Comments

beerandchips wrote on 10/27/2003, 5:29 PM
Vegas capture works great. Why go with anything else?
rextilleon wrote on 10/27/2003, 9:35 PM
Yeah--and if you don't like Vegas for capture check out Scenealyzer---the best buy out there.
GL369 wrote on 10/28/2003, 7:30 AM
Sorry everyone - my question wasn't very clear. What I am curious about is if there is a difference in the capture tools. I installed the ATI All-in-Wonder 9800 on my 3 Ghz system. With that video card came the "Video In" feature. With that, I am not sure which tool will capture the video to the best quality and ease. I have tested the two ATI and VV4 with the same settings, and same clip and they look almost the same (the VV4 is a tad bit darker?). So, my thought was to ask the experts - which is a better choice and why?
I will also look up Scenealyzer...
gold wrote on 10/28/2003, 8:18 AM
I don't know but I'll do a short comment anyway. My guess is that if the program communicates with WDM, ASIO, or video for windows drivers that the capture quality would be the same (the best possible) for all programs (i.e. if the capture card settings are optimally adjusted either through the vendor control panel program or the API calls). Do you know how the two programs communicate with the capture card?
I have a similar question: if one has a video capture card (e.g., Hauppauge PVR 250 or Pinnacle DC2000 that captures directly to MPEG2) and wants to capture sound from the audio card at the same time, is there a program that can do this?
jetdv wrote on 10/28/2003, 8:59 AM
The BEST way? Ignore the "video in" port, get a converter (either a device like the Canopus ADVC-100 or your CAMERA or a deck), and capture via firewire.
gold wrote on 10/28/2003, 11:28 AM
If you can live with the lower color quality (4:1:1) of dv25 compression (no problem is using a dv50 camera) versus mpeg 2 capture (4:2:2) via an analog capture card, that is. If source is dv25 tape, then firewire is certainly better--but I get the feeling this is live NTSC capture from the original post.
Chienworks wrote on 10/28/2003, 1:33 PM
Maybe my eyes are old and bleary, but to me a 4:1:1 DV capture looks much superior to a 4:2:2 MPEG capture, at least with equipment that mere mortals can afford. Real-time hardware MPEG encoding has to make too many compromises that distort the image. Even though the color resolution may be better, the end result still looks worse than DV.
gold wrote on 10/28/2003, 4:13 PM
Believe it or not I am mortal and have access to systems that capture uncompressed video directly from the video camera (video toaster, dps velocity, etc.); my old eyes can't see much difference either unless I do single frame advances. Now once its converted to mpeg 2 the difference is smaller and my old eyes have problems too; but my technical mind knows there is a difference.