Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > ATI All in Wonder 9600 with Studio 9.3.0

Reply
Thread Tools

ATI All in Wonder 9600 with Studio 9.3.0

 
 
brickled
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
hello all,

i'm capturing footage from vcr tapes into the capture device that came w/ my
ati video card. the same output that looks great on my tv looks very
marginal when captured into my pc. I have the latest and greatest
software/hardware.

if my tv can display the footage wonderfully then how is it that my capture
device can't accept the same exact signal to near its best quality?

in particular, there's a "waviness" across the top of the captured video
that is never seen when playing directly to our tv.

thanks for everyone's thoughts!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
In article <I2Nhd.15889$5i5.7747
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
> hello all,
>
> i'm capturing footage from vcr tapes into the capture device that came w/ my
> ati video card. the same output that looks great on my tv looks very
> marginal when captured into my pc. I have the latest and greatest
> software/hardware.
>
> if my tv can display the footage wonderfully then how is it that my capture
> device can't accept the same exact signal to near its best quality?
>
> in particular, there's a "waviness" across the top of the captured video
> that is never seen when playing directly to our tv.
>
> thanks for everyone's thoughts!
>
>
>


Are they commercially made tapes??
If so they may have an older form of what was called
"copyguard" which messed up the vertical/horizontal sync
signal JUST ENOUGH to mess with copying. It was used before
"MacroVision" became the default.

Also some VCRs have pretty poor sync to begin with, causing
"Flagging" (waving or jiggling at the top of the picture).
Most tvs are tolerant of it (or its lost in the overscan)
but recording devices of all kinds are sensitive to it.

If the capture card works for "Off the air" capture but not
for the vcr then try a better quality vcr.

There is also the problem of aging (of the tape) the tapes
"stretch" or "shrink" just enough over time to cause time
base correction to be needed.( no cheap fix for this )


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
brickled
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
the footage i'm capturing is footage that was originally dumped from a
camcorder 8 mm tape (so no copyright issues to be concerned with). when i
play this tape to my tv the output is great - when i capture this exact same
output with my ati capture device, i get very marginal results - especially
of concern is the waviness across the top of the screen. so either my tv is
correcting a lot of this or my capture device is taking a perfectly good
signal and messing it up as it captures it....


"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> In article <I2Nhd.15889$5i5.7747
> @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
> > hello all,
> >
> > i'm capturing footage from vcr tapes into the capture device that came

w/ my
> > ati video card. the same output that looks great on my tv looks very
> > marginal when captured into my pc. I have the latest and greatest
> > software/hardware.
> >
> > if my tv can display the footage wonderfully then how is it that my

capture
> > device can't accept the same exact signal to near its best quality?
> >
> > in particular, there's a "waviness" across the top of the captured video
> > that is never seen when playing directly to our tv.
> >
> > thanks for everyone's thoughts!
> >
> >
> >

>
> Are they commercially made tapes??
> If so they may have an older form of what was called
> "copyguard" which messed up the vertical/horizontal sync
> signal JUST ENOUGH to mess with copying. It was used before
> "MacroVision" became the default.
>
> Also some VCRs have pretty poor sync to begin with, causing
> "Flagging" (waving or jiggling at the top of the picture).
> Most tvs are tolerant of it (or its lost in the overscan)
> but recording devices of all kinds are sensitive to it.
>
> If the capture card works for "Off the air" capture but not
> for the vcr then try a better quality vcr.
>
> There is also the problem of aging (of the tape) the tapes
> "stretch" or "shrink" just enough over time to cause time
> base correction to be needed.( no cheap fix for this )
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
In article <lsOhd.15995$5i5.15842
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> the footage i'm capturing is footage that was originally dumped from a
> camcorder 8 mm tape (so no copyright issues to be concerned with). when i
> play this tape to my tv the output is great - when i capture this exact same
> output with my ati capture device, i get very marginal results - especially
> of concern is the waviness across the top of the screen. so either my tv is
> correcting a lot of this or my capture device is taking a perfectly good
> signal and messing it up as it captures it....
>



The issue is most probably Time Base correction, Time base
becomes more of an issue every time the video is recorded..
If you copied the 8mm to VHS and dont have the 8mm
available then you wont get what you want, you are already
dealing with a second generation copy of what was a poor
(assuming consumer level 8mm gear) quality picture to begin
with.

First you have to understand that it doesen't look as good
on TV as you think it does. The TV simply doesnt have
enough resolution using the output of a VCR to show you
whats bad about it!

Even a low resolution Computer monitor make a tv signal
look like crap, because the computer monitor has enough
resolution to show the picture warts and all.

Like I said. Do an "OFF THE AIR" capture and if that
works, then the ATI card is not at fault.

Remember that the computer monitor IS NOT a television, and
it WONT blur out the flaws in the tv signal, which is
essentially what a TV does.

The poor resolution of a television is why we were happy
with VHS as a medium for movies. You couldn't see what you
were missing anyway.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
brickled
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
ok, i'm w/ u that a tv's resolution is lower than a monitor's.........but if
i can get a very acceptable result on the tv, it stands to reason that i
should be able to get an acceptable result when the end target use is also
going to be viewed on a tv.....

i'm trying to get my hands on the original as to avoid using the vhs
altogether......see if that helps.

when i do go directly from my cam tapes to the capture card, i get better
results but still, i'm much more happy w/ what i see on the tv when i output
the cam directly to my tv vs. capturing it onto my computer & then feeding
the result back to my tv (in the form of a finished dvd).


"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> In article <lsOhd.15995$5i5.15842
> @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
> > the footage i'm capturing is footage that was originally dumped from a
> > camcorder 8 mm tape (so no copyright issues to be concerned with). when

i
> > play this tape to my tv the output is great - when i capture this exact

same
> > output with my ati capture device, i get very marginal results -

especially
> > of concern is the waviness across the top of the screen. so either my tv

is
> > correcting a lot of this or my capture device is taking a perfectly good
> > signal and messing it up as it captures it....
> >

>
>
> The issue is most probably Time Base correction, Time base
> becomes more of an issue every time the video is recorded..
> If you copied the 8mm to VHS and dont have the 8mm
> available then you wont get what you want, you are already
> dealing with a second generation copy of what was a poor
> (assuming consumer level 8mm gear) quality picture to begin
> with.
>
> First you have to understand that it doesen't look as good
> on TV as you think it does. The TV simply doesnt have
> enough resolution using the output of a VCR to show you
> whats bad about it!
>
> Even a low resolution Computer monitor make a tv signal
> look like crap, because the computer monitor has enough
> resolution to show the picture warts and all.
>
> Like I said. Do an "OFF THE AIR" capture and if that
> works, then the ATI card is not at fault.
>
> Remember that the computer monitor IS NOT a television, and
> it WONT blur out the flaws in the tv signal, which is
> essentially what a TV does.
>
> The poor resolution of a television is why we were happy
> with VHS as a medium for movies. You couldn't see what you
> were missing anyway.
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Smarty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
The ATI capture cards do a mediocre job of converting analog video to
digital. They use cheap analog to digital converters, very primitive synch
separators, and poor color demodulators, I also ran into severe lip synch
issues when capturing longer (30 minute and up) programs. I eventually gave
up after owning and trying 3 ATI All In Wonder cards and reading the threads
of others with similar experiences. Some people have had success with them,
but I have not.

My eventual solution was to go to better capture devices which totally
eliminated the problems cited above. For analog capture I now use either a
Sony Digital Media Converter which outputs Firewire DV streams, and
Hauppauge PVR-250 cards which output directly to DVD compatible MPEG2 files.
Both work superbly well, as does the Canopus ADVC. These devices totally
outperform the ATI boards, which do a lot of things quite well but capturing
external analog video is not one of them.

Smarty


"brickled" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JJPhd.16088$(E-Mail Removed) hlink.net...
> ok, i'm w/ u that a tv's resolution is lower than a monitor's.........but
> if
> i can get a very acceptable result on the tv, it stands to reason that i
> should be able to get an acceptable result when the end target use is also
> going to be viewed on a tv.....
>
> i'm trying to get my hands on the original as to avoid using the vhs
> altogether......see if that helps.
>
> when i do go directly from my cam tapes to the capture card, i get better
> results but still, i'm much more happy w/ what i see on the tv when i
> output
> the cam directly to my tv vs. capturing it onto my computer & then feeding
> the result back to my tv (in the form of a finished dvd).
>
>
> "Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
>> In article <lsOhd.15995$5i5.15842
>> @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, (E-Mail Removed)
>> says...
>> > the footage i'm capturing is footage that was originally dumped from a
>> > camcorder 8 mm tape (so no copyright issues to be concerned with). when

> i
>> > play this tape to my tv the output is great - when i capture this exact

> same
>> > output with my ati capture device, i get very marginal results -

> especially
>> > of concern is the waviness across the top of the screen. so either my
>> > tv

> is
>> > correcting a lot of this or my capture device is taking a perfectly
>> > good
>> > signal and messing it up as it captures it....
>> >

>>
>>
>> The issue is most probably Time Base correction, Time base
>> becomes more of an issue every time the video is recorded..
>> If you copied the 8mm to VHS and dont have the 8mm
>> available then you wont get what you want, you are already
>> dealing with a second generation copy of what was a poor
>> (assuming consumer level 8mm gear) quality picture to begin
>> with.
>>
>> First you have to understand that it doesen't look as good
>> on TV as you think it does. The TV simply doesnt have
>> enough resolution using the output of a VCR to show you
>> whats bad about it!
>>
>> Even a low resolution Computer monitor make a tv signal
>> look like crap, because the computer monitor has enough
>> resolution to show the picture warts and all.
>>
>> Like I said. Do an "OFF THE AIR" capture and if that
>> works, then the ATI card is not at fault.
>>
>> Remember that the computer monitor IS NOT a television, and
>> it WONT blur out the flaws in the tv signal, which is
>> essentially what a TV does.
>>
>> The poor resolution of a television is why we were happy
>> with VHS as a medium for movies. You couldn't see what you
>> were missing anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Larry Lynch
>> Mystic, Ct.

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
In article <JJPhd.16088$5i5.14897
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> ok, i'm w/ u that a tv's resolution is lower than a monitor's.........but if
> i can get a very acceptable result on the tv, it stands to reason that i
> should be able to get an acceptable result when the end target use is also
> going to be viewed on a tv.....
>
> i'm trying to get my hands on the original as to avoid using the vhs
> altogether......see if that helps.
>
> when i do go directly from my cam tapes to the capture card, i get better
> results but still, i'm much more happy w/ what i see on the tv when i output
> the cam directly to my tv vs. capturing it onto my computer & then feeding
> the result back to my tv (in the form of a finished dvd).
>
>
>


What quality setting are you using for the capture???

I use "high quality DVD" setting using ATIs own capture
software, then import int whatever Im using to edit/produce
the video.

A good quick computer (>>2 ghz Pentium or Athlon) will
capture DvD quality "ON THE FLY" without dropping frames.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> The ATI capture cards do a mediocre job of converting analog video to
> digital. They use cheap analog to digital converters, very primitive synch
> separators, and poor color demodulators, I also ran into severe lip synch
> issues when capturing longer (30 minute and up) programs. I eventually gave
> up after owning and trying 3 ATI All In Wonder cards and reading the threads
> of others with similar experiences. Some people have had success with them,
> but I have not.
>


These problems usually only plague people with << 2ghz
systems or slow/cluttered harddrives.

The BIG problem is ATI doesn't advertise what powerhogs the
All In Wonder card is. It REALLY needs a fast system and
fast hard-drives before it can do what its supposed to.

Even then, if the hard drive gets fragmented, or the UDMA
mode gets messed with by windows (which happens even with
XP Pro) you go right back to skipped frames, and stuttery
video.

The current line of All In Wonders (with current drivers)
doesn't seem to have sound sync problems.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
brickled
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2004
i've tried all the different settings, from "good" to "best" - all giving
similar results.

i think i'm just gonna give up on the ati and fork over the cash for the
canopus advc-100.

after researching it today, it was highest rated by actual users at many of
the dvd authoring type websites.

thanks for everyone's help...

"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> In article <JJPhd.16088$5i5.14897
> @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
> > ok, i'm w/ u that a tv's resolution is lower than a

monitor's.........but if
> > i can get a very acceptable result on the tv, it stands to reason that i
> > should be able to get an acceptable result when the end target use is

also
> > going to be viewed on a tv.....
> >
> > i'm trying to get my hands on the original as to avoid using the vhs
> > altogether......see if that helps.
> >
> > when i do go directly from my cam tapes to the capture card, i get

better
> > results but still, i'm much more happy w/ what i see on the tv when i

output
> > the cam directly to my tv vs. capturing it onto my computer & then

feeding
> > the result back to my tv (in the form of a finished dvd).
> >
> >
> >

>
> What quality setting are you using for the capture???
>
> I use "high quality DVD" setting using ATIs own capture
> software, then import int whatever Im using to edit/produce
> the video.
>
> A good quick computer (>>2 ghz Pentium or Athlon) will
> capture DvD quality "ON THE FLY" without dropping frames.
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Smarty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2004
Larry,

My ATI problems were indeed with slower machines (2 GHz) I used at that
time. However, these were the fastest machines sold in that era (2002-2003)
and way above the requirement stated by ATI for using their cards. It is
indeed true that lip synch issues were profoundly worse when frames were
dropped. It is also my experience however that a capture made with no
dropped frames whatsoever, using a 2 GHz machine with plenty of RAM and a
very fast and uncluttered (dedicated) capture disk with its own dedicated
controller (either IDE or Firewire) produced poor digital files with choppy
video, very poor lip synch, and video that had numerous severe problems. The
faults were bad enough that DVDs which I burned were grossly inferior to
other captures I was able to do with any of several other methods I
compared. In defense of ATI, the card did a very nice job of TV time
shifting, had fast graphics, and a lot of other nice features, and was very
inexpensive considering all the things it could do. Getting the right
drivers for it to work properly was a bit tricky, and I never found the DVD
video captures to be worth any serious consideration.

Since a new capture card like the PVR-250 is only $80 if you shop for it
carefully, I now recommend it as a much better solution. I have to admit
that I have NOT looked at ATI cards since mid 2003 and a lot may have
improved / changed since then.

Smarty


"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> The ATI capture cards do a mediocre job of converting analog video to
>> digital. They use cheap analog to digital converters, very primitive
>> synch
>> separators, and poor color demodulators, I also ran into severe lip synch
>> issues when capturing longer (30 minute and up) programs. I eventually
>> gave
>> up after owning and trying 3 ATI All In Wonder cards and reading the
>> threads
>> of others with similar experiences. Some people have had success with
>> them,
>> but I have not.
>>

>
> These problems usually only plague people with << 2ghz
> systems or slow/cluttered harddrives.
>
> The BIG problem is ATI doesn't advertise what powerhogs the
> All In Wonder card is. It REALLY needs a fast system and
> fast hard-drives before it can do what its supposed to.
>
> Even then, if the hard drive gets fragmented, or the UDMA
> mode gets messed with by windows (which happens even with
> XP Pro) you go right back to skipped frames, and stuttery
> video.
>
> The current line of All In Wonders (with current drivers)
> doesn't seem to have sound sync problems.
>
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone used a Powercolor ATI Radeon 9600 All-in-Wonder 128MB in Win98SE? GraB NZ Computing 4 07-23-2005 01:52 AM
Wanted ATI 9600 all-in-wonder to purchase in Wellington Anonymous NZ Computing 1 07-04-2004 08:39 AM
Wanted ATI 9600 all-in-wonder to purchase in Wellington thing NZ Computing 0 07-02-2004 04:09 AM
looking for sellers of ati 9600 all-in-wonder's thing NZ Computing 7 06-23-2004 07:31 PM
Can ATi 9600 run on k5-2 550 Max Computer Support 2 12-24-2003 01:32 PM



Advertisments