Hey, I'm a new user and need some guidance. I am using VS7 and the ADS Pyro A/V link to transfer old camcorder tapes to DVD. I bought the Pyro A/V link because it captures analog signals in DV format (better image quality). I have tried one 120 min. tape so far captured in DV format but the file size is over 6 gigs! I have a lot of tapes to convert and don't want to sit and edit - just record from the camcorder and bun to DVD. Since I can only fit ~ 4.7 gigs on a DVD, what should I do? Recapture in one of the MPEG formats? I hate to lose the image quality I get from the DV capture. If I were to spend the $ and get a dual layer recorder and the associated $'s for the dual layer discs, would that solve my problem? Those discs are pricey so I would appreciate alternatives!
Thanks.
Tape-to-DVD conversion - file too big!
Moderator: Ken Berry
-
Rich2Putt
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:02 pm
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
- processor: 2.9
- ram: 8gb
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1TB
- Monitor/Display Make & Model: IMac AIO
- Location: MA - USA
The quaility of your video will depend on the bit rate you set.
As an example a bit rate of;
8000 will render approx 60 mins of high quaility video
6000 will render approx 90 mins
4000 (VCR quaility) will render approx 120 mins
The decision will be yours as to how many dvd's you would want from your vcr tapes. As an old saying goes "you can't put 10 lbs of s_ _t in a 5 lbs bag.........
As an example a bit rate of;
8000 will render approx 60 mins of high quaility video
6000 will render approx 90 mins
4000 (VCR quaility) will render approx 120 mins
The decision will be yours as to how many dvd's you would want from your vcr tapes. As an old saying goes "you can't put 10 lbs of s_ _t in a 5 lbs bag.........
Capturing in DV/AVI is fine. It will be converted to MPEG-2 when you transfer it to DVD. 6GB for 2 hours of AVI actually seems too small! (The rule-of-thumb is 12 GB per hour.)
MPEG capture -
Capturing in MPEG requires a fast CPU, unless your capture device has a built-in hardware MPEG encoder. Any real editing requires the MPEG to be decoded & re-coded which degrades the video quality. (Simply cutting & splicing MPEG is OK.) For best results you should only encode once.
Two hours of MPEG-2 will fit on a single-layer DVD. However, you will have to use a lower-than-maximum bitrate, so you might notice the loss of video quality. You may have to experiment with bitrates to find a good compromise. There are some bitrate calculators available. DVtool (free) includes a bitrate calculator.
Using AC3 or MPEG audio will leave more room for more video (or higher quality video). All NTSC (USA) DVD players must play LPCM and AC3 audio. PAL players must play LPCM and MPEG audio.
Besides the cost, there is another downside to dual-layer DVD-Rs. Many (maybe most) DVD players won't play them. Most DVD players were actually made before there were any dual-layer DVD-Rs! Heck, only about 90 percent of players will play single-layer DVD-Rs!
MPEG capture -
Capturing in MPEG requires a fast CPU, unless your capture device has a built-in hardware MPEG encoder. Any real editing requires the MPEG to be decoded & re-coded which degrades the video quality. (Simply cutting & splicing MPEG is OK.) For best results you should only encode once.
Two hours of MPEG-2 will fit on a single-layer DVD. However, you will have to use a lower-than-maximum bitrate, so you might notice the loss of video quality. You may have to experiment with bitrates to find a good compromise. There are some bitrate calculators available. DVtool (free) includes a bitrate calculator.
Using AC3 or MPEG audio will leave more room for more video (or higher quality video). All NTSC (USA) DVD players must play LPCM and AC3 audio. PAL players must play LPCM and MPEG audio.
Besides the cost, there is another downside to dual-layer DVD-Rs. Many (maybe most) DVD players won't play them. Most DVD players were actually made before there were any dual-layer DVD-Rs! Heck, only about 90 percent of players will play single-layer DVD-Rs!
-
GeorgeK
Storing Analogue video to Digital and maintain most info
ysfwe,
I understand where you are coming from with this question. I have some 52 hours of Hi8 Video that I wanted to preserve. These tapes were recorded over a 13 year period and some of the tapes we starting to fail (so I found out).
When my Hi8 Video camera's recording failed, I purchased a Digital (DV tape) camera which had analogue input, and copied all Hi8 tapes to DV Tapes, a long and painful process. But with time it was done.
At the time I did this, single layer DVD 4.7 GB disks were $20 a each. And burners were close to $1000, which is why I used DV tapes.
My intention was to capture the footage while it still existed (ie before the tapes died). I wanted the best quality I could retrieve so that in years to come and I am retired and have time, I can go through them and enjoy them. For this reason, like you, I had hoped to store the video in DV format, as RAW video (five times larger that DV) would be way too large for me to store. MPEG1 or MPEG2 used too much compression losing too much detail (so I thought).
However I found an interesting dilemma. When I play the DV tape (or DV video copied to my computer), the video is good, but when I create DVDs or SVCDs of the video, the quality is quite poor. I believe most of this problem is that there is loss in each of the steps the video goes through to get to the DVD or SVCD.
However there is another potential issue (others who read this, please comment). Hi8 is about 480x320, stretch this up to DV 720x576 (PAL DV and DVD) at a 1:5 compression of DV. This will dilute the detail. Then when creating a DVD, compress the DV video to MPEG2 compression which is about five times more lossy, effectively throwing away about five times the detail. Then playing the DVD on my free to air TV which is about 320x240 (or slightly better), throwing away another half of the detail. I wonder just how much of the original detail remains.
I have found it is much better to capture in the same format as I will be playing it. I have now been capturing Analogue video straight to MPEG2, 6000 to 8000 CBR, hoping that one day soon, I will have a HDTV. I doubt if there is better quality to be gained by capturing in DV.
Not having a HDTV or other quality viewing device, can anyone comment on whether capturing our analogue video in DV, or MPEG2 6000 CBR makes a difference?
Or to put the question another way, is capturing in DV better than capturing in MPEG2 and then converting the MPEG2 to DV. I assume capturing in DV is better, but by so slight an amount, it would not be discernable?
I understand where you are coming from with this question. I have some 52 hours of Hi8 Video that I wanted to preserve. These tapes were recorded over a 13 year period and some of the tapes we starting to fail (so I found out).
When my Hi8 Video camera's recording failed, I purchased a Digital (DV tape) camera which had analogue input, and copied all Hi8 tapes to DV Tapes, a long and painful process. But with time it was done.
At the time I did this, single layer DVD 4.7 GB disks were $20 a each. And burners were close to $1000, which is why I used DV tapes.
My intention was to capture the footage while it still existed (ie before the tapes died). I wanted the best quality I could retrieve so that in years to come and I am retired and have time, I can go through them and enjoy them. For this reason, like you, I had hoped to store the video in DV format, as RAW video (five times larger that DV) would be way too large for me to store. MPEG1 or MPEG2 used too much compression losing too much detail (so I thought).
However I found an interesting dilemma. When I play the DV tape (or DV video copied to my computer), the video is good, but when I create DVDs or SVCDs of the video, the quality is quite poor. I believe most of this problem is that there is loss in each of the steps the video goes through to get to the DVD or SVCD.
However there is another potential issue (others who read this, please comment). Hi8 is about 480x320, stretch this up to DV 720x576 (PAL DV and DVD) at a 1:5 compression of DV. This will dilute the detail. Then when creating a DVD, compress the DV video to MPEG2 compression which is about five times more lossy, effectively throwing away about five times the detail. Then playing the DVD on my free to air TV which is about 320x240 (or slightly better), throwing away another half of the detail. I wonder just how much of the original detail remains.
I have found it is much better to capture in the same format as I will be playing it. I have now been capturing Analogue video straight to MPEG2, 6000 to 8000 CBR, hoping that one day soon, I will have a HDTV. I doubt if there is better quality to be gained by capturing in DV.
Not having a HDTV or other quality viewing device, can anyone comment on whether capturing our analogue video in DV, or MPEG2 6000 CBR makes a difference?
Or to put the question another way, is capturing in DV better than capturing in MPEG2 and then converting the MPEG2 to DV. I assume capturing in DV is better, but by so slight an amount, it would not be discernable?
-
ysfwe
thank you!
Thanks for the great responses! My Hi8 camcorder died but I have the luxury of a co-worker lending me hers (it basically sits unused) so I am in a bit of a time crunch to copy the tapes to DVD and return her camera. I think for these reasons, I will try capturing to MPEG so as to get the job done. My tapes too go back about 12 years so I want to capture while I still have the tape of my kids as newborns through their first 10 years of life!
While I'm aware that some formats are lossy, I take issue with the way the quality-loss is described by GeorgeK above. Just because MPEG is lossy doesn't mean you noticeably lose quality when you create an MPEG file.
jhunter of this forum experimented with multiple sequential editings using ONLY MPEG files and found that loss was minimal, even imperceptible. He'll probably want to say something in this thread.
Keith
jhunter of this forum experimented with multiple sequential editings using ONLY MPEG files and found that loss was minimal, even imperceptible. He'll probably want to say something in this thread.
Keith