Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

Hi,

I'm interested in archiving some of my LDs to DVD and don't know where to
start. I looks like none of the stand alone DVD recorders will accept 5.1
audio input (please correct me if I'm wrong, I've just started looking at
them and don't understand all the technology yet) which means I should be
directing my attentions to video capture cards and sound cards for a PC.
Does anyone have any experience with this or know of any good resources in
print or on the web that I can read? Any specific cards I should be looking
at or avoiding?

Thanks,

Chris in NC

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <rYUnc.30149$jU.2035351@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"CCARPENTER2" <ccarpenter2@nc.rr.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in archiving some of my LDs to DVD and don't know where to
> start. I looks like none of the stand alone DVD recorders will accept 5.1
> audio input (please correct me if I'm wrong, I've just started looking at
> them and don't understand all the technology yet) which means I should be
> directing my attentions to video capture cards and sound cards for a PC.
> Does anyone have any experience with this or know of any good resources in
> print or on the web that I can read? Any specific cards I should be looking
> at or avoiding?
>
There are a couple of ways to 'archive' LD to DVD. The highest quality
would be to use a full component capture card, with a high quality
3D comb filter based composite to component converter. Then, after
capturing, you'd convert that component video into MPEG2 for the DVD
(using the appropriate tools.) The bad news: the component domain
HW/SW isn't convieniently available at low cost. So, you won't find
that being done at the hobbyist or all but the highest level of tools.

A good second approach (and the approach that I use) is to use the
best composite to DV25 converter that you could find (ADVC300 from
Canopus.) Then, use normal editing tools to edit the video.
Then, I happen to use the tmpgenc tools for authoring and conversion.
Due to the limited quality of composite video, the actual quality
loss when using DV25 isn't too severe. Component capture would
be a little better, but other quality issues tend to be more
important. My results using this approach are as close to perfection
as I could expect. The bad (actually horrible) news is that tmpgenc
MPEG2 encoding is incredibly slow when using noise reduction.
(Note: the ADVC300 seems better than it really is, but it is better
than other alternatives that I have tried. The quality, when using
the lowest level of noise reduction and with other conservative
settings is between excellent and supurb.) LDs are almost all too
noisy to be optimally converted to DV25 without noise reduction
before the conversion process. (Noise is an anathema to DV25,
and even worse for MPEG2.)

There are other good second approaches.

John

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>
> A good second approach (and the approach that I use) is to use the
> best composite to DV25 converter that you could find (ADVC300 from
> Canopus.) Then, use normal editing tools to edit the video.
> Then, I happen to use the tmpgenc tools for authoring and conversion.
> Due to the limited quality of composite video, the actual quality
> loss when using DV25 isn't too severe. Component capture would
> be a little better, but other quality issues tend to be more
> important. My results using this approach are as close to perfection
> as I could expect. The bad (actually horrible) news is that tmpgenc
> MPEG2 encoding is incredibly slow when using noise reduction.
> (Note: the ADVC300 seems better than it really is, but it is better
> than other alternatives that I have tried. The quality, when using
> the lowest level of noise reduction and with other conservative
> settings is between excellent and supurb.) LDs are almost all too
> noisy to be optimally converted to DV25 without noise reduction
> before the conversion process. (Noise is an anathema to DV25,
> and even worse for MPEG2.)
>
> There are other good second approaches.
>
> John

Could you compare the Canopus you mention with a Matrox RT2000 card or
X.100? What is the difference between an AVI you would capture with the
Matrox and DV25 you are talking about?

You talk about composite... isn't S-video just as good if not better?

Excuse my ignorance, I've seen discussions like this before but the
equipment they mentioned in the past was way out of price range. This
Canopus equipment is actually far cheaper than the latest Matrox card.

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

On Tue, 11 May 2004 01:56:33 GMT, Bernie Woodham <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote:
>You talk about composite... isn't S-video just as good if not better?

LD's video is stored composite. The real question is where is the better comb
filter? In the LD player, or in the capture card? Considering the
technological differences of when LD vs. capture card was manufactured, the
capture card is most likely to have a more sophisticated comb filter.

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> There are a couple of ways to 'archive' LD to DVD. The highest quality
> would be to use a full component capture card, with a high quality
> 3D comb filter based composite to component converter. Then, after
> capturing, you'd convert that component video into MPEG2 for the DVD
> (using the appropriate tools.) The bad news: the component domain
> HW/SW isn't convieniently available at low cost. So, you won't find
> that being done at the hobbyist or all but the highest level of tools.
>
> A good second approach (and the approach that I use) is to use the
> best composite to DV25 converter that you could find (ADVC300 from
> Canopus.) Then, use normal editing tools to edit the video.
> Then, I happen to use the tmpgenc tools for authoring and conversion.
> Due to the limited quality of composite video, the actual quality
> loss when using DV25 isn't too severe. Component capture would
> be a little better, but other quality issues tend to be more
> important. My results using this approach are as close to perfection
> as I could expect. The bad (actually horrible) news is that tmpgenc
> MPEG2 encoding is incredibly slow when using noise reduction.
> (Note: the ADVC300 seems better than it really is, but it is better
> than other alternatives that I have tried. The quality, when using
> the lowest level of noise reduction and with other conservative
> settings is between excellent and supurb.) LDs are almost all too
> noisy to be optimally converted to DV25 without noise reduction
> before the conversion process. (Noise is an anathema to DV25,
> and even worse for MPEG2.)
>
> There are other good second approaches.
>
> John

First and foremost Thank You for the excellent information John!

Ok so I'll admit the first paragraph lost me already but from the sound of
it it's very expensive and not an option for me. The ADVC300 is doable and
it sounds like you've had success using it. That takes care of the raw
video (and audio?) import. Will it capture the AC3 stream from the LD so
that you can have 5.1 on the DVD? When you talk about editing the video what
is it that is required? Taking out pauses as the LD switches sides? Or is
it more involved than that? Is there a particular software package that is
better than others for editing keeping in mind the only reason I know that I
would have this equipment and software is for this particular purpose?

Soooo many questions! Trying to learn as much as I can and am not having
much success doing web searches for this process.

Thanks again,

Chris in NC

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"CCARPENTER2" <ccarpenter2@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>Soooo many questions! Trying to learn as much as I can and
>am not having much success doing web searches for this process.

Have you checked out www.videohelp.com ?? (formerly known as
dvdrhelp.com and vcdhelp.com)

-- jayembee

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"jayembee" <jayembeenospam@snurcher.com> wrote in message > Have you checked
out www.videohelp.com ?? (formerly known as
> dvdrhelp.com and vcdhelp.com)
>
> -- jayembee

Hi Jayembee,

Hadn't found that site on my own. Thanks a lot!

Chris in NC

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <lpWnc.67059$Ik.4976834@attbi_s53>,
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> writes:
>
>>
>> A good second approach (and the approach that I use) is to use the
>> best composite to DV25 converter that you could find (ADVC300 from
>> Canopus.) Then, use normal editing tools to edit the video.
>> Then, I happen to use the tmpgenc tools for authoring and conversion.
>> Due to the limited quality of composite video, the actual quality
>> loss when using DV25 isn't too severe. Component capture would
>> be a little better, but other quality issues tend to be more
>> important. My results using this approach are as close to perfection
>> as I could expect. The bad (actually horrible) news is that tmpgenc
>> MPEG2 encoding is incredibly slow when using noise reduction.
>> (Note: the ADVC300 seems better than it really is, but it is better
>> than other alternatives that I have tried. The quality, when using
>> the lowest level of noise reduction and with other conservative
>> settings is between excellent and supurb.) LDs are almost all too
>> noisy to be optimally converted to DV25 without noise reduction
>> before the conversion process. (Noise is an anathema to DV25,
>> and even worse for MPEG2.)
>>
>> There are other good second approaches.
>>
>> John
>
> Could you compare the Canopus you mention with a Matrox RT2000 card or
> X.100? What is the difference between an AVI you would capture with the
> Matrox and DV25 you are talking about?
>
If they don't do noise reduction before conversion, then they don't do as
good. I have played with several kinds of converters (both inside and
external of commercial video decks.) The 3D comb (again, if they don't
do 3D comb, then they wont' extract the maximum quality) is a major
component of the excellence of the ADVC300. I am not suggesting that
the ADVC300 is the only answer, but it is the best that I have played
with.

I didn't play with the Matrox RT2000 (isn't it just S-Video or composite
with 2d comb?) I needed to provide a way to fully decode COMPOSITE.

>
> You talk about composite... isn't S-video just as good if not better?
>
Only the very best LD players supply a 'good enough' S-Video output. It
is usually best to use a recent vintage composite decoder.

>
> Excuse my ignorance, I've seen discussions like this before but the
> equipment they mentioned in the past was way out of price range. This
> Canopus equipment is actually far cheaper than the latest Matrox card.
>
A good 3D comb is critical. If the Matrox has a good 3D comb, then
it has a chance of working very well. (I have seen the output of
some multi-line combs -- I have several, and they can be good in certain
circumstances, but not the best when there needs to be good 3D noise
reduction.) I'd have a higher probability of using a 5-line comb (or
more) philips based decoder if the source was pristine. LD isn't
pristine.

For DV, you need noise reduction BEFORE capture (or conversion to DV)!!!

John

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <slrnca0fi0.cds.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net>,
TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> writes:
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 01:56:33 GMT, Bernie Woodham <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>You talk about composite... isn't S-video just as good if not better?
>
> LD's video is stored composite. The real question is where is the better comb
> filter? In the LD player, or in the capture card? Considering the
> technological differences of when LD vs. capture card was manufactured, the
> capture card is most likely to have a more sophisticated comb filter.
>
Even the multi-line 2D comb filters that are likely common nowadays
are better than the simple combs in LD players. I have a Pioneer 3070
that has a rock solid, primitive 2D comb -- but is far below almost
every other comb (composite decoder) in my set of tools.

I have one 2D comb residing in a Hauppauge PVR350 (which I don't
generally use) which does a fairly good job of decoding. There
are probably SOME cases where it is better than a lousy 3D comb,
because of the lags that can happen with a 3D comb.

John

John

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <9wYnc.21728$V_.944001@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"CCARPENTER2" <ccarpenter2@nc.rr.com> writes:
>> There are a couple of ways to 'archive' LD to DVD. The highest quality
>> would be to use a full component capture card, with a high quality
>> 3D comb filter based composite to component converter. Then, after
>> capturing, you'd convert that component video into MPEG2 for the DVD
>> (using the appropriate tools.) The bad news: the component domain
>> HW/SW isn't convieniently available at low cost. So, you won't find
>> that being done at the hobbyist or all but the highest level of tools.
>>
>> A good second approach (and the approach that I use) is to use the
>> best composite to DV25 converter that you could find (ADVC300 from
>> Canopus.) Then, use normal editing tools to edit the video.
>> Then, I happen to use the tmpgenc tools for authoring and conversion.
>> Due to the limited quality of composite video, the actual quality
>> loss when using DV25 isn't too severe. Component capture would
>> be a little better, but other quality issues tend to be more
>> important. My results using this approach are as close to perfection
>> as I could expect. The bad (actually horrible) news is that tmpgenc
>> MPEG2 encoding is incredibly slow when using noise reduction.
>> (Note: the ADVC300 seems better than it really is, but it is better
>> than other alternatives that I have tried. The quality, when using
>> the lowest level of noise reduction and with other conservative
>> settings is between excellent and supurb.) LDs are almost all too
>> noisy to be optimally converted to DV25 without noise reduction
>> before the conversion process. (Noise is an anathema to DV25,
>> and even worse for MPEG2.)
>>
>> There are other good second approaches.
>>
>> John
>
> First and foremost Thank You for the excellent information John!
>
> Ok so I'll admit the first paragraph lost me already but from the sound of
> it it's very expensive and not an option for me. The ADVC300 is doable and
> it sounds like you've had success using it. That takes care of the raw
> video (and audio?) import. Will it capture the AC3 stream from the LD so
> that you can have 5.1 on the DVD?
>
I haven't done any 5.1 stuff.

>
> When you talk about editing the video what
> is it that is required? Taking out pauses as the LD switches sides?
>
Mostly, yes.

>
> Soooo many questions! Trying to learn as much as I can and am not having
> much success doing web searches for this process.
>
PLEASE remember that I am stating my opinions, so for your purposes YOU
might find something better (or even eventually disagree!!!)

On a scale of 1-10 in 'absolute truth', I probably come close to an 8 :-).

John

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

I haven't been there for about a year, but doom9.net has lots of good info
for manipulating mpeg and video capture media.



"CCARPENTER2" <ccarpenter2@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zK3oc.11516$zq4.975793@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> "jayembee" <jayembeenospam@snurcher.com> wrote in message > Have you
checked
> out www.videohelp.com ?? (formerly known as
> > dvdrhelp.com and vcdhelp.com)
> >
> > -- jayembee
>
> Hi Jayembee,
>
> Hadn't found that site on my own. Thanks a lot!
>
> Chris in NC
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

On Tue, 11 May 2004 04:20:21 GMT, "CCARPENTER2"
<ccarpenter2@nc.rr.com> wrote:


>
>First and foremost Thank You for the excellent information John!
>
>Ok so I'll admit the first paragraph lost me already but from the sound of
>it it's very expensive and not an option for me. The ADVC300 is doable and
>it sounds like you've had success using it. That takes care of the raw
>video (and audio?) import. Will it capture the AC3 stream from the LD so
>that you can have 5.1 on the DVD? When you talk about editing the video what
>is it that is required? Taking out pauses as the LD switches sides? Or is
>it more involved than that? Is there a particular software package that is
>better than others for editing keeping in mind the only reason I know that I
>would have this equipment and software is for this particular purpose?
>
>Soooo many questions! Trying to learn as much as I can and am not having
>much success doing web searches for this process.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Chris in NC
>

Send me your address and I will send you a dvd-r converted with the
panasonic stand alone dvd recorder.

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in
<c7p9gd$1r03$1@news.iquest.net>:

>A good second approach (and the approach that I use) is to use the
>best composite to DV25 converter that you could find (ADVC300 from
>Canopus.)

The only problem with going through a DV25 codec is that you end up in a
4:1:0 colorspace when you convert to MPEG2. NTSC DV25 is 4:1:1 and DVD
MPEG2 is 4:2:0, so you end up with 4:1:0.

See, e.g., http://videoexpert.home.att.net/artic3/256dvcr.htm :

"This happens because a 4:2:0 sampling puts all the (R-Y) color
components on the odd scanning lines, and the (B-Y) components on the
even scanning lines. This effectively cuts the ( R-Y) vertical sharpness
in half (it's no longer on all lines), and does the same for the (B-Y)
component. If the 4:2:0 converter looks for color data and it is all
there (as when you start out with 4:2:2), the data gets used. Vertical
resolution is halved, but c'est la vie. If, however, the 4:2:0 converter
looks for color data and it's not there, which is half the time when you
start with just 4:1:1, the data doesn't get used, and you end up with
half the horizontal resolution. Then, because of the even/odd
machinations of 4:2:0, the vertical color resolution gets halved. Half
of a half is a quarter and the result is 4:1:0 sampling. Thus 4:1:1 when
converted to 4:2:0 makes twice as fuzzy color as when 4:2:2 changes to
4:2:0. This is one reason to prefer the 4:2:2 formats like Digital-S,
DVC PRO 50, and Digital Betacam."

Mike

--
To reply via email, replace deadspam dot com with comcast dot net.

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <lg63a0pfrtr67o0ivs1jkdr3nma5h21mg3@4ax.com>,
mjs39402@deadspam.com writes:
> toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in
> <c7p9gd$1r03$1@news.iquest.net>:
>
>>A good second approach (and the approach that I use) is to use the
>>best composite to DV25 converter that you could find (ADVC300 from
>>Canopus.)
>
> The only problem with going through a DV25 codec is that you end up in a
> 4:1:0 colorspace when you convert to MPEG2. NTSC DV25 is 4:1:1 and DVD
> MPEG2 is 4:2:0, so you end up with 4:1:0.
>
Composite video doesn't really have as good as 4:1:0. The loss for
a standard composite source, using a 4:1:0 sampling (that isnt' really
colorspace per se) isn't really as significant as it sounds. (The
loss in vertical chroma resolution is guaranteed by DVD MPEG2 itself,
so the loss in horizontal chroma resolution relative to a nearly flat
1.5MHz is also going to be nil. With composite NTSC, you are lucky
to have 0.6MHz/1.2MHz, and that isn't usually very flat.)

If you are starting with a higher quality than composite, then the
difference could be more substantial.

So, it is VERY true that DV25 and DVD MPEG2 has a poor match WRT the
sampling, but for a composite source, you really don't have that much
chroma detail to start with.

The 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0 vs. 4:1:1 thing is the reason why I have a full
D9 Suite (poor mans 4:2:2.)

John