|
|
|
convert Divx during or after capture?
|
|
|
bluesbabe
Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 17:09 |
Link to this message
|
I'm a newbie and having a heck of a time finding the right place to put this, so if there's a better place, please inform....
I know that every time you modify a video file, the quality degrades. It's a dumb question, probably, but when I capture analog video, will I get better finished quality if I capture in mpeg, and then convert to Divx, or if I capture it AS Divx. Or is that actually the same thing, only done while in process?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
22. August 2008 @ 20:22 |
Link to this message
|
Does it capture at mpeg-2 or mpeg-1? You could capture at mpeg-2
and convert it to xvid/divx while deinterlacing it.
I suppose the consideration is what controls or choices do you
have during the divx capture? Can you set the resolution or
bitrate?
|
|
bluesbabe
Member
|
23. August 2008 @ 05:46 |
Link to this message
|
remember the part where I said I'm a newbie?
What's deinterlacing?
I have a variety of file types available, including both mpeg1 and 2. I've never tried changing resolution or bitrate because I don't understand any of this stuff well enough to do that....
|
Senior Member
|
23. August 2008 @ 16:07 |
Link to this message
|
If you intend to have a master copy, mpeg-2 is better.
If you need a divx/xvid file for a special purpose,
straight to this will probably do.
You haven't said what this will be used for, whether the source is
family videos from your camcorder, or some TV show from VHS.
All of which may affect the consideration.
|
|
bluesbabe
Member
|
24. August 2008 @ 00:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by davexnet:
If you intend to have a master copy, mpeg-2 is better.
If you need a divx/xvid file for a special purpose,
straight to this will probably do.
You haven't said what this will be used for, whether the source is family videos from your camcorder, or some TV show from VHS.
All of which may affect the consideration.
I'm not a videophile. I want to end up with Divx, because I understood it is the best compromise of compression and quality. Also, any other kind of file needs to convert to DVD, as far as I know, and they get huge.
I am archiving video, (and simply deleting the originals) and want to be able to fit as many as possible onto DVDs, but I'd like the quality to be at least reasonable. Or is there something else you would suggest instead? The Divx files I've been creating are running around 1.36 GB, and I can squeeze 3 to a single layer disc, by simply burning them as data files, and then they play fine in my standard stand alone DVD player.
The sources are varied. Some are old family movies now on VHS, some are old tv recordings, also on VHS, and some are actually current, captured directly from tv cable (no HD or anything, just plain old cable tv). I am then editing them down, to eliminate anything unnecessary. But the initial question is: will the quality be better if it's captured directly into Divx, instead of capturing and then converting, and if so, would it be by a noticeable difference? My understanding was that every alteration/conversion degrades quality. Yes?
|
Senior Member
|
24. August 2008 @ 02:36 |
Link to this message
|
Hello, I see what you are saying. Here's my advice.
It really comes down to this: Are you interested in keeping the
best possible archive of your family video? If yes, capture
them at mpeg-2 and save them. (you never really know if you'll
want to use them again in the future - perhaps to make a real DVD?)
Conversion to Divx will produce minimal loss.
If no, you may as well go straight to Divx - which I recommend
also for everything else.
PS I'm not a serious Videophile either, I use the simplest of tools
and methods.
Good Luck!
Dave
|
|
bluesbabe
Member
|
25. August 2008 @ 23:11 |
Link to this message
|
Thank you, thank you!! I've tried getting info from a number of forums, and I have trouble getting straight answers- I keep getting responses from hi-tec people who tell me about different software, and changing all kinds of settings, and I end up more confused than I was. You seem to be of the same mind that I am: "keep it simple".
If you wouldn't mind, there are a couple more questions I'd like to ask, but I need to be home, where my equipment is, to ask the right ones. I'm on the road right now, but will be home in a day or so. Please stick with me. In the meantime, can you suggest anyplace that I can find a simple discussion of all the different video file types, so I can better understand the differences? (like Mpeg 1, 2, and 4, AVI, Divx, DVD, etc? There's a long list of file options on the capture page, but I don't know how they differ.
|
Senior Member
|
28. August 2008 @ 18:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
bluesbabe
Member
|
29. August 2008 @ 02:53 |
Link to this message
|
davexnet- Wow, thanks. What an overwhelming wealth of info. It'll take me awhile to work through it all, but it's bound to help me get a handle on all this stuff. I already learned a few things, just skimming through a few sections.
I'm home again, and have access to my equipment. I wanted to check the capture formats available to me. They are Divx (home theater, portable, or handheld) mpeg-4, dvd, svcd, vcd, mpeg dv avi. So I was wrong- I don't have mpeg 1 and 2. Since I don't have mpeg 2, should I just capture in mpeg?
|
Senior Member
|
29. August 2008 @ 13:48 |
Link to this message
|
Open up your mpeg option and look at the resolutions offered.
If you're using the PAL TV system, you should see choices for
x * 576, or x * 288. (IF NTSC, x * 480 or x * 240).
The 480 or 576 correspond to the visible lines in the traditional
TV picture .
The 480 (or 576) choice should be the mpeg-2 option. You may need
to read up a little, but do you understand the footage from the
camera (your family video) is interlaced? It means a single frame
of video contains two fields interlaced with each other.
The two fields are 60th (50th PAL) of a second apart, and help to
create fluid motion when they are displayed on the TV.
Only mpeg-2 maintains both of those fields. They're important,
if later on, you want to make a real DVD.
Mpeg-1 either throws one of the fields away, or merges the two to make
the half resolution (240 or 288) file. You can make a DVD with it,
but the results are far, far inferior.
See this website. It explains the issue, and goes on to describe
how the mpeg-2 can be de-interlaced when you go on to create the
Divx file later.
http://www.100fps.com/
|
|
olyteddy
Senior Member
|
29. August 2008 @ 22:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
What are you capturing with (make, model, etc.)?
|
|
bluesbabe
Member
|
2. September 2008 @ 06:41 |
Link to this message
|
davexnet (and olyteddy)
Again, thanks for helping me learn how to do this better. Unfortunately, MPEG2 is not one of the options. Only MPEG or MPEG4. I don't know if the MPEG4 meets those specs. I'll check out that other website, too. For the stuff I'm doing right now, the DIVX thing will be fine, but for the other things I want to do, you're probably right, I'll want a little better quality. This is getting complicated......
Maybe different software would give me more options? I don't know what other software with my capture card. see below, though.
And to olyteddy- thanks for hopping in. I'm using a plextor PX-TV402U. It's older and less sophisticated, I grant, but my budget's limited. The software I'm using is Ulead videostudio 8SE. It actually came with Intervideo WinDVR5 as an alternate, too, but I have XP mediacenter, and it wasn't entirely compatible with my OS. When I use timer recording, it creates a million 20 second clips, instead of one video file. argh. So I've been using Ulead instead. I notice, however, that WinDVR does offer the MPEG2 that Davexnet suggested. Maybe I should try working with it some more. Frankly, I really disliked the WinDVR interface.
|
Senior Member
|
2. September 2008 @ 15:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
bluesbabe
Member
|
3. September 2008 @ 14:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'll check that out... Thanks.
|
|
bluesbabe
Member
|
6. September 2008 @ 15:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by davexnet:
Have you tried MythTV - it apparently works with your box.
http://www.mythtv.org/
Davexnet, The MythTV site (intimidating- I'm not sure I have enough know how to pull that off) does refer to plextor, and mentions MPEG2, as you did. Thinking it was just referring to a different model of plextor, I poked around the internet about my plextor, and low and behold, it is supposed to capture in MPEG2. But that is NOT listed in the option list. Is there something else an MPEG2 file would be called? Again, here are the file types listed: Divx, mpeg-4, dvd, svcd, vcd, mpeg dv and avi. Is one of these MPEG2?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
6. September 2008 @ 20:13 |
Link to this message
|
Hi Bluesbabe,
open up the mpeg setting and check the resolutions as I
mentioned in an earlier post. Does it offer any resolution choices?
What are they?
|
|
