capturing 8mm on PC

[rsquirell]

I checked the TV...every kind of hook-up known to man...except 1394. It has a VGA hook-up and a "Data Jack" (which it says in caps "to be used for service only...not for customers"). Alas...nothing to to give DV "quality" out (probably due to MPAA restrictions.) It took me about 3 months working almost 24/7 to get my DVC-150 and PC tuned to the point where I can capture and produce DVD's with as much clarity as the original VHS tapes...but I can do it...and with ease (now that everything's set up). Like your camera...the DVC-150 has S-Video input and 720X480 output thru the USB2. I capture using the DVXCEL Test Utility which uses as little as 10% CPU with no video/audio preview ( about 20% CPU with "video only"...in fact...I'm capturing a tape now, even as I'm posting this message). I dare say, my capture looks as good as your capture...you can't improve on as good as source. Don't think that since you couldn't do it that there aren't people out there getting superb results with their Dazzle capture devices. They aren't the easiest things in the world to master...but once you do, it's hard to improve on perfection.

[troyy01]

Three months at almost 24/7? Doesn't sound too easy to me. I don't want to confuse you with the facts, you've obviously already made up your mind.

[rsquirell]

With VHS I have...the DV is intriguing, however (considering MiniDV's cost twice as much and only capture 20 minutes per disc.) With pass-through to the VCR I assume you can capture a complete 8 hour VHS tape, and aren't restricted to the 2 hour 8mm's. When I started this capture business last year I went to the Dazzle Support DVC-150 forums and found a group who were, like me, groping in the dark. We shared one thing in common...we were determined to get our DVC-150's to give us results as good as source. Most of those first 3 months was running down blind alleyways. I pioneered a method of getting raw Dazzle capture into TMPGenc...the processed product looks as good as source, but it's very time consuming. At the same time another person was able fiddle with the DVXCEL settings to capture as good as source with much smaller files...and in April TMPGenc DVD Author was introduced which allowed us to feed raw capture in, cut the commercials out, and prep and burn a DVD without stepping on the capture. About the same time DVDShrink came on the scene...and with demuxing/converting Dazzles LPCM audio to mp2...we were able to get our file sizes about 1/2 of original capture (all without processing...steppping on quality...which means 2 2+ hour movies on one 4.7GB DVD disc with quality as good as source.) By the time the Dazzle DVC-150 forum was shut down (in August...when Pinnacle acquired Dazzle) we had at least 50 contributors...many of which were software engineers...several wrote useful DVC-150 specific utilities. Our effort was collabrative...and if anyone came up with a new idea, we'd explore it. The technology is in a constant state of flux. Our results, however, were the same...quality as good as source with super small file size. What I like about your contribution is the knowledge of the existance of Hi8 Rez tapes...which means your can get DV Rez on a 2 hour tape with a camera that costs half as much as a MiniDV (which, so far, uses 20 min disc's.)

[troyy01]

Yes, with the pass-through technology you are not limited to the time limit. I think the longest 8mm tape you can get is 2 1/2 hours. The camcorder in this configuration serves the same purpose as the capture devices, only there is no quality loss WITHOUT have to use anything to tweak the output or work with the files. Using this method, the RAW capture is as good as the source. It just seems like it is extremely easy compared to all the crap you have to deal with when it comes to the capture devices. I don't really care about the file sizes because disk space is pennies compared to what it used to be. I am rather anxious to play back a Digital8 recording on a hi-res TV...I haven't made that plunge yet.

[rsquirell]

I hate to say it since I bought one...but I don't think the current state of technology is worth the price of a HDTV. The set is just the beginning...Time Warner only has 2 HDTV channels in my area (and for those they want 1/3 more on the cable bill.) You can get a HD Converter Box...and an antenna you mount on the roof (shades of the 50's) and get up to 4 more channels...for $250 for the box and $50 for the antenna...and an unknown amount for the 3 special HD cables which don't come with the TV. So...I'm just watching normal cable at normal TV rez. I agree...your camera is definitely a user-friendly solution...but you must agree that it's twice as expensive...and Adobe Premiere is 5 times more expensive than ULead VS7. I agree there's a learning curve with external devices...but Snazzi sells an internal card for around $200 that's as easy to use as your camera. But, if cost is no object, your solution is an excellent one for a beginner (Hi8=$400 +Premiere $500= $900).

[troyy01]

There's no doubt that it costs more dollar-wise. However, when you consider my billing rate of $125/hour, it cost me quite a bit to figure it all out. Also, I'm just using Adobe Premiere because I have it and like it--not because I have to. You can capture with anything that will work with DV. Although it's not that fancy, I have to admit that the Windows MovieMaker was impressively easy to use for simple capture. I'm amazed that more average PC users aren't doing stuff with DV and MovieMaker.

[automaticftp]

CVS

Howdy,

Here is a non-technical solution to your problem.

Awhile back, I decided I wanted to put some family videos that were on a VHS cassette onto a DVD.

The quality of the VHS cassette had gone down hill, and I wanted to convert it to DVD. This of course would NOT improve the quality, but would rather assure that it did not degrade further.

I looked into a lot of fancy equipment, AV labs, etc. Then I found out that a CVS (this is a drug store chain) that was near me in Needham, Mass would take VHS cassettes and convert them to DVDs for $20 per tape.

Many would scoff at this price (and so did I).

But, because it was only one tape, and I did not want to invest any time and/or money in software/machinery, I simply gave it to them with my $20 bill.

They shipped it to a huge plant in Illinois, and I got my original tape and a new DVD back (they put chapters on the DVD as well).

Of course, then you can rip the DVD and make as many copies as you want, edit it in the video application of your choice, put it on the internet, whatever.

Again, low tech solution. Relatively high price. But if it is a one time thing, might be worth it.

Just a thought. Contact a lot of different locales of CVS and ask to speak with their photo dept. Most employees of CVS don't know about this feature.

[megamachine]

I've been following this strand with great interest, and have learned a lot. But I think we lost the original poster. For me, I think the key issue is to ask the poster what they want to accomplish, and what is the audience and use for the final product. For example, the VHS captures I do with the MPEG-2 device are used to make DVDs and other digital videos that will be primarily used in a classroom situation, on laptops, through a projector. No TVs in the mix, Hi or Lo definition, so I have found a way to get the results for this particular purpose. I tried Premiere and using DV capture, but it seemed to be overkill with little or no disernable improvement (given the extra effort and money) for the medium I was using and targetting. Anway, thanks for the great interchange, and I will save this strand for future reference. But I wonder what happened to the original poster's concerns?

[troyy01]

That is true...the use of the captured video could determine what you are willing to invest in time and money to get the best result. I guess my attitude has always been to do it the best way possible, that way you will have it whether you need it or not. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. It's kind of like the old saying about if you believe in God and there is no God, you haven't lost much, but if you don't believe in God and there IS a God, you've messed up.

We probably confused the original poster and he's gone back to Super-8 by now Glad we could be of some entertainment!

[rsquirell]

I find it useful if someone is considering an upgrade to a digital camera...If a person can get DV rez with a Hi8 using a 2 hour tape, why would anyone pay twice as much for a Mini DV using a 20 minute disc? I find it highly suspicious...is there a quality issue here..,does a MiniDV give you a clearer DV picture...what justifies Sony charging twice the price?

[troyy01]

The average model Sony MiniDV camcorder ranges in price from $500-700 for comparable features , so I don't think that is an unreasonable price difference for the newer technology. The MiniDV tapes are also 60 minutes rather than 20. The number of pixels on the CCD is greater on MiniDV. 12-14 oz. vs. 32 oz. on Digital8. 530 lines of resolution on MiniDV vs. 500 on Digital8 and 450 on Hi8XR. The MiniDV is just a step up in quality. In order to have the backward compatibility with Digital8, you give up a bit of quality (not that the naked eye could tell the difference). Bottom line is that the newer technology always costs more. IMO, the extra quality is not worth losing the backward compatibility if you already have an investment in 8mm and Hi8 tapes.

Here is a site that I found tonight that has some great PDF's on the different types:

http://www.cyberscholar.com/sony/resourcecenter.cfm

[troyy01]

Originally posted by atifsh
not anymore, atleast i dont, more an more software are coming with somkinda smart video rendring, saving the orignal quality.

Here is what Adobe says about editing MPG files rather than raw AVI files. Everything I can find says that using raw AVI files for editing provides the best final result. It makes sense since it is not compressed.

"Although Premiere can import and export MPEG files, Adobe recommends that you don't use MPEG files as source files in a Premiere project. Instead, use MPEG as the final output format of your project. MPEG files don't lend themselves to editing because the video frames in an MPEG file aren't self-contained. That is, any given video frame contains only the information that has changed from the previous frame. During editing, a previous frame required to fully decompress a given frame may not be present, resulting in poor quality of the final rendered frame."

[rsquirell]

I wouldn't expect Adobe to say anything else. I normally don't edit ( other than cut out commercials from raw capture of 8 hour tapes...for which I'll use TMPGenc DVD Author). The only times I use VS7 is to put previously edited segments together...or for those rare occasions when I do a home video. In any event, after I add titles, transitions and muxed in music...I can't tell the difference from the VS7 final product and the source. I remember reading an article on the Sonic MyDVD site saying capture at 8000kbps was best quality for DVD (it listed 2000kbps as still "good"). After several months of wrestling with 8000kbps VBR 720X480 capture, I accepted another person's challenge and tried a 2400kbps CBR 320X480 capture of the same film. For the life of me, I couldn't tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison...except that the lower bitrate file was 1/3 the size of my pristeen 8mbps file. If the naked eye can't see the difference, why bother? The advantage of working with MPEG's is file size...and although "storage is cheap" it's still not cheap enough for a lot of us. Heck...if cost really isn't a factor...what the "Pros" really use is $1/2 Million servers and $20,000 editors. We're hobbiests trying to get by on a shoe-string...and you'll have to do better than Adobe Premiere to beat ULead Video Studio7.

[MLedbetter]

I also wanted to transfer some old 8mm and Hi-8 video to digital format so that I could edit & create DVDs . I tried the Dazzle product (150) and had some compatibility issues (no audio). I finally convinced Best Buy to refund my $150 and put the $$ towards a digital video camera that had analog-to-video conversion capabilities. This works like a champ - you just daisy chain your old video camera to your new digital video camera, and the new camera to your computer. You can use either USB 2 or firewire between the new camera and your computer. Firewire will give you highest quality video (DV-AVI 720x480). The camera I purchased was the Sony DVC-TRV22 (mini-DV) - cost was about $550. I think Sony offers a couple of other cameras that have this feature.

[rsquirell]

DV cameras (with analog pass-through capabilities) and firewire seems to be the way to go, these days. Any editor will capture it, ULead VideoStudio 7 will convert the DV AVI to MPEG2 on the fly. That MPEG2 capture can then be imported to TMPGenc DVD Author and burned to disc without any rendering...or VS7 can be used with "Smart Render" with very little compression to edit and burn, and keep that superb DV quality.