OT: Canopus ADVC 110 vs Pyro AV-Link ?

will-3 wrote on 11/25/2009, 3:01 PM
We want a device to...
... convert s-video to firewire
... convert firewire to s-video

in a studio environment

Canopus ADVC 110 is about $200
Grass Valley Pyro AV Link is about $135

Does the Canopus convert at a higher resolution or does the Pyro drop more frames or what?

Thanks for any comments on what is different about these two devices.

Thanks for any help.

Comments

ushere wrote on 11/25/2009, 3:40 PM
... convert firewire to s-video ?

curious.

PLS wrote on 11/25/2009, 4:30 PM
I have both units (well the ADVC 100 which is the older version of the 110) and the resolution and quality is the same from both... if anything the audio seems a little louder from the Pyro. Only real difference is the build quality... the ADVC 100 seems more robust. Also I have heard a few folks having quality issues with the Pyro and having to return them. That said the Pyro customer support is very good and they replace them without issue.
farss wrote on 11/25/2009, 5:07 PM
What sources?
If anything such as VHS or BetacamSP then the extra money for the ADVC-300 could be well spent. IF all your analog sources have their own timebase correctors ignore this.

Bob.

will-3 wrote on 11/25/2009, 6:08 PM
farss, are you saying the Pyro AV-Link will cause the video and audio to be out of sync?

We are not working with VHS or BetacamSP but we are running video from a number of sources through an an analog (s-video) video-mixer.

And we are running the audio through an audio mixer.

We will take the audio fom the audio mixer... and the s-video from the analog mixer and route it to either a pyro or canopus box to get everything back to digital firewire.

At least that is the plan right now.

thanks for any comments.






Coursedesign wrote on 11/25/2009, 7:16 PM
Bob is talking about using box like ADVC300 which has a built-in Time Base Corrector.

This is not for audio syncing, but for correcting analog video frames that have screwed up video timing from tape problems.

If your picture is always rock steady, you don't need it, otherwise you do.

I'd go with the Canopus over the Pyro, for exactly the reasons you gave (they match my experience and that of others I know).

kkolbo wrote on 11/25/2009, 9:15 PM
If I were just doing S-Video, I would go with the Canopus for all the same reasons and the same experience. Your Beta SP though could change the game. The Pryos that I have, have component in, which would be a better way to get your Beta SP into DV.
farss wrote on 11/25/2009, 9:41 PM
A number of thoughts come to mind.

1) S-Video needs to be handled with care. I assume you'll have long cable runs out to cameras. i've heard it's quite easy to get Y/C delay problems i.e. the luma and chroma components have different delays through their cables.
Another issue is most S-Video cable is pretty bad compared to the coax used for composite.

2) I don't know of any current mixer that is actually analog. For example the Panny MX50 is analog in/out but is digitial internally. One issue with that old workhorse is it is only a single field mixer. Soft images are the result. On the upside delay through the mixer is less than 1 frame so no A/V sync issues.

Be carefull if you decide to go digital. Firewire produces a lot of delay making it useless for switching / mixing in an auditorium. Only workable solution we've found is the SDI mixers. The mixers are pretty cheap these days but the cameras with SDI are still relatively expensive.

Give due consideration to the ergonomics of any mixer. They're useless if they're hard to use. Allow one monitor per input too.

Bob.