Seems that some here using TV capture boards with hardware mpeg2 codecs.
I¡¬m interesting what you think about the quality if you either realtime capture with the hardware mpeg2 codec or the Ulead mpeg2 software codec?
Is there a difference in quality?
Ulead mpeg2 codec vs. TV cards hardware mpeg2 codec
Moderator: Ken Berry
-
Ken Berry
- Site Admin
- Posts: 22481
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:36 pm
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
- motherboard: Gigabyte B550M DS3H AC
- processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
- ram: 32 GB DDR4
- Video Card: AMD RX 6600 XT
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1 TB SSD + 2 TB HDD
- Monitor/Display Make & Model: Kogan 32" 4K 3840 x 2160
- Corel programs: VS2022; PSP2023; DRAW2021; Painter 2022
- Location: Levin, New Zealand
How long is a piece of string? A priori, using the same capture settings, mpeg-2 should be pretty similar in quality regardless of the codec used to capture it. So if the hardware device encoder uses, say, a DVD-compliant bitrate of 8000 kbps (high quality) and high quality audio settings (and the other settings comply with PAL or NTSC standards such as speed and frame sizes), then you should achieve virtually identical results with any mpeg-2 codec including the VS one. Some are regarded by aficionados as being better at the job in terms of the alogrithms used and speed of processing etc. I seem to recall that the mpeg-2 codec used by Video Studio is a Main Concept one, so there should be no problems with it in this regard.
The real decider of quality in your equation, though, is the fact that capture of mpeg-2 can be demanding for a computer which is not overly well endowed with resources. With such computers, capture might be erratic (stop and go as a transfer buffer fills and empties) or choppy in its final appearance. Sometimes also the video and audio can get out of sync.
The beauty of the capture devices with a hardware mepg-2 chip in them is that they do all the hard work in the device and thus make no demands on computer resources. The capture should, all other things being equal, thus be flawless.
The real decider of quality in your equation, though, is the fact that capture of mpeg-2 can be demanding for a computer which is not overly well endowed with resources. With such computers, capture might be erratic (stop and go as a transfer buffer fills and empties) or choppy in its final appearance. Sometimes also the video and audio can get out of sync.
The beauty of the capture devices with a hardware mepg-2 chip in them is that they do all the hard work in the device and thus make no demands on computer resources. The capture should, all other things being equal, thus be flawless.
Ken Berry
-
Rends
well i can¡¬t confirm this that you get the same quality with different mpeg2 codecs.
but i only can say this for software codecs. I ran loat of tests in the past captureing directly into mpeg2 (software) with VideoStudio8 mainconcept mpeg2 codec and the Pinnacle mpeg2 codec.
I was far more happy with the VS mainconcept one because of blockiness but more the less mosquito effect.
so i think it makes a difference.
Well if cpu usage is the only difference on your end i think i can still stay with my software codec because if i capture directly into mpeg2 with VS8 (PAL 720x568res, 8264KB/s or 6000KB/s VBR,mpeg sound) it only takes about 70 percent CPU usage.
Rends
but i only can say this for software codecs. I ran loat of tests in the past captureing directly into mpeg2 (software) with VideoStudio8 mainconcept mpeg2 codec and the Pinnacle mpeg2 codec.
I was far more happy with the VS mainconcept one because of blockiness but more the less mosquito effect.
so i think it makes a difference.
Well if cpu usage is the only difference on your end i think i can still stay with my software codec because if i capture directly into mpeg2 with VS8 (PAL 720x568res, 8264KB/s or 6000KB/s VBR,mpeg sound) it only takes about 70 percent CPU usage.
Rends