is a video card and a tuner card "All-in-One" (catchy,
right? Might be the basis of a good product name).

The Hauppauge card is a tuner card only (you need a separate video card).
Click to expand...

So you are using another video card in conjunction with the Hauppauge?
That's what I thought before I wrote the last message but I am trying
to fill in all the blanks.

How would you compare the recording quality of the Hauppauge 150
against going with the VCR-Camcorder-Computer method, discounting for
the differences in VCR's (my 3800 against your 9800)? Or to cut the
question into pieces:

1) How would you compare the recording quality of the Hauppauge 150
using a JVC 9800 against going with the JVC9800 VCR-Camcorder-Computer
method?

2) How would you compare the recording quality of the JVC 3800 going
thru either the Hauppauge 150 or the VCR-Camcorder-Computer method
(whichever method you have used) or the same method using the JVC 9800?

You mentioned earlier that there is a noticeable difference between the
9800 and earlier models; can you be more specific?

Much appreciated.
 
Yes, the video card is an AGP ATI Radeon 9600. The Hauppauge PVR-150MCE
is JUST a PCI TV tuner card (and, in fact, I have two of them installed
in this one computer, to be able to either record two shows on two
different channels at the same time, or watch one show while recording
another). Hauppauge actually makes an external USB version of the
tuner, the WinTV-PVR. [They also make another USB tuner, the WinTV-USB,
which I would recommend that you avoid, because it cannot be used as a
tuner for Windows XP Media Center Edition.]

The high-end VCR to Camcorder is far superior to any RF based capture.
Recording through a tuner means using an RF signal, which limits the
bandwidth to about 350 lines of resolution. You can do somewhat better
than that using high-end equipment and S-Video connections. The
Hauppauge can also capture video directly (composite or S-Video), but
I've never tried that, I don't know how well it would work. In my view,
it could not be better than using the camcorder as a capture device.
[And I might add that I have an FCC license and have worked as a TV
broadcast engineer, so I'm more cognizant of the technical issues than
most people].

I can't comment on the JVC 3800, except to say that it's nothing like
the 9800. I didn't say that there was a difference between the 9800 and
earlier models, I said that there was a difference between the 9800 and
lower end models. The 9000-series models (actually I think 9500 to
9911) are the highest end consumer VCRs that JVC made, with digital time
base correction and noise reduction. These models are simply head and
shoulders above typical consumer VCRs (even S-VHS VCRs), and also above
the 7000 series (some of which do have digital frame buffers, time base
correction and noise reduction, but it's far less sophisticated).
 
Barry said:
Yes, the video card is an AGP ATI Radeon 9600. The Hauppauge PVR-150MCE
is JUST a PCI TV tuner card (and, in fact, I have two of them installed
in this one computer, to be able to either record two shows on two
different channels at the same time, or watch one show while recording
another). Hauppauge actually makes an external USB version of the
tuner, the WinTV-PVR. [They also make another USB tuner, the WinTV-USB,
which I would recommend that you avoid, because it cannot be used as a
tuner for Windows XP Media Center Edition.]

The high-end VCR to Camcorder is far superior to any RF based capture.
Recording through a tuner means using an RF signal, which limits the
bandwidth to about 350 lines of resolution. You can do somewhat better
than that using high-end equipment and S-Video connections. The
Hauppauge can also capture video directly (composite or S-Video), but
I've never tried that, I don't know how well it would work. In my view,
it could not be better than using the camcorder as a capture device.
[And I might add that I have an FCC license and have worked as a TV
broadcast engineer, so I'm more cognizant of the technical issues than
most people].

I can't comment on the JVC 3800, except to say that it's nothing like
the 9800. I didn't say that there was a difference between the 9800 and
earlier models, I said that there was a difference between the 9800 and
lower end models. The 9000-series models (actually I think 9500 to
9911) are the highest end consumer VCRs that JVC made, with digital time
base correction and noise reduction. These models are simply head and
shoulders above typical consumer VCRs (even S-VHS VCRs), and also above
the 7000 series (some of which do have digital frame buffers, time base
correction and noise reduction, but it's far less sophisticated).

So you are using another video card in conjunction with the Hauppauge?
That's what I thought before I wrote the last message but I am trying
to fill in all the blanks.

How would you compare the recording quality of the Hauppauge 150
against going with the VCR-Camcorder-Computer method, discounting for
the differences in VCR's (my 3800 against your 9800)? Or to cut the
question into pieces:

1) How would you compare the recording quality of the Hauppauge 150
using a JVC 9800 against going with the JVC9800 VCR-Camcorder-Computer
method?

2) How would you compare the recording quality of the JVC 3800 going
thru either the Hauppauge 150 or the VCR-Camcorder-Computer method
(whichever method you have used) or the same method using the JVC 9800?

You mentioned earlier that there is a noticeable difference between the
9800 and earlier models; can you be more specific?

Much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I have 0 intention of doing any capture thru the RF; I will do it
through the S-video, that's why I got 2 JVC 3800's and the AIW 7500 5
years ago.

I also have a Hauppauge TV card from about 8 years ago (RF input only)
and it was great (I still have it).

The last time I had checked years ago, Hauppauge didn't have any
S-video cards, so I didn't consider it this time (I always only looked
at ATI and Nvidia, which I don't think have made any). They have the
one you have on sale right now for $80 at Circuit City and Compusa, so
I will get it.

Are you sure RF is 350 lines? I alway thought it was 240 lines, same as
regular VHS, and SVHS is 400 lines. Or maybe that's the limit, but in
practice it has not been used to full capacity?

Both the SVHS and the camcorder you have are on sale right now at Ebay,
so I will try to get them.

Thanks, and on a sidenote, if you ever have any insurance related
questions, especially regarding extended warranties, I will be glad to
help.
 
I thouht you were going to go the other way (arguing for more than 350
lines).

320 to 350 is about an absolute best case maximum, but 240 is really low
end.

It depends a LOT on the equipment, and on the nature and source of the
video stream (both the ORIGINAL source, when the image was made, the
source that you are recording from (presumably some type of a recording
of the original), and on the entire history of everything that has ever
happened to that signal in between.

The very rough estimate is you can get about 80 lines of resolution per
MHz of video bandwidth. But that's only a rough approximation.

But pinning down the video bandwidth is very, very difficult. In a
broadcast signal, you have a sound carrier at 4.5MHz and a color
subcarrier at 3.58MHz. But the luminance information is "interleaved"
with the chroma information, so a GOOD "comb" filter can actually
recover some lumananence information beyond 3.58MHz, potentially up to
about 4.2Mhz. A non-broadcast video only image with a really good comb
filter may be able to get even a bit higher. Part of the issue also
depends on whether the chroma and lumanance signals were EVERY mixed
together into a composite signal, or whether they were ALWAYS kept
separate (S-Video keeps them separate, but once they have been mixed
together into a composite signal, subsequent separation doesn't ever
restore what was lost).

350 is pushing it (and maybe all but impossible) for a broadcast signal,
but you can definitely do better than 240 lines.
 
Barry said:
I thouht you were going to go the other way (arguing for more than 350
lines).

320 to 350 is about an absolute best case maximum, but 240 is really low
end.

It depends a LOT on the equipment, and on the nature and source of the
video stream (both the ORIGINAL source, when the image was made, the
source that you are recording from (presumably some type of a recording
of the original), and on the entire history of everything that has ever
happened to that signal in between.

The very rough estimate is you can get about 80 lines of resolution per
MHz of video bandwidth. But that's only a rough approximation.

But pinning down the video bandwidth is very, very difficult. In a
broadcast signal, you have a sound carrier at 4.5MHz and a color
subcarrier at 3.58MHz. But the luminance information is "interleaved"
with the chroma information, so a GOOD "comb" filter can actually
recover some lumananence information beyond 3.58MHz, potentially up to
about 4.2Mhz. A non-broadcast video only image with a really good comb
filter may be able to get even a bit higher. Part of the issue also
depends on whether the chroma and lumanance signals were EVERY mixed
together into a composite signal, or whether they were ALWAYS kept
separate (S-Video keeps them separate, but once they have been mixed
together into a composite signal, subsequent separation doesn't ever
restore what was lost).

350 is pushing it (and maybe all but impossible) for a broadcast signal,
but you can definitely do better than 240 lines.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood my last message; I have NO intention of
capturing anything using the RF inputs; it was just a side comment
about what the capacity of the type of signals displayed by televisions
which are as I understand:
RF: 240 lines (maybe it is capable of 350 lines as you said, I don't
know, but it's my understanding that the resolution of a TV with this
signal as input is only 240 lines; I wouldn't bet my life on it, but
that's what I understand).
Composite: 240 lines with video and audio separated.
S-Video: 400 lines with video and audio separated.
Component: 480 lines with video and audio separated, and the video is
separated into its component (chroma, luminance, and something else I
don't remember).
HD (720p, 1080i, etc).

There is an obviously huge difference between RF or Composite and
S-video (which is very apparent to my naked eye), that's why I did my
capturing a few years ago in S-video and intend to do so again.

Do you have any knowledge of any of the following:
1) Voyetra Turtle Beach Video Advantage PCI Video Capture Card
2) ADS Technologies Instant DVD+DV Video Capture
3) ADS Technologies PYRO A/V Link With Premiere Elements
 
Barry said:
I thouht you were going to go the other way (arguing for more than 350
lines).

320 to 350 is about an absolute best case maximum, but 240 is really low
end.

It depends a LOT on the equipment, and on the nature and source of the
video stream (both the ORIGINAL source, when the image was made, the
source that you are recording from (presumably some type of a recording
of the original), and on the entire history of everything that has ever
happened to that signal in between.

The very rough estimate is you can get about 80 lines of resolution per
MHz of video bandwidth. But that's only a rough approximation.

But pinning down the video bandwidth is very, very difficult. In a
broadcast signal, you have a sound carrier at 4.5MHz and a color
subcarrier at 3.58MHz. But the luminance information is "interleaved"
with the chroma information, so a GOOD "comb" filter can actually
recover some lumananence information beyond 3.58MHz, potentially up to
about 4.2Mhz. A non-broadcast video only image with a really good comb
filter may be able to get even a bit higher. Part of the issue also
depends on whether the chroma and lumanance signals were EVERY mixed
together into a composite signal, or whether they were ALWAYS kept
separate (S-Video keeps them separate, but once they have been mixed
together into a composite signal, subsequent separation doesn't ever
restore what was lost).

350 is pushing it (and maybe all but impossible) for a broadcast signal,
but you can definitely do better than 240 lines.
Click to expand...

I went out and bought the device in the link, and guess what, it views
and records with no problems, with the ATI card still attached.

http://www.compusa.com/products/pro...e=200000&product_code=318714&Pn=Video_Grabber
 
Barry said:
I thouht you were going to go the other way (arguing for more than 350
lines).

320 to 350 is about an absolute best case maximum, but 240 is really low
end.

It depends a LOT on the equipment, and on the nature and source of the
video stream (both the ORIGINAL source, when the image was made, the
source that you are recording from (presumably some type of a recording
of the original), and on the entire history of everything that has ever
happened to that signal in between.

The very rough estimate is you can get about 80 lines of resolution per
MHz of video bandwidth. But that's only a rough approximation.

But pinning down the video bandwidth is very, very difficult. In a
broadcast signal, you have a sound carrier at 4.5MHz and a color
subcarrier at 3.58MHz. But the luminance information is "interleaved"
with the chroma information, so a GOOD "comb" filter can actually
recover some lumananence information beyond 3.58MHz, potentially up to
about 4.2Mhz. A non-broadcast video only image with a really good comb
filter may be able to get even a bit higher. Part of the issue also
depends on whether the chroma and lumanance signals were EVERY mixed
together into a composite signal, or whether they were ALWAYS kept
separate (S-Video keeps them separate, but once they have been mixed
together into a composite signal, subsequent separation doesn't ever
restore what was lost).

350 is pushing it (and maybe all but impossible) for a broadcast signal,
but you can definitely do better than 240 lines.
Click to expand...
Here are a few more questions for you:

I went out and bought the device in the link, and guess what, it views
and records with no problems, with the ATI card still attached. And for
a bonus, it records the tape with Macrovision.

http://www.compusa.com/products/pro...e=200000&product_code=318714&Pn=Video_Grabber

However, when I record from the VCR with it, I get about a 1 inch black
line on the right if I record in 720x480 format; If I record in 640x480
it is smaller. With another VHS, the empty spaces are much smaller,
the 640x480 is perfect (no empty spaces on either side) and the 720x480
has about 1/4 of an inch on both the left and the right. 1) Do you know
why this happens? and 2) This probably means that the first tape is
starting to go bad, doesn't it? 3) Does the 9800 model fix problems
like this?

When recording AVi, Ulead Videostudio records 16 bit color uncompressed
or 24 bit color in AVI with HuffYUV 2.1 compression; which is better?
 
It is definitely possible to get substantially more than 240 lines of
resolution from an RF input, but actually doing so depends on the
quality of the TV set. There are cheap sets that simply use bandpass
filters to separate lumanence and chroma signals, and there are high-end
sets that use high quality comb filters (sometimes digital, sometimes
analog). You can't expect the same result from a $139 20-inch set and a
high quality projection TV costing thousands of dollars.

There is not MUCH difference between composite and RF. There can be a
HUGE difference between S-Video and either composite or RF, however.
It's theoretically possible for S-Video to deliver as much as 600 to 800
lines, since the lumanence channel can have virtually unrestricted
bandwidth, up to 8 or 10 MHz. However doing so requires a video signal
in which the chromanence and lumanence signals were NEVER co-mingled
into a single signal.

HDTV signals are digital, and there is no issue of separating different
components of an analog signal.
 
Back
Top