AIW 2006 PCI Express

[Barry Watzman]

That is a private label device sold by CompUSA. There is no way to know
for sure what it is or what it's going to do.

The aspect ratio of broadcast TV is 4:3. Any time you try to convert
this into an aspect ratio other than 4:3 (and 740x480 is VERY different
from 4:3), something "bad" is going to happen. It could be bars, or it
could be (fairly gross) image distortion, but there's no way to map a
4:3 aspect ratio image into 720x480 and get an undistorted full-screen
image.

While 640x480 is 4:3, an NTSC TV signal doesn't have a horizontal
resolution of 640 lines, so you may get some artifacts that way also.
The exact determination of what is going to happen is so dependant on
the hardware used (and the software, and the format) that it's not
possible to do much in terms of making predictions, you just have to try
it and see what you get.


mga wrote:

 

[mga]

That is a private label device sold by CompUSA. There is no way to know
for sure what it is or what it's going to do.

The aspect ratio of broadcast TV is 4:3. Any time you try to convert
this into an aspect ratio other than 4:3 (and 740x480 is VERY different
from 4:3), something "bad" is going to happen. It could be bars, or it
could be (fairly gross) image distortion, but there's no way to map a
4:3 aspect ratio image into 720x480 and get an undistorted full-screen
image.

While 640x480 is 4:3, an NTSC TV signal doesn't have a horizontal
resolution of 640 lines, so you may get some artifacts that way also.
The exact determination of what is going to happen is so dependant on
the hardware used (and the software, and the format) that it's not
possible to do much in terms of making predictions, you just have to try
it and see what you get.


mga wrote:

Are you sure 640x480 is the right format ;I know 640/480=1.33, the
aspect ratio of regular TV's, however the DVD standard appears to be
720x480, for example if I ask Ulead Videostudio to create a DVD file,
it will do so at 720x480.

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

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

It depends on the capture method.

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.

Oh please. The Hauppage cards are hardware based encoders that use an
encoding algorithm that's over 5 years old. Those who care about "quality",
and actually know what that is, capture to uncompressed avi format and then
convert to mpeg format with a high quality, multipass s/w encoder. Connect
the S-video output from your VCR to the S-video input of the AIW card and
capture in 720X480 uncompressed avi format, then convert to mpeg.

While I used to agree with most of J Clarke's recommendations, the idea that
you need to purchase a DV camcorder with analog pass-through is just as
flawed. An AIW is, in fact, an analog pass-through device when capturing to
uncompressed avi format, and a hell of a lot less expensive.

I'll match my uncompressed avi captures done with a AIW 9600 (or any AIW
card for that matter) and then subsequently encoded with dual pass VBR
encoding via Procorder or CCE with _any_ capture from a Hauppage card.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on in this ng.

 

[mga]

It depends on the capture method.


Oh please. The Hauppage cards are hardware based encoders that use an
encoding algorithm that's over 5 years old. Those who care about "quality",
and actually know what that is, capture to uncompressed avi format and then
convert to mpeg format with a high quality, multipass s/w encoder. Connect
the S-video output from your VCR to the S-video input of the AIW card and
capture in 720X480 uncompressed avi format, then convert to mpeg.

While I used to agree with most of J Clarke's recommendations, the idea that
you need to purchase a DV camcorder with analog pass-through is just as
flawed. An AIW is, in fact, an analog pass-through device when capturing to
uncompressed avi format, and a hell of a lot less expensive.

I'll match my uncompressed avi captures done with a AIW 9600 (or any AIW
card for that matter) and then subsequently encoded with dual pass VBR
encoding via Procorder or CCE with _any_ capture from a Hauppage card.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on in this ng.

If you have read my posts you know that my AIW 2006 does not display or
record properly ANY input from any VHS, except when it is a recording
of the TV into a VHS; and no, they don't have Macrovision, except 2 of
them.

Recording to AVI is exactly what I want to do, uncompressed or with
HuffYUV compression. Which one is better? If I record in Videostudio,
it records AVI uncompressed video using 16 bits, but AVI with HuffYUV
video is recorded with 24 bits, is that "standard"? I suppose that
means that if HuffYUV is really lossless, it is much better than
uncompressed.

If I capture AVI video with a USB 2 device, how much if any does the
video card influence the quality of the capturer?

 

[J. Clarke]

It depends on the capture method.


Oh please. The Hauppage cards are hardware based encoders that use an
encoding algorithm that's over 5 years old. Those who care about
"quality", and actually know what that is, capture to uncompressed avi
format and then convert to mpeg format with a high quality, multipass s/w
encoder. Connect the S-video output from your VCR to the S-video input of
the AIW card and capture in 720X480 uncompressed avi format, then convert
to mpeg.

While I used to agree with most of J Clarke's recommendations, the idea
that you need to purchase a DV camcorder with analog pass-through is just
as flawed. An AIW is, in fact, an analog pass-through device when
capturing to uncompressed avi format, and a hell of a lot less expensive.

I didn't say he _needed_ to. One can capture some kind of image with the
cheapest piece of crap CompUSA sells. However my impression was that the
OP was interested in _quality_ and for that the ADC in the camcorder or
ADVC100 seems experientally to be significantly superior to the one in the
AIW.

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

If you have read my posts you know that my AIW 2006 does not display or

record properly ANY input from any VHS, except when it is a recording
of the TV into a VHS; and no, they don't have Macrovision, except 2 of
them.

Didn't/don't have time to wade through all the posts but you have a AIW
7500, correct? Then use it and the included MMC s/w and capture at 720X480,
48mHz, uncompressed (or HuffYUV) avi. Then find a s/w encoder, convert to
mpeg and burn it to DVD, which is what I assume you're trying to do.

I have no experience with the AIW 2006 but if you're having problems with
Macrovision, I'd suspect the s/w that came with it is the culprit.

Recording to AVI is exactly what I want to do, uncompressed or with
HuffYUV compression. Which one is better? If I record in Videostudio,

Essentially the same. I've got the hd space so I use uncompressed. I have no
experience with Videostudio.

it records AVI uncompressed video using 16 bits, but AVI with HuffYUV
video is recorded with 24 bits, is that "standard"? I suppose that
means that if HuffYUV is really lossless, it is much better than
uncompressed.

Nothing is better than uncompressed but HuffYUV is indistinguishable from
uncompressed. And HuffYUV is not lossless but what you actually "lose" is
virtually insignificant.

If I capture AVI video with a USB 2 device, how much if any does the
video card influence the quality of the capturer?

I have no experience with USB devices, but again, you don't need one. You
already have everything you need except the s/w encoder. Check out
videohelp.com as they used to have step by step instructions.

Good luck

 

[mga]

Essentially the same. I've got the hd space so I use uncompressed. I have no
experience with Videostudio.


Nothing is better than uncompressed but HuffYUV is indistinguishable from
uncompressed. And HuffYUV is not lossless but what you actually "lose" is
virtually insignificant.

Why is AVI uncompressed only 16 bits, and not 24 or more?
If HuffYUV is virtually lossless, why is it that at 24 bits it is not
better than 16 bits uncompressed? 24 bits of information is waaaaay
more than 50% more information than 16 bits (exponential vs
multiplicative increment of data).

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

I didn't say he _needed_ to. One can capture some kind of image with the

cheapest piece of crap CompUSA sells. However my impression was that the
OP was interested in _quality_ and for that the ADC in the camcorder or
ADVC100 seems experientally to be significantly superior to the one in the
AIW.

I was under the impression his main problem was with Macrovision and he was
preparing to do what every other newbie does, throw money out the window
trying to correct a problem that wasn't h/w related. I believe his "quality"
concerns were for a USB device.

And when someone suggested the pos Hauppage cards and stated AIW cards were
inferior to them, my bullshit detector started alarming off the charts.

To the OP: you can either ask to be spoonfed information and receive
totally erroneous replies (as is frequently the case on Usenet), or you can
go to the website I suggested and learn the correct information for
yourself. Had you done so, you would have ended up here:

http://www.videohelp.com/guides.php?guideid=358&howtoselect=9;45#358

which would have linked you to here:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/dvdguides/capture/atiavi/atiavi.htm

and you would have learned the correct way to capture avi files, for
yourself. You then would have noticed this page:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/dvdguides/convert/tmpgenc/tmpgenc.htm

which would have giving you the info you need to s/w encode the resultant
avi file with a _free_ encoder (at least for 14 days) that would far surpass
any piece of pos Happauge card encode.

You're getting bogged down in the bits and bytes of what you're trying to do
and not learning, and more importantly, understanding, a thing. If you want
to learn something, you have to put for a little effort on your own.

Having spoonfed you all this information, I guess I should throw a towel
over my shoulder and burp you now.

 

[mga]

" I was under the impression..."

You should first learn how to read and comprehend before making stupid
statements. As I told you before, read before you write.
"Impressions" are no substitute for knowledge and sound reasoning, try
it before opening your mouth once in a while.

" And when someone suggested the pos Hauppage cards and stated AIW cards were
inferior to them, my bullshit detector started alarming off the charts."

If the AIW card is so great, then why does it think that all my VHS
tapes have Macrovision? And if it doesn't think that they have
Macrovision, then why can't it play/record them?

" To the OP: you can either ask to be spoonfed information..."

I certainly haven't gotten anything but bullshit spoonfed from you pal.


" You're getting bogged down in the bits and bytes of what you're
trying to do

and not learning, and more importantly, understanding, a thing. If you want
to learn something, you have to put for a little effort on your own."

"bits and bytes"!!! Computers too complicated for you?

" Having spoonfed you all this information, I guess I should throw a towel
over my shoulder and burp you now."

What information? If you understand the stuff, then why haven't you
answered any of the questions I have asked?

The only thing you are correct about is that it is better to encode
with software, assuming the person knows what he is doing, than to be
limited by the hardware encoder. But then, there are only two choices
as to which one is better, so even a dumbass like you will be right 50%
of the time.

..

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

You should first learn how to read and comprehend before making stupid

wtmkf

 

[mga]

The only other thing I can think of is looking out for one of the devices
that remove the macrovision e.g. macrovision busters.

Haven't tried one of these with a video capture card, friend used to use one
now and again for backing up video tapes.

Just another option to think of if things get really sticky.

Karl

After doing more experimentation, the problem appears to be not one of
Macrovision, but just that the card has either a software or hardware
design flaw.

I "know" that because it correctly recognizes my Macrovision VHS and
completely sabotages the display or recording; however, the effect on
the non-Macrovision tapes is different, they play, however I get the
effects described before. So unless the Macrovision has different
effects on different tapes, which I doubt as it would be a waste of
software or hardware encoding, then the card is distinguishing two
types of tapes:
Macrovision: I can't even view it.
Non-Macrovision: I can view it, but with errors; this indicates to me
that there is some hardware or software design flaw, unless the
geniuses at ATI designed it on purpose so that the buyers can't even
view VHS tapes.

I doubt it very much that it is a physical issue with my card because
it does everything else just fine such as recording from TV, or even
more relevant to my conclussion, if I play a blank tape, it recognizes
as a "good" tape.

I think the bottom line is that ATI has designed this card too
sensitive to imperfections in the tapes. As I said before, my AIW 7500
Radeon didn't have these issues.

On a separate note, I bought yesterday a USB 2 capture device to do
some more experimentation, and the VHS tapes are captured perfectly
through it. It plays and records ALL my tapes, including the ones with
Macrovision, so one of the things it accomplishes is to get rid of
Macrovision.

Thanks.

 

[Barry Watzman]

Oh please. The Hauppage cards are hardware based encoders that use an
encoding algorithm that's over 5 years old. Those who care about "quality",
and actually know what that is, capture to uncompressed avi format and then
convert to mpeg format with a high quality, multipass s/w encoder. Connect
the S-video output from your VCR to the S-video input of the AIW card and
capture in 720X480 uncompressed avi format, then convert to mpeg.

Well, that fine if you are buying the card for capture. But if you are
buing the card to be the tuner card of an MCE system (Windows XP Media
Center Edition), the specs for MCE REQUIRE that the card capture to
encoded MPEG. It's not an option. There are very few approved MCE
tuner devices (None of the ATI "TV Wonder" products are approved), and
that WAS the basis for my selection. However, the capture is still
better than ANYTHING I get from any ATI card that I've ever used (which
is most of the cards over the past 10 years, but not the very most
recent cards). However, for pure video work (VHS to DVD), I do use a
Digital-8 camcorder with pass-through conversion to capture uncompressed
AVI.

I'll match my uncompressed avi captures done with a AIW 9600 (or any AIW
card for that matter) and then subsequently encoded with dual pass VBR
encoding via Procorder or CCE with _any_ capture from a Hauppage card.

This system has an AIW 8500 (I've also used the 8500DV), and other
systems that I have recently used had an AIW 7500. You would lose using
any of those cards vs. the Hauppauge PVR-150MCE. And the dimensions of
the loss would be staggering. I make no comment on any newer ATI cards
or any other Hauppauge products.

 

[mga]

Barry, have you used the DVI or VGA outputs to connect any of your
cards with a television? If you have done, what kind of results did you
get?

 

[Barry Watzman]

I have used all 3 outputs (not at the same time). DVI for my main
computer, S-Video for the 50-inch (1996 model) Hitachi projection TV,
and VGA for some other monitors. All work as expected. No TV set,
including an old-style projection TV, can really display a Windows
desktop via a TV input (e.g. S-Video), but it's the best you can do.
Hope to replace that set with an HDTV that has a digital input later
this year.

 

[mga]

I have used all 3 outputs (not at the same time). DVI for my main
computer, S-Video for the 50-inch (1996 model) Hitachi projection TV,
and VGA for some other monitors. All work as expected.

I have never had a problem with that function of the card either.

No TV set,
including an old-style projection TV, can really display a Windows
desktop via a TV input (e.g. S-Video),

They can, and I have used it through the S-video; at one time my TV was
my monitor for about a year. Of course the resolution is terrible.

Hope to replace that set with an HDTV that has a digital input later
this year.

This is what I am referring to; since you have never done it, have you
seen it first hand with the input through the VGA or the DVI (the TV
will have a HDMI input, but there are adaptors). And if you have seen
it, how good it? I intend to buy a HDTV too.

 

[Barry Watzman]

They can, and I have used it through the S-video; at one time my TV was
my monitor for about a year. Of course the resolution is terrible.

That's all that I meant. Even set for just 800x600, you can't easily
read just normal fonts (not large size) on a TV. The image is there,
but good luck trying to work with it unless you either lower the
resolution or increase the font sizes. It's pretty awful to use for
your normal windows desktop.

This is what I am referring to; since you have never done it, have you
seen it first hand with the input through the VGA or the DVI (the TV
will have a HDMI input, but there are adaptors).

Actually, some HDTVs do have DVI inputs; otherwise, as you note, you get
a DVI to HDMI adapter (DVI and HDMI are electrically the same, but the
connector is different to include audio and video in the same
connector). No, I have not tried it, but it should work. The trick
will be using a video card that can output the TV's native resolution so
the HDTV doesn't have to "scale" anything. On a direct-view LCD or
Plasma set, it would be pixel-for-pixel. On any type microdisplay
projection set (DLP, LCD, HD-ILA, etc.) it's still pixel for pixel, but
single pixel resolution MIGHT suffer from the effects of the projection
optics.

 

[J. Clarke]

That's all that I meant. Even set for just 800x600, you can't easily
read just normal fonts (not large size) on a TV. The image is there,
but good luck trying to work with it unless you either lower the
resolution or increase the font sizes. It's pretty awful to use for
your normal windows desktop.


Actually, some HDTVs do have DVI inputs; otherwise, as you note, you get
a DVI to HDMI adapter (DVI and HDMI are electrically the same, but the
connector is different to include audio and video in the same
connector). No, I have not tried it, but it should work. The trick
will be using a video card that can output the TV's native resolution so
the HDTV doesn't have to "scale" anything. On a direct-view LCD or
Plasma set, it would be pixel-for-pixel. On any type microdisplay
projection set (DLP, LCD, HD-ILA, etc.) it's still pixel for pixel, but
single pixel resolution MIGHT suffer from the effects of the projection
optics.

Really depends on the TV. Some have one or two video modes that they
recognize and you have to diddle with PowerStrip until you hit the settings
that it likes, others work pretty much like any other autosynchronizing
monitor. The 37 inch and 42 inch 1920x1080 models from Benq, Sceptre, and
Westinghouse work exceedingly well as computer monitors. So do the Epson
and Sanyo XGA and better front projectors.

 

[mga]

Really depends on the TV. Some have one or two video modes that they
recognize and you have to diddle with PowerStrip until you hit the settings
that it likes, others work pretty much like any other autosynchronizing
monitor. The 37 inch and 42 inch 1920x1080 models from Benq, Sceptre, and
Westinghouse work exceedingly well as computer monitors. So do the Epson
and Sanyo XGA and better front projectors.

Have you seen any of the mentioned tv's in action, as tv's and as
computer displays? Do you have model numbers?

Are you familiar with any of these?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...t03001+pcmcat95100050019&id=pcmcat95100050044

 

[J. Clarke]

Have you seen any of the mentioned tv's in action, as tv's and as
computer displays? Do you have model numbers?

Are you familiar with any of these?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...t03001+pcmcat95100050019&id=pcmcat95100050044

A friend of mine has the Sceptre, which he uses as his primary monitor--he's
visually impaired and the big screen helps quite a lot. The Benq and
Westinghouse, which also use Chinese panels (the Chinese stole a march on
the industry by being first to market with 1920x1080 direct-view LCDs) are
similar in function but differ in features (mostly a matter of how many and
what kind of inputs are available). The Westinghouse models would be the
LVM37w3 and the LVM42w2. Once you get the picture adjusted (front panel
controls on the monitor) either should be pixel-perfect the same as any
other LCD.

As a TV the Sceptre is very nice, sharpness is of course outstanding, and
the HD tuner is quite good--it manages to pull in signals that an HDTV
Wonder won't. If it has a shortcoming it's that the color seems not quite
as intense as on some other sets, but I haven't ever had an opportunity to
put one side by side with say a Sharp Aquos and then tweak both to see if
it's an adjustment or a design issue.

 

[mga]

When watching TV with the card; Do the letters scrolling at the bottom
of shows like those on CNBC or Fox News scroll smoothly on your
computer as they do on a normal television?