Time is not on my side. - Please Help.

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by spinach47, Oct 8, 2005.

  1. spinach47

    spinach47 Guest

    When burning a DVD it takes 30+ hours.
    My goal is to copy over 50, 2-hour, family video tapes to DVD for my
    children and me.
    At this rate I won't live long enough to get them done.

    My computer is a Sony VAIO PCG-FRV31. It has a Celeron 2.4 Ghz CPU with 448
    mb of RAM.
    The OS is XP SP2.
    I first capture the home movie to an external hard drive. It is a Maxtor One
    Touch 100Gb drive.
    The DVD burner is a Sony DRX720UL 8x.
    The media is TDK DVD-R 8x discs.
    The burning software is Nero 6 Ultra Edition. It lets me know it won't fit
    on a single DVD but says it can compress it to make it fit. I respond OK.
    I was not connected to the internet while burning. I also stopped all
    processes I felt comfortable stopping during the burn.

    The recent video file I have captured is 34 GB. Nero estimated it would take
    32 hours. I started the copy and it would have taken that long. I aborted
    it. Also, I monitored the performance with Windows Task Manager while it was
    burning and the CPU usage was at 100% the whole time.
    The only video I successfully burned was also about 30 gb and it did take
    30+ hours to burn. It came out fine.
    Does anyone have any ideas what my problem is and suggestions on how to burn
    in a much more reasonable time?
    Thanks in advance.
    spinach47, Oct 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. spinach47

    FAQmeister Guest

    "spinach47" <> wrote in message
    news:QMD1f.2007$MN6.1872@fed1read04
    > When burning a DVD it takes 30+ hours.
    > My goal is to copy over 50, 2-hour, family video tapes to DVD for my
    > children and me.
    > At this rate I won't live long enough to get them done.
    >
    > My computer is a Sony VAIO PCG-FRV31. It has a Celeron 2.4 Ghz CPU
    > with 448 mb of RAM.
    > The OS is XP SP2.
    > I first capture the home movie to an external hard drive. It is a
    > Maxtor One Touch 100Gb drive.
    > The DVD burner is a Sony DRX720UL 8x.
    > The media is TDK DVD-R 8x discs.
    > The burning software is Nero 6 Ultra Edition. It lets me know it
    > won't fit on a single DVD but says it can compress it to make it fit.
    > I respond OK. I was not connected to the internet while burning. I
    > also stopped all processes I felt comfortable stopping during the
    > burn.
    > The recent video file I have captured is 34 GB. Nero estimated it
    > would take 32 hours. I started the copy and it would have taken that
    > long. I aborted it. Also, I monitored the performance with Windows
    > Task Manager while it was burning and the CPU usage was at 100% the
    > whole time. The only video I successfully burned was also about 30 gb
    > and it did take 30+ hours to burn. It came out fine.
    > Does anyone have any ideas what my problem is and suggestions on how
    > to burn in a much more reasonable time?
    > Thanks in advance.


    Best bet (and cheapest) is to cut down on the file sizes so that they
    won't have to be compressed so much. You can do 1 hour at a time or
    fiddle with the options for the capture (resolution, bit rate, etc) to
    make smaller files.
    --
    The alt.video.dvd faq is located at:
    http://aww-faq.org/dvdfaq.html
    FAQmeister, Oct 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. spinach47

    Impmon Guest

    On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:46:00 -0700, "spinach47"
    <> wrote:

    >Does anyone have any ideas what my problem is and suggestions on how to burn
    >in a much more reasonable time?


    Nero is not the best on encoding or converting. You need a better
    program to convert before using Nero to burn. Or just get ULead DVD
    Movie Factory trial and try that one. It can help adjost the quality
    of the video so it'd fit the DVD, add menu or not, do all conversion
    and encoding before it burns or makes ISO for you to burn using
    different programs.

    A 2 hours video from my camera to DVD in about 3 and 1/2 hours is the
    norm. The capturing process is what kills the speed since there's no
    way to speed it up without getting distorted VCR stripes. Even when
    using firewire hookup. :( FWIW my DVD burner does 16x on single layer
    DVD, which is usually under 5 minutes total burning.

    Also more RAM would help. Your current config is a bit limited and
    Windows would be using pagefile more, which means more disk activity
    and that hinders the conversion and encoding process.
    --
    When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
    Impmon, Oct 8, 2005
    #3
  4. spinach47

    spinach47 Guest

    I will research your suggestions. thx
    "FAQmeister" <> wrote in message
    news:di7lmu$34d$...
    > "spinach47" <> wrote in message
    > news:QMD1f.2007$MN6.1872@fed1read04
    >> When burning a DVD it takes 30+ hours.
    >> My goal is to copy over 50, 2-hour, family video tapes to DVD for my
    >> children and me.
    >> At this rate I won't live long enough to get them done.
    >>
    >> My computer is a Sony VAIO PCG-FRV31. It has a Celeron 2.4 Ghz CPU
    >> with 448 mb of RAM.
    >> The OS is XP SP2.
    >> I first capture the home movie to an external hard drive. It is a
    >> Maxtor One Touch 100Gb drive.
    >> The DVD burner is a Sony DRX720UL 8x.
    >> The media is TDK DVD-R 8x discs.
    >> The burning software is Nero 6 Ultra Edition. It lets me know it
    >> won't fit on a single DVD but says it can compress it to make it fit.
    >> I respond OK. I was not connected to the internet while burning. I
    >> also stopped all processes I felt comfortable stopping during the
    >> burn.
    >> The recent video file I have captured is 34 GB. Nero estimated it
    >> would take 32 hours. I started the copy and it would have taken that
    >> long. I aborted it. Also, I monitored the performance with Windows
    >> Task Manager while it was burning and the CPU usage was at 100% the
    >> whole time. The only video I successfully burned was also about 30 gb
    >> and it did take 30+ hours to burn. It came out fine.
    >> Does anyone have any ideas what my problem is and suggestions on how
    >> to burn in a much more reasonable time?
    >> Thanks in advance.

    >
    > Best bet (and cheapest) is to cut down on the file sizes so that they
    > won't have to be compressed so much. You can do 1 hour at a time or fiddle
    > with the options for the capture (resolution, bit rate, etc) to make
    > smaller files.
    > --
    > The alt.video.dvd faq is located at:
    > http://aww-faq.org/dvdfaq.html
    >
    spinach47, Oct 9, 2005
    #4
  5. spinach47

    spinach47 Guest

    Wow! That's more like it. How do you do it? Yes it takes me 2 hours to
    capture the file. So I should be able to burn it in 1 1/2 hours? What do you
    use to accomplish it?
    I would consider more memory but would like to be reasonably sure that will
    solve my problem. thx

    "Impmon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:46:00 -0700, "spinach47"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Does anyone have any ideas what my problem is and suggestions on how to
    >>burn
    >>in a much more reasonable time?

    >
    > Nero is not the best on encoding or converting. You need a better
    > program to convert before using Nero to burn. Or just get ULead DVD
    > Movie Factory trial and try that one. It can help adjost the quality
    > of the video so it'd fit the DVD, add menu or not, do all conversion
    > and encoding before it burns or makes ISO for you to burn using
    > different programs.
    >
    > A 2 hours video from my camera to DVD in about 3 and 1/2 hours is the
    > norm. The capturing process is what kills the speed since there's no
    > way to speed it up without getting distorted VCR stripes. Even when
    > using firewire hookup. :( FWIW my DVD burner does 16x on single layer
    > DVD, which is usually under 5 minutes total burning.
    >
    > Also more RAM would help. Your current config is a bit limited and
    > Windows would be using pagefile more, which means more disk activity
    > and that hinders the conversion and encoding process.
    > --
    > When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    > too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    > To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
    spinach47, Oct 9, 2005
    #5
  6. spinach47

    spinach47 Guest

    Oops. Sorry. I see you have answers to my reply embedded in my questions.
    I captured my video by using the original camcorder that created the tape
    and passed it through my Digital camcorder.
    It takes 2 hours to copy the 2 hour tape to my hard drive. Where would the
    conversion program come into play. How long would that take? By
    extrapolation, you're saying about 1 1/2 hours minus the 5 minutes to burn?
    Sorry about the additional questions but I'm definately not an expert in
    this area. Sounds like you have it down. I am open to trying new software.
    thx
    "Impmon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:46:00 -0700, "spinach47"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Does anyone have any ideas what my problem is and suggestions on how to
    >>burn
    >>in a much more reasonable time?

    >
    > Nero is not the best on encoding or converting. You need a better
    > program to convert before using Nero to burn. Or just get ULead DVD
    > Movie Factory trial and try that one. It can help adjost the quality
    > of the video so it'd fit the DVD, add menu or not, do all conversion
    > and encoding before it burns or makes ISO for you to burn using
    > different programs.
    >
    > A 2 hours video from my camera to DVD in about 3 and 1/2 hours is the
    > norm. The capturing process is what kills the speed since there's no
    > way to speed it up without getting distorted VCR stripes. Even when
    > using firewire hookup. :( FWIW my DVD burner does 16x on single layer
    > DVD, which is usually under 5 minutes total burning.
    >
    > Also more RAM would help. Your current config is a bit limited and
    > Windows would be using pagefile more, which means more disk activity
    > and that hinders the conversion and encoding process.
    > --
    > When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    > too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    > To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
    spinach47, Oct 9, 2005
    #6
  7. spinach47

    Impmon Guest

    On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 18:32:23 -0700, "spinach47"
    <> wrote:

    >Wow! That's more like it. How do you do it? Yes it takes me 2 hours to
    >capture the file. So I should be able to burn it in 1 1/2 hours? What do you
    >use to accomplish it?
    >I would consider more memory but would like to be reasonably sure that will
    >solve my problem. thx


    When I capture via composite or S-Video with my tuner card, I use
    Virtual VCR and use either MJPEG or Huffyuv codec for minimal CPU
    power. For Firewire, I use Microsoft program and save it in raw
    format from my video camera. Then I use ULead DVD Factory to make
    DVDs out of the video. For the burning process I usually use 16x
    DVD+R as they can be fininshed within 5 minutes.

    Bear in mind I have 1,500 MB of RAM and several hundred GB of disk
    space so I have no trouble maintaining high speed throughout the
    capture and conversion.
    --
    When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
    Impmon, Oct 9, 2005
    #7
  8. spinach47

    Ben Wallace Guest

    "spinach47" <> wrote in message
    news:Dv_1f.2272$MN6.1383@fed1read04...
    > Oops. Sorry. I see you have answers to my reply embedded in my questions.
    > I captured my video by using the original camcorder that created the tape
    > and passed it through my Digital camcorder.
    > It takes 2 hours to copy the 2 hour tape to my hard drive. Where would the
    > conversion program come into play. How long would that take? By
    > extrapolation, you're saying about 1 1/2 hours minus the 5 minutes to

    burn?
    > Sorry about the additional questions but I'm definately not an expert in
    > this area. Sounds like you have it down. I am open to trying new software.
    > thx
    > "Impmon" <> wrote in message


    It will of course take 2 hrs to capture 2 hrs of video via tape, it's done
    in real time.

    Once captured you need software to convert the video to dvd compliant files.
    Others have mentioned ulead, but there are many out there.

    Depending on the software you are using it could convert it in a few hours
    or up to as much as 10-12 hrs to finish.

    Once the files are dvd compliant it should burn rather quickly, depending on
    the speed of your burner and media.

    It's hard to give you specifics but here's an example from personal
    experience.

    Using dvd workshop i captured a 1 1/2 hr tape of old home video.

    I then spent about 20 minutes cutting out stuff I didn't want, adding menus,
    etc.

    Clicked on convert and about 3 hrs later it had converted and burned the
    dvd.

    I sometimes need to convert different file formats that DVD Workshop can't
    handle. For this I use Canopus ProCoder. This is a great converter,
    excellent quality but slow.

    A 2 hr video takes about 10-12 hrs to convert. It does however create the
    necessary IFO's and leaves me a folder ready to burn. Burning takes 6
    minutes.

    Hope this helps.
    Ben Wallace, Oct 9, 2005
    #8
  9. spinach47

    spinach47 Guest

    I use my analog and digital camcorders to capture the video and it produces
    an avi file. It uses firewire too.
    What is 'raw' format? Where do codecs come into play? The only thing Nero
    indicates to me is that the avi
    file is too big for the DVD and wants to know if it should compress it for
    me. It mentions something about
    Type-7 or Type-9 but it means nothing to me.
    So ULead does the conversion and burn for you as Nero apparently is doing
    for me? Only ULead is
    much much faster. thx.

    "Impmon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 18:32:23 -0700, "spinach47"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Wow! That's more like it. How do you do it? Yes it takes me 2 hours to
    >>capture the file. So I should be able to burn it in 1 1/2 hours? What do
    >>you
    >>use to accomplish it?
    >>I would consider more memory but would like to be reasonably sure that
    >>will
    >>solve my problem. thx

    >
    > When I capture via composite or S-Video with my tuner card, I use
    > Virtual VCR and use either MJPEG or Huffyuv codec for minimal CPU
    > power. For Firewire, I use Microsoft program and save it in raw
    > format from my video camera. Then I use ULead DVD Factory to make
    > DVDs out of the video. For the burning process I usually use 16x
    > DVD+R as they can be fininshed within 5 minutes.
    >
    > Bear in mind I have 1,500 MB of RAM and several hundred GB of disk
    > space so I have no trouble maintaining high speed throughout the
    > capture and conversion.
    > --
    > When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    > too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    > To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
    spinach47, Oct 11, 2005
    #9
  10. spinach47

    spinach47 Guest

    I'm a little confused. You said it took 3 hours to convert and burn but you
    said it could
    take 10-12 hours too. Is it ProCoder that takes longer?
    If my capture process creates an avi file, how do I know what to convert it
    to for the burn?
    Nero says the avi file is too big for the DVD and tells me it will compress
    it for me. It
    mentions something about Type-7 and Type-9 but that's Greek to me. I just
    let it go for it.
    So does that mean that Nero is converting it for me?
    It sounds like the concensus is that Nero is just sloooow.
    Am I getting the drift of things? thx again.

    "Ben Wallace" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "spinach47" <> wrote in message
    > news:Dv_1f.2272$MN6.1383@fed1read04...
    >> Oops. Sorry. I see you have answers to my reply embedded in my questions.
    >> I captured my video by using the original camcorder that created the tape
    >> and passed it through my Digital camcorder.
    >> It takes 2 hours to copy the 2 hour tape to my hard drive. Where would
    >> the
    >> conversion program come into play. How long would that take? By
    >> extrapolation, you're saying about 1 1/2 hours minus the 5 minutes to
    >> burn?
    >> Sorry about the additional questions but I'm definately not an expert in
    >> this area. Sounds like you have it down. I am open to trying new
    >> software. thx
    >> "Impmon" <> wrote in message

    >
    > It will of course take 2 hrs to capture 2 hrs of video via tape, it's done
    > in real time.
    > Once captured you need software to convert the video to dvd compliant
    > files.
    > Others have mentioned ulead, but there are many out there.
    > Depending on the software you are using it could convert it in a few hours
    > or up to as much as 10-12 hrs to finish.
    > Once the files are dvd compliant it should burn rather quickly, depending
    > on
    > the speed of your burner and media.
    > It's hard to give you specifics but here's an example from personal
    > experience.
    > Using dvd workshop i captured a 1 1/2 hr tape of old home video.
    > I then spent about 20 minutes cutting out stuff I didn't want, adding
    > menus, etc.
    > Clicked on convert and about 3 hrs later it had converted and burned the
    > dvd.
    > I sometimes need to convert different file formats that DVD Workshop can't
    > handle. For this I use Canopus ProCoder. This is a great converter,
    > excellent quality but slow.
    > A 2 hr video takes about 10-12 hrs to convert. It does however create the
    > necessary IFO's and leaves me a folder ready to burn. Burning takes 6
    > minutes.
    > Hope this helps.
    spinach47, Oct 11, 2005
    #10
  11. spinach47

    Impmon Guest

    On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:43:25 -0700, "spinach47"
    <> wrote:

    >I use my analog and digital camcorders to capture the video and it produces
    >an avi file. It uses firewire too.
    >What is 'raw' format?


    Digital camcorders have its own codec and when you save the video
    straight from the camcorder, it is considered "raw" and you do need to
    install codec on PC to properly view them on PC. The type of codec
    depends on the brand of your camcorder.


    >So ULead does the conversion and burn for you as Nero apparently is doing
    >for me? Only ULead is
    >much much faster. thx.


    I haven't used Nero for making DVD movies since the compression and
    conversion is generally slow. ULead is much faster and it also are
    easy to set up and make movie DVDs with or without menu, background
    pictures, music, etc.

    Why don't you try browsing around the forums at videohelp.com and see
    what the other opinions are.
    --
    When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
    Impmon, Oct 11, 2005
    #11
  12. spinach47

    dubbah Guest

    spinach47 wrote:
    > When burning a DVD it takes 30+ hours.
    > My goal is to copy over 50, 2-hour, family video tapes to DVD for my
    > children and me.
    > At this rate I won't live long enough to get them done.
    >
    > My computer is a Sony VAIO PCG-FRV31. It has a Celeron 2.4 Ghz CPU with 448
    > mb of RAM.
    > The OS is XP SP2.
    > I first capture the home movie to an external hard drive. It is a Maxtor One
    > Touch 100Gb drive.
    > The DVD burner is a Sony DRX720UL 8x.
    > The media is TDK DVD-R 8x discs.
    > The burning software is Nero 6 Ultra Edition. It lets me know it won't fit
    > on a single DVD but says it can compress it to make it fit. I respond OK.
    > I was not connected to the internet while burning. I also stopped all
    > processes I felt comfortable stopping during the burn.


    You'd be better off to dub your videotapes onto a DVD recorder, which
    would take only two hours per each tape!!!!
    You can get a Sony or Panasonic DVD recorder which accesses dvd-r
    blank
    discs. You'll be able to do the job in less time than you ever
    possible. Good luck!
    dubbah, Oct 11, 2005
    #12
  13. spinach47

    dubbah Guest

    spinach47 wrote:
    > I'm a little confused. You said it took 3 hours to convert and burn but you
    > said it could
    > take 10-12 hours too. Is it ProCoder that takes longer?


    Forget using a computer to convert videotapes onto a dvd. It takes a
    bitch
    of a lengthy time to do it, so painfully slow and a pain in the a...
    If you can get a DVD recorder, a good name like Sony or Panasonic, it
    will
    only take you 2 hours max per 2 hour video, guaranteed!
    dubbah, Oct 11, 2005
    #13
  14. spinach47

    spinach47 Guest

    Thanks, I have a lot to look into and thing about.

    "Impmon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:43:25 -0700, "spinach47"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I use my analog and digital camcorders to capture the video and it
    >>produces
    >>an avi file. It uses firewire too.
    >>What is 'raw' format?

    >
    > Digital camcorders have its own codec and when you save the video
    > straight from the camcorder, it is considered "raw" and you do need to
    > install codec on PC to properly view them on PC. The type of codec
    > depends on the brand of your camcorder.
    >
    >
    >>So ULead does the conversion and burn for you as Nero apparently is doing
    >>for me? Only ULead is
    >>much much faster. thx.

    >
    > I haven't used Nero for making DVD movies since the compression and
    > conversion is generally slow. ULead is much faster and it also are
    > easy to set up and make movie DVDs with or without menu, background
    > pictures, music, etc.
    >
    > Why don't you try browsing around the forums at videohelp.com and see
    > what the other opinions are.
    > --
    > When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    > too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    > To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
    spinach47, Oct 12, 2005
    #14
  15. spinach47

    Impmon Guest

    On 11 Oct 2005 09:39:01 -0700, "dubbah" <> wrote:

    > Forget using a computer to convert videotapes onto a dvd. It takes a
    >bitch
    > of a lengthy time to do it, so painfully slow and a pain in the a...
    > If you can get a DVD recorder, a good name like Sony or Panasonic, it
    >will
    > only take you 2 hours max per 2 hour video, guaranteed!


    At what cost? Those stand alone DVD recorders are not cheap. Plus
    you don't control specifics like removing blank footages, unwanted
    scenes, etc. With PC you can still edit out the video before burning
    them and once you get to the burning process, you can save the ISO
    image to make multiple copies in just minutes each.

    Assume you have a recent wedding and you got 20 people who wants a
    copy of the video in DVD. With some recorders, you're looking at
    about 40 hours plus a risk of tape tearing up from heavy use. With
    PC, a few hours for capture and conversion, then a few minutes each
    copy.

    I know there are some recorders with internal hard drives but those
    costs even more. Some of those decent recorders are comparable in
    price to cheap PC.
    --
    When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
    too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
    To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
    Impmon, Oct 12, 2005
    #15
  16. On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:23:34 -0400, Impmon <> wrote:

    >On 11 Oct 2005 09:39:01 -0700, "dubbah" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Forget using a computer to convert videotapes onto a dvd. It takes a
    >>bitch
    >> of a lengthy time to do it, so painfully slow and a pain in the a...
    >> If you can get a DVD recorder, a good name like Sony or Panasonic, it
    >>will
    >> only take you 2 hours max per 2 hour video, guaranteed!

    >
    >At what cost? Those stand alone DVD recorders are not cheap.


    Yes they are- 98 bucks at Walmart. 200 buck if you want a first rate
    Pioneer etc.

    >you don't control specifics like removing blank footages, unwanted
    >scenes, etc. With PC you can still edit out the video before burning
    >them and once you get to the burning process, you can save the ISO
    >image to make multiple copies in just minutes each.
    >

    Just burn it onto a RW disk and edit it on the PC just as you would
    do with a card.

    >Assume you have a recent wedding and you got 20 people who wants a
    >copy of the video in DVD. With some recorders, you're looking at
    >about 40 hours plus a risk of tape tearing up from heavy use. With
    >PC, a few hours for capture and conversion, then a few minutes each
    >copy.
    >

    Have you ever heard of "Disk Copy"?
    The disk you burn on the recorder can be taken to the PC and copied at
    a rate of about 15 mins per disk on my machine.

    >I know there are some recorders with internal hard drives but those
    >costs even more. Some of those decent recorders are comparable in
    >price to cheap PC.


    Those built in HD drives are for time shifting not editing.
    You don't need nor really want an expensive built in hard drive-which
    won't help with PC editing anyway.

    Capture cards are a lot more problematic and complicated and often
    more expensive than using a recorder. At least for the simple transfer
    of VHS to DVD.

    For the transfer of tapes to DVD a recorder is cheap, simple and
    effective and you have all the power of your PC to edit and/or copy
    the recorder's output just as you would with a card but a lot faster
    and more trouble free.
    Serial # 19781010, Oct 12, 2005
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    Impmon <> wrote:
    >On 11 Oct 2005 09:39:01 -0700, "dubbah" <> wrote:


    >> Forget using a computer to convert videotapes onto a dvd. It
    >>takes a bitch of a lengthy time to do it, so painfully slow and
    >>a pain in the a... If you can get a DVD recorder, a good name
    >>like Sony or Panasonic, it will only take you 2 hours max per 2
    >>hour video, guaranteed!


    >At what cost? Those stand alone DVD recorders are not cheap. Plus
    >you don't control specifics like removing blank footages, unwanted
    >scenes, etc. With PC you can still edit out the video before burning
    >them and once you get to the burning process, you can save the ISO
    >image to make multiple copies in just minutes each.


    Standalone start in mid $100 range and go up.

    But what I do is roll the VCR - with it's built in TBC and NR
    directly to the DVDRecorded on +RW disks. Then it's quite easy
    to use something like VideoRedo to cut, rearrange scenes, etc.

    You eliminate the step of encoding the video read in - which
    depending upon the quality you select can take much longer than
    playing the video.

    >Assume you have a recent wedding and you got 20 people who wants a
    >copy of the video in DVD. With some recorders, you're looking at
    >about 40 hours plus a risk of tape tearing up from heavy use. With
    >PC, a few hours for capture and conversion, then a few minutes each
    >copy.


    No. If you do the above, use VideoRedo [as an example] and some
    authoring program like TDA, then you have an ISO file you can copy
    over and over with any program of your choice. I like DVDDecryptor
    for that.

    >I know there are some recorders with internal hard drives but those
    >costs even more. Some of those decent recorders are comparable in
    >price to cheap PC.


    Yup. That's why I have a plain old recorder without the HD.

    Bill
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion, Oct 13, 2005
    #17
  18. spinach47

    dubbah Guest

    Serial # 19781010 wrote:

    > >At what cost? Those stand alone DVD recorders are not cheap.

    >
    > Yes they are- 98 bucks at Walmart. 200 buck if you want a first rate
    > Pioneer etc.


    $800 for Sony, $300 for a Philips-Magnavox (mine went after
    several months! Piece of crap), $200 for a Coby (which a buddy
    bought).

    > Just burn it onto a RW disk and edit it on the PC just as you would
    > do with a card.


    IF you have a PC.

    > >

    > Have you ever heard of "Disk Copy"?
    > The disk you burn on the recorder can be taken to the PC and copied at
    > a rate of about 15 mins per disk on my machine.


    That's after burning on recorder, not before. Ah.


    > Those built in HD drives are for time shifting not editing.
    > You don't need nor really want an expensive built in hard drive-which
    > won't help with PC editing anyway.


    Don't need expensive hard drive. Buy a good recorder,
    it pays for itself, I'm sure. Computers cost a lot as it is,
    good ones!

    > Capture cards are a lot more problematic and complicated and often
    > more expensive than using a recorder. At least for the simple transfer
    > of VHS to DVD.


    Agree. Was told PCs are a pain in the rear for video dubbing
    from vhs.

    > For the transfer of tapes to DVD a recorder is cheap, simple and
    > effective and you have all the power of your PC to edit and/or copy
    > the recorder's output just as you would with a card but a lot faster
    > and more trouble free.


    Well said.

    I can't tell anyone what to do, it's his choice.
    dubbah, Oct 13, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    627
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 15, 2004
  2. TRUE

    Help. Windows Explorer side-by-side window

    TRUE, May 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    758
    ┬░Mike┬░
    May 10, 2004
  3. Eric
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    627
    Toolman Tim
    Jul 28, 2005
  4. R2D2

    G5 vs G3 Side-by-side Pics

    R2D2, Feb 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    429
    Guenter Fieblinger
    Feb 10, 2004
  5. Vlvetmorning98

    "east side, west side" (TV series)

    Vlvetmorning98, Jan 14, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    581
    jayembee
    Jan 14, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page