O/T Video Capture Board/Box advice...

jscorse · #1 12-04-2002, 11:31 AM

I'm in the market for a video capture 'thing' to my computer.

I'm soon to be buying a Memorex DVD burner (on sale at Staples) and I'd like to be able to capture all of my 8mm analog video and eventually my VHS movies and transfer them all to DVD.

I'm also planning on using the DVD to back up my data (mostly digital pictures...well over 5000 pictures and growing FAST).

Any techies here to provide advice on a video capture board/box?

I'm looking at the Dazzle Fusion box at 84 bucks. Seems nice.

I'd also like to be able to edit (cut and paste mostly) the video once it's captured to make 'home movies' for the rest of the family...

Thanks,
Jeff

#2 12-04-2002, 01:10 PM

Although I don't really like CREATIVE products they make a decent one. Not sure on the price, I know when we had it it was about 80 dollars.

#3 12-04-2002, 02:05 PM

Get a DV cam and a firewire port. :P

Anyway, if you don't get a specific video in board (PCI) or whatever, get a firewire card. USB is way too slow to get any decent quality transfers.

- Ca$h

immortal_suby · #4 12-04-2002, 02:40 PM

I got the ATI DV wonder firewire card for my digital 8 and it works fine - was only $30 at comp usa. It is spec'd for a P3 or 4 but works with my 200mhz POS, just a little slower.

jscorse · #5 12-05-2002, 04:49 AM

I don't have a digital camera so I can't use fire-wire or anything like that. Those solutions are certainly less expensive because the D/A has been done in the camera.

Someday I will upgrade my camera to all digital, but not yet. I don't know if they have them yet, but what I'd like to see is a digital video camera that doesn't use an 8mm tape, but a microHD to directly store the data.

Dazzle's product uses USB to capture live video from the analog (i.e. real time) camera. As this is a fixed speed thing I'd imagine that they've got all the speed they need to perform that capture.

I'll have to look into what sampling rate they allow for their product. That's what it comes down to correct? An analog camera needs to be sampled at a 60 frames per second rate to capture the full analog video actual signal if memory serves.

mohrds · #6 12-05-2002, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jscorse
I don't have a digital camera so I can't use fire-wire or anything like that. Those solutions are certainly less expensive because the D/A has been done in the camera.

Someday I will upgrade my camera to all digital, but not yet. I don't know if they have them yet, but what I'd like to see is a digital video camera that doesn't use an 8mm tape, but a microHD to directly store the data.

Dazzle's product uses USB to capture live video from the analog (i.e. real time) camera. As this is a fixed speed thing I'd imagine that they've got all the speed they need to perform that capture.

I'll have to look into what sampling rate they allow for their product. That's what it comes down to correct? An analog camera needs to be sampled at a 60 frames per second rate to capture the full analog video actual signal if memory serves.

I beleive that normal TV res is 30 fps at 525 X 394. Most video capture products under $100 will do a max of 15 fps at 320 X 240 or 30 fps at 160 x 120. I'd spend the extra money to get one that does 30fps at 640X480.

Doug

jscorse · #7 12-05-2002, 06:11 AM

Thanks... I thought it was 60 but now I remember 30 is the correct number. Obviously, I want to be able to faithfully capture the original.

I'll look more closely at capture rates.....

shoden · #8 12-05-2002, 07:33 AM

I've been looking at these since I've got one on my Christmas wish list.

The Dazzle DVC 80 captures at a resolution of up to 352 x 240 while the Dazzle DVC 100 does up to 720 x 480. Of course, the DVC 80 is around $60-$70, while the DVC 100 is $100 more.

Check out the Dazzle website for more info.

I really want one of these to get my autocross and rally videos online. I'm glad you guys were discussing this, because I hadn't even considered the resolution issue, and I don't think I'd have been happy with the DVC 80.

#9 12-05-2002, 01:48 PM

Look, USB is just plain too slow. My neighbor had a USB connected A/V box and it wasn't worth crap. Spend 14-30 dollars on a firewire card, install that on your computer, THEN get a FIREWIRE A/V box. Trust me.

- Ca$h

#10 12-05-2002, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by $VX
Look, USB is just plain too slow. My neighbor had a USB connected A/V box and it wasn't worth crap. Spend 14-30 dollars on a firewire card, install that on your computer, THEN get a FIREWIRE A/V box. Trust me.

- Ca$h

USB2 is actually faster than firewire (480vs400), but you'll need a card and both ends must be USB2 to get the speed. The card costs about the same as the firewire card, last I looked. Most DV cameras seem to be firewire, while the capture critters seem to be USB. The PC world doesn't really have this stuff all pulled together like the Mac world does.

CJ

#11 12-05-2002, 03:27 PM

Ok ok slow down or you're going to confuse everyone.

Here:

USB: Everywhere, Slow, ****ty. BLECH.

Firewire: Pretty fast, almost universal, and a very good idea.

USB2: REALLY fast, but almost nobody uses it.

My opinion? Get a firewire card. It has the transfer rate you need for video.

- Ca$h

#12 12-05-2002, 04:31 PM

My few bits of real advise are:
1) Don't go TOO cheap. Once you capture the video and the tape goes away, it's gone. If what you captured sucks, it will suck forever, so capture at a decent resolution and speed.
2) Buy the device that suits your needs and then worry about the interface (within reason).

I agree with ca$h that Usb1.1 will suck for this. Either USB2 or firewire will work fine and the cards cost about the same. I don't think the speed difference between USB2 and firewire will mean that much, so the features of the device are more important.

CJ

#13 12-06-2002, 12:31 AM

I've done a lot of this, sometimes using really expensive $2000 capture cards. Instead of getting one of those external capture devices you can often get much better results simply using a video card that has capture capability. I have a ATI Radeon 64MB VIVO that I payed $200 for about 2 or 3 years ago, but since the 3d part of it is getting obsolete you can buy it for about $58 (http://www.pcdirectsource.com/Item.cfm?ID=973) This will work very well. ATI does some of the best de-interlacing of any company in their drivers.

The results would end up much better if you could get a cheap (but still good) digital camera like this one: http://www.beachcamera.com/product_q...i=JVCGR-DVL120 for $350 and a firewire card for about $25. The reasons for this is that just about everything that is captured for the computer is captured at 640x480 or some resolution similar that is optimised for a computer monitor. When you write the dvd it is written out in a resolution that is optimized for a tv. You will end up resizing the image twice (once from source to computer, second from computer to dvd format). Going the camera route, you transfer the data to the computer in the same resolution already (I'm 99% sure) as the dvd will use in the end. Everything is also geared around getting it to look good in tv type setting instead of a computer setting which is what you want right? Even though they probably cost the same to make, the analog to digital converters in cameras seem to work a whole lot better than anything that is made for a computer. It will just end up looking a whole lot better if you do it this way. Also, you will end up with a camera that kicks but, whose data can be easily transfered to dvds in the future and more importantly whose picture quality is about the same as what a dvd would have.

I hope I said everything correctly, it's late and I'm tired and not thinking too straight.

jscorse · #14 12-06-2002, 04:19 AM

Here's what I've researched so far...

The Dazzle 200 video capture box has an onboard DVD compression chip which solves much of the bandwidth problems from what I understand. It will capture at NTSC: Up to 720 x 480 resolution (plenty for my needs) in real time. The on-board compression chip solves the whole issue of running a VERY long DVD compression routine on your newly captured video data.

This routine can take up to 5-10hours PER hour of video. Clearly this chip solves a huge problem of time on my computer. This obviously saves disk space as well.

What more could I need? I'm simply playing my existing videos into a capture box in real time. If the Dazzle can capture 720 X 480 at 30 frames/second and pipe the resulting data down a USB 1.1 cable then what do I care about how 'slow' that pipe is?

I really don't understand why I would need 'faster' speeds.

One question still lingers......

Dazzle offers a DCS 150 (one 'down' from the DCS 200) which is offered as an upgrade to their DCS 100 because it has a USB 2.0 which they say is 40 times faster than USB 1.1

They then go on to say that with this faster connection I can get "25% better quality video capture". HUH? If I'm able to capture at 720 x 480 in real time with USB 1.1...why would USB provide better quality????????? Speed doesn't mean quality in my mind.

I'm still a little confused.

By the way...THANKS for all the advice..this is an SVX site I realize, but I also realize there's 'some' people smarter than me out there....

#15 12-06-2002, 06:54 AM

Compression ratios are variable. In order to maintain realtime, the encoder has to have higher bandwidth or lower quality. All video compression is "Lossy". The trick is to keep the loss minimal or inconsequential. Not carrying static data from one frame to the next is a loss, but a meaningless one. Losing edge detail or color detail or pixelation are meaningful and irrecoverable losses. MPEG compression gets good ratios with sophisticated loss management. Lossless video is much harder because to results are still huge and is usually only used for medical imaging, where a dropped pixel could mean life/death/lawsuit.

CJ