Canopus ADVC100 vs. ADVC300

goshep wrote on 5/4/2004, 5:10 PM

I've read rave reviews here about the 100 and the improvement of analog video once converted. Per Canopus, the 300 is specifically designed for analog footage restoration. Has anyone used both? I'm looking for a subjective comparison that justifies the (considerable) additional cost of the 300. I don't anticipate ever working with horribly degraded footage but if there is an untapped market for this type of restoration, I'd certainly like to know about it.
Specifically:

1. Is the 100 (combined with the color correction of Vegas) sufficient for restoration of marginally degraded footage?

2. Would the 300 be overkill for marginally degraded footage? Or would the footage be so dramatically improved that one might drool upon viewing it?

As always, thanks in advance.

Comments

kosins wrote on 5/4/2004, 5:52 PM

I just acquired a 300 to play around with.
So far, I've found it reliable, easy to use, and friendly to operate.
At this point, I don't think it's going to produce "Oh my God" miracle results for old VHS tapes, but it is certainly an interesting piece of of equipment.

In the weeks to come, I'll use it to experiment with an an old U2 "Rattle and Hum" VHS videotape that has been played a thousand times (at least), and I'll channel it to my computers, and to several of these new "home DVD recorders" at the same time.

I'll let ya know what I think, then.

John

goshep wrote on 5/4/2004, 6:13 PM

Excellent. I look forward to your "report."