Best video capturing cards for PAL?
 

Hi all,

First of all, this forum is amazing. I grew up with VHS, and to my eyes you're really doing a heroic job on analog signals from a dear past. I now find myself attempting to do my best with 50 or so VHS (NTSC and PAL) that need to be transferred to H.265-encoded files. It is a treasure chest of memories (many of the people in them aren't even alive anymore), and I know that if I don't do it, they will be lost (or at best vandalized by a click-and-transfer-to-dvd-while-grocery-shopping service).

After reading the forum, I feel that (provided that I can find a good VCR and TBC), I have two options to receive YCbCr streams from s-video and encode them on-the-fly as Huffyuv lossless files:

1. Buy an ATI All-In-Wonder 9600 for $15 and a Turtle Beach PCI TB400 for $20, and install them in a P4 system with Windows XP Pro SP2 32bit and VirtualDub 1.9.
   
2. Buy the ATI TV Wonder HD 600 USB 2.0 stick for $90 and use FFmpeg on a modern Linux system (which I'm very familiar with), using the built-in audio input to capture audio at the same time.

I'll be in the US for a few weeks :wink2: and it's a very good chance to buy some hardware (almost impossible to find in Italy). A few questions:

• I read that the AIW 9600 is recommended over the HD 600. What are the implications on quality, exactly? Framedrops? A worse A/D conversion? I'd like to avoid a P4/xp build (which I grew up with but I feel it's too hard to find reliable components for) and I'm trying to understand how big this would be compared to having a better VCR.
  
• Is an onboard audio ALC1220 chip (i.e., from a recent Intel motherboard) good for audio capture?
  
• Are there usually sync problems when capturing video and audio separately?
  
• These capturing cards work for both PAL and NTSC, right? The AIW description says it has a "PAL TV tuner" but I can still capture NTSC VHS from an s-video cable, right?

Thanks a lot,
Marco

For the moment, finding the hardware is not the hard part. Right now, I have a TBC and an ATI 600 USB available for sale. It's listed in the Marketplace forum, PM me about it. I'm assuming you're PAL, and these both do work with PAL. Not everything does. And I'll ship to Italy, or to whatever (non-hotel!) location you'll be at.

Again, assuming PAL, you don't want to buy a VCR outside Europe. But I can help you track one down.

ATI AIW requires XP and AGP (thus single-core P4/Athlon, though a few EOL Asrocks allow dual/quad-core). User jwillis and myself do have some experience with hacking around with WinVista/Win7, and some successes, but it's very stable in terms of hardware configs. So it may work, or may not. And it requires a modest understanding of the OS, both for driver installs and DirectX/Show.

The ATI 600 USB, on the other hand, works in WinXP, Vista, 7, 8, and 10. Although each gets successively worse. XP best, Vista/7 next best, 8 a little worse than 7, 10 gives a lot of problems. Newer hardware and OS conflicts with older hardware. As with the AIW WinVista/7, some hardware cooperates, some does not.

Onboard audio is rarely good for capture. Some Realteks, but that's about it.

Audio/video is always captured separately, though you're not informed of it. Or outright lied to. When you have sync issues, its usually tied to dropped frames issues. Onboard audio chips are an example of something that commonly causes dropped frames.

Analog PAL/NTSC tuners on AIW cards are 99% useless now, since almost all analog broadcasts are now digital. The card itself is NTSC+PAL, only the tuner was region specific.

The AIW 9000-series cards were the best, but also had more odd flaws that'd pop up due to (again) other hardware in the box. Their were shielding issues on all of them. Not often, but don't get the idea that the card was perfection.

Installing any ATI AIW card was easier said than done. I've literally fought with cards for months, installing and reinstalling different drivers and MMC/VirtualDub/etc software combos, before it behave. In December, I'm putting together my final two ATI AIW systems for sale, from my extra hardware. I'm hoping it goes smoothly, and only take a few weeks (and not months). Just understand there is some work involved, but it will be an outstanding capture box when done.

Welcome to the forum:


To add to lordsmurf's previous notes:

To preserve shadow and highlight detail and mimic the original VHS data storage, capture to YUY2 using huffyuv, Lagarith, or UT codec. Huffyuv/YUY2 is the most efficient for capture. The other codecs are used mainly in post-processing.

That would be an ideal setup for capture generally, with these allowances;

- An AIW AGP card for $15 warns that it might not be supplied with its external input/output dongle -- without it, an AIW is useless for capture. The adapters are equally difficult to find by themselves, often selling for more than the card. Different models use different adapters and rear connections.

- The most popular of the AIW line were the 7500 and 9600-series AGP's, but this popularity is more related to overall usage and accessory software. All of the AGP cards give excellent results. As for shielding provblem, I used my 7500 and 9600XT on six different PC's and never had shielding problems. Here's a link to a list of AGP cards, which are preferred over the PCIe versions mainly for reasons of ease of use with motherboard variations: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...html#post13441

- You don't need a P4 machine to capture with an All In Wonder. My capture PC is a home made XP system with an AMD dual-core CPU. Many are using XP with CPU's anywhere from late Celerons to later Intel and AMD multi-core CPU's. It depends on the motherboard or PC that you can obtain. P4 CPU's aren't required.

Judging from the experience of others, it would be a disaster even more difficult to configure and manage than your XP option. I don't know anyone who would advise such a system. For example, how would you control input signal levels with ffmpeg to avoid illegal video levels, and how would you get ATI's capture drivers to run? You're better off with the ATI 600 in a Win7 PC, which will actually work.

You need an experienced eye (not to mention a lot of test graphs) to tell the difference between the two cards. The more obvious difference is that the 9600 yields a snappier image because it doesn't clip superblacks the way the 600 does. That isn't too important for most work, but it could affect overall dynamic range with old or badly mastered tapes and make post-processing them more difficult.

Frameddrops = N/A. Depends on the overall system logistics and capture chain.

Capture device -vs- "better" VCR: A poor VCR is a waste of a good capture card, and vice versa. The purpose of each of the two components when operated properly is to transmit a source signal accurately with as little damage and as few playback errors as possible.

Modern integrated audio is better than it used to be, but it's still not as clean, clear, or noise-free as even a basic Audigy PCI add-on. Some integrateds are adequate, but just barely, and I see many complaints about audio sync issues when using them.

Yes. See lordsmurf's notes on this issue. Audio sync with AGP and USB cards is handled differently with software like Virtualdub. Keep in mind that no matter which system you use, accurate frame capture and audio sync are all but impossible without decent capture gear and working tbc's. A recent guide to capture setup with VirtualDub 1.9.1 with various capture cards/input sources is here: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...-settings.html.

Over the years I've not had installation issues with ATI basic or capture drivers, probably because I always followed ATI's instructions in detail. The only minor trouble I had in the past was once while installing MMC, but that was easily resolved. MMC isn't needed for lossless capture anyway and its video player is obsolete, so I stopped installing it years ago. The key with AGP cards is to completely uninstall any previous graphics cards or driver software before installing an AIW -- but that would be true of installing many other quality graphics cards. The USB card install is pretty straightforward until you get to Win7/8/10, in which case you'll find lordsmurf's workaround guides to be handy -- not because of ATI/AMD, but because of Microsoft's contempt for their customers.

I had just written this nice long reply, and then accidentally closed the tab. Sigh. Not re-typing all that. More notes:

I've had 9000-series interference only once or twice in 15+ years. I've had it reported via PM/post many times over the years. The solution is to replace the motherboard, or PSU, or both. Not fun.

The ATI AIW PCIe card has a lot of caveats. Not suggested unless you're fully aware of the problems you'll face, and the various workarounds to make it act as well as the AGP/PCI AIW cards, or even the 600 USB cards. Best for AVI only, not MPEG work, unlike AGP/PCI.

I've only had two onboard audio chips work well in 15+ years. Both were Realtek, one was passable, one was almost as good as the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz. Those were both top-of-the-line Gigabytes from AM2+/3 AMD era, and even now are not cheap or easy to find. Given the costs, I'd rather get an Asrock with the TBSC PCI.

The ATI 600 USB on Linux is interesting, and may work, though not as he stated, but it will not be as easy as the Windows options. You'd more likely waste time making it work, and not actually capturing. And it still may fail.

Thanks a lot for sharing your experiences! Choices are countless and your help is really fundamental to orient me in the right direction.

I think I'll try to pursue both solutions: a WinXP box with old hardware, and a newer machine (Win7 or Linux) with USB capture (audio and video).

I've ordered the AIW 9600 from this ebay seller. It says that the card is still packaged and includes the cables. Seems too good to be true, and yet too hard to pass.

For the audio part, I saw similar suggestions (avoid onboard capture) on the Audacity wiki.

For the WinXP box, I think I'll order a Turtle Beach PCI "38FRH TB400-2541-02". This is the best PCI model right? I've seen it mentioned a lot on the forum.

For USB audio capture on the Linux/Win7 box, on the Audacity wiki, they recommend USB phono plus and the Behringer UCA 2xx series. The latter does not allow to change the input signal level and it takes the power from the USB itself, so I'm oriented toward the Phono Plus. Any suggestions on USB audio capture?

Finally, about using FFmpeg with the ATI 600 USB, this thread made me hope that installing the drivers and capturing in Linux wouldn't be impossible. I'll try and report...

I've also seen that audio capture can be done with the ATI 600 USB itself, but sometimes produces clipping, which requires to adjust the OEM settings in winreg. I guess this would be missing in the linux firmware. In general, how good do you think that the audio quality of ATI 600 USB is, compared to a separate USB capture like Phono Plus?

Thanks again!!

Let me know if that seller is honest/accurate.

I don't like USB audio cards at all.

If capturing video, I'd go for the ATI 600 USB and let it grab both. Just remember to verify the audio levels are correct. On Windows, there are hacks for it. The default value is too loud, distorts. I'm currently writing that up in our new glossary. It's fine when set correctly.

Why not just use Windows XP to capture? If you're savvy enough for Linux, surely you can dual boot or whatever.

Sanlyn, lordsmurf et al.,
Thanks for sharing all your valuable experience.

In the past I was capturing my old family PAL VHS tapes using Canopus ADVC 100, more like experimenting. After I switched to ATI 600 USB device, thanks to lordsmurf for making recommendations, saving 1/2 of the colorspace.
The ATI 600 USB that I have clips the blacks on some material. I found that on some tapes a lot of details being lost due this card issue. After reading sanlyn's notes I just bought on Amazon Diamond VC500. I was actually preparing for all possible surprises with drivers and etc. for this device to be installed on Win10 and downloaded old drivers. But it was not needed. I installed drivers and EzGrabeer on Win10 from included CD with no issues. Using VirtualDub for capturing. Surprisingly everything started working fine right after the installation.
Did some test captures using all default Proc Amp settings (all in the middle), the blacks are not clipped anymore, the whites also a bit lower, less details above 235. Over all picture looks better, more balanced, with the same level of resolution (as can be recognized using old degraded tapes) comparing to ATI 600 with all default settings, except Sharpness is set 0. Now I am tailoring VC500 Proc Amp settings for some tapes, have a question. How does the Sharpness setting for this device work. Is the middle setting (value 50) is zero effect and all below will blur the artifacts and all above sharpens edges? What is most common Sharpness setting do you use?

Set sharpness at the default 0 setting. Any sharpening/softening etc. is best done in post processing with more sophisticated filters.

For VC500 the Default Sharpness level under EzGrabber or VirtualDub Proc Amp setting is 50, slider in the middle.
Is this one is Zero Sharpness (the neutral sharpening) or it has to be set to actual zero value, putting slider all the way to the left?
I tried the 0 Sharpness value and video looks softer comparing to ATI USB 600 at Sharpness value set to 0.

-- merged --

I found a strange effect with VC500, the levels are not stable, recapturing same scene a few times results in a slightly different levels, the black level stays almost the same, but whites are different on each capture, up and down by 20-30, sometimes all fit below 235, sometimes up to 245. Does VC500 have some kind of AGC?

I've not seen AGC issues, but I can attest to the levels being off on that card. It's one of the main reasons I don't like it. It's dark by at least +6.

What is your workflow?
Source?
Any potential that you're running into Macrovision or another false anti-copy? (ie, lack of external framesync TBC)

I misread your post earlier. Sharpness default with the VC500 is usually 50, not 0. Sorry.

I don;t know what you guys are doing, but I don't see anything wrong with the VC500's default levels. They just aren't the same as the ATI600 or some other USB card. Have had personal experience with 3 copies of the VC500 and seen tests here and elsewhere from others, nothing weird about the levels. It requires adjustment, and this varies by tape, player, operating system, and other elements in the capture setup.

.

Sanlyn, lordsmurf, thanks for your replies.
The source is home PAL VHS from camcorder. Capturing with VirtualDub, using Huffyuv, YUY2 for rendering.
If I capture the same tape fragment, over and over again, on the same scene I see different levels. The max white level on the Histogram is different for each capture, even ProcAmp settings are the same. I am checking levels on created .avi file, opening that file through Avisynth's .avs file that has a line Histogram() inside. Opening .avs file on VirtuialDub and checking levels on the histogram. All captures with Canopus and ATI USB 600 have stable capture to capture levels.

The problem is your workflow.
- old VHS camcorder for playback
- no TBC

It sounds like your running into false MV. Most people don't realize that anti-copy like Macrovision is merely an artificial video error. That means legit video errors can exist. So when your tape outputs the error, the capture device detects it as anti-copy instead of the non-fake error it is. External framesync TBC fixes that.

The VC500 may be more temperamental than the others, in terms of this false detection.

This is just one theory.

After performing more tests I am sticking with VC500. Even the levels are not stable (I am using JVC HR-S8700 with TBC ON to play VHS camcorder's tapes) but they are inside 0-255. Nothing clipped, no details missing.
The most important to preserve old tapes. After, during post processing, I will squeeze all levels in to 16-235.

Does it matter what type of PAL to set -B, -D etc?

You should capture at 16-235, not 0-255 (excepting black borders, which would always be 0).

YUV 16-235b is expanded in RGB to 0-255. If your YUV valuesv are already 0-255, what do you think will happen when that wide-range YUV is opened in VirtualDub olr othert apps that convert to RGB for processing? (Answer; clippimg).

I don't know what varying levels you're talking about. The VC500 has no AGP effect, neither does the ATI 600, the Hauppauge USB Live-2,m or most other USB cards. Input levelsm will always vary with eqach scene, especially wsith VHS, and especially when bright or dark objects enter and leave the frames, scene changes go from bright to dark, interior to daylight, etc. The VirtualDub capture guide referenced earlier (http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...-settings.html) covers level adjustments monitored by histogram specifically in section3 (http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...html#post45238). The guide also mentions proc amp settings and that you should temporarily crop away black borders and head switching noise, discussed in section 4 (http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...html#post45239).


Of course it does. It's critical. See the Capture filters dialog in section 3 of the guide (http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...html#post45238).

It seems this PAL tape is 0-235? So both of you are wrong? :P

I'm not echoing that. 0-235 is inherent in the tape, not advised for capture.

If my levels are below 16 and above 235 they will be transferred with no change to Vegas for example.
That is the beauty of Vegas that it imports, opens YUV and maps the 0-255 to RGB 0-255 during "recompress" putting on the timeline.

After I can apply all necessary level changes to make sure it fits in to 16-235.

I was also planning to use Avisynth and QTGMC Deinterlacing Script, PAL to NTSC, noise filtering and etc.

Using command ConvertToRGB(interlaced=true, matrix="PC.601") the Avisynth can also be used to convert YUV 0-255 to RGB 0-255 mapping correctly, VirtualDub will open .avs file script for post processing in VirtualDub with all info in 0-255 range?

I don't think you understand the y=16-235/ RGB = 0-255 relationship. YUV=0-255 is beyond the range of RGB luma and chroma. It has already been explained several times, in great detail, here and elsewhere. Silly to repeat all of it now. You can't have Y=0-255 without clipping in RGB. Once clipping occurs, it can't be corrected in RGB. On top of that, Vegas uses Studio RGB, not sRGB (unless you specify otherwise), doesn't convert interlaced YUV to RGB cleanly, so expect to do a lot of figuring and compromise to avoid level and color variations.

QTGMC dimnterlaces PAL to 50 fps progressive. NTSC isn't double frame rate 50fps. It's, 59.94. What is your desired final format? If it's DVd or Bluray, you can't have 50fps or 59.94 fps in those formats, and standard def bluRay is always encoded as interlaced. If you just want generic h264 video such as mp4's, how do you propose to get PAL to NTSC frame rates? You can do it by speeding up PAL and making it play squeaky fast, interpolating new frames (with plenty of artifacts) to get NTSC speed, or insert duplicate frames at periodic intervals to simulate a form of double-rate 2:2 pulldown. In any case deinterlacing, even with QTGMC, always has a cost. Unless your goal is lower quality web posting, why are you deinterlacing?

Re. y=16-235/ RGB = 0-255 relationship, I thought that it is possible to have 0-255 levels in YUV in saved Huffyuv .avi file for archiving purpose, to safe information from old tapes.

After, when I have time, I can play, correct levels for each scene, fragment, using Avisynth and ConvertToRGB(interlaced=true, matrix="PC.601") and open .avs in VurtualDub (or in Vegas) and I will have RGB opened for postprocessing with all 0-255 levels, details. In the postprocessing software I can correct levels to get them inside 16-235. All YUV interlaced to RGB can be done correctly in Avisynth.

In Avisynth I can change framerate ChangeFPS(59.94), SeparateFields(), SelectEvery(4,1,2), Weave(), deinterlace. The goal is to get 1080p 60p at 25Mbps and save as .mt2s for watching on TV through media player, or author and burn it to DVD-R media as AVCHD, or author with TMPGEnc MPEG Smart Renderer to BDAV and burn on DVD-R, it will play on BlyRay players at that bitrate. BDAV supports 1080 60p per it's spec.

I learned that in SW deinterlaced 1080 60p video looks on TV better than keeping an interlaced. I am under impression that TV inside still deinterlaces video before getting it on the screen. I am not sure if in today days LED TVs are really displaying interlaced content on their screens.

For a quick review on TV I am putting uncompressed (huffyuv) on the timeline of PowerDirector and encode with H.264 to 1080 60p at 25Mbps, resulting .mt2s file through Oppo player looks quite acceptable on TV.

New comers rarerluy understand the damage inflicted by upscaling standard def analog sources with software to HD sizes. If you think it looks good to you, you're going to find yourself largely alone among those with better eyes. But do whatever you want. Your players and Tv can upscale far better with hardware than you can with software.

There's a proper way to speed up PAL to NTSC by using pulldown techniques without creating freaky speeded-up video. But if you want to speed up your videos as you propose, don't be surprised if a few readers give that idea a little chuckle. Thank goodness they're not my videos.

By the way, if you ever want to make authored HD BluRays from those videos,1080p/50 and 1080p/60 are not allowed, and many media players will choke on it. I'm afraid you'll have to carry your Oppo with you if you want to share with others.

Correct.

The 25>24 fps should mostly be done to undo the earlier 24>25 converting NTSC to PAL. Probably half of all conversion is done wrong, leading to some ugly restoration needs. Even those working for studios fail to understand it at times. I used to cringe.

It really depends on bitrate.
To compare, x265 720p is probably more choking than 1080p x/h264.

Thanks for advising, I will experiment with PAL to NTSC by using pulldown techniques.
I learned on my setup that upscaling done in SW looks better than letting HW to do it in Oppo 95, Toshiba HD-XA2.
I agree that a standard BDAM BluRay disc does not support 1080p/60, but BDAV does as per it's specs . Majority of BluRay players support BDAV, as well as they support 1080p/60 burnt on DVD-R as AVCHD.
But at the moment I just want to preserve my videos from further degradation, all format changes can be done any time later. I am afraid that my VCR player can stop working at any time as my camcorder did already, all those rubber belts, rolls, plastic parts inside start dissolving, tape tracking mechanism stops working.

You'll have a long debate trying to convince more experienced users of that.
:wink2:

Youm might want to link readers to your specs. My specs differ. BluRay doesn't support 1080p/60. Neither BDAM nor BDAV supports 1080p/60. With AVCHD, only players that support AVCHD 2.o support it.
https://www.videohelp.com/hd#tech
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154533

We're discussing official BluRay authored disc formats here, not generic .ts or .m2ts encoded for HDD/memory storage playback. We'll be waiting for your posts questioning why some players choke on1080p/60.

Blu Ray does support 1080p/60, it has to be authored as BDAV.
Talking about BDAV as an official BluRay authored disc format:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.m2ts
http://www.ezr8.com/m2ts.html

If BDAV burnt on BR media it will be supported by all players at standard BDMV speeds.

This is how people storing, playing, sharing 1060p/60 files that were shoot by their HD camcorders and not using any recompression.
BDAV is Blu Ray standard, one of the difference vs. BDMV that there is no menus. All players support Blu Ray BDAV. Many players support BDAV burnt on DVD-R. I am not talking here about AVCHD.

Neither of those links says anything about 1080/50p or 1080/60p.

Many people shoot 1080p with their cameras. But they can't author BD discs with that structure. I'd be willing to accept what you say, but you haven't proven your case.

It's all moot. You'll likely never get around to authoring BluRay discs anyway.
That OPPO player's very nice. Mine lasted 6 years of everyday use. Traded it in on a newer one that accepts more media.

The first link above refers to the supported BD formats on a Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ra...file_structure. See if you can find a BDAV discussion that furnishes a chart or table like the one below that shows 1080/50p or 1080/60p as valid for HD BD-ROM.

http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/atta...1&d=1515796744

Many people shoot 1080p with their cameras and author BDAV with that structure with no any re-encoding. You juts need to use the right authoring program for this. This was discussed on various forums, an example:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/161-ca...derer-4-a.html

Tmpgenc Smart Renderer is the SW tools that authors 1080/60p files to BluRay discs as BDAV. You can simply cut unwanted fragments and during authoring phase only transition areas are re-encoded. Smart Renderer allows to author 1080/60p m2ts files arranging them in to BDAV container to conform with Blu Ray standard.
I use that tool for my camcorder files.
Try to download the demo and check how it works. Smart renderer allows to author BADAV only if files conform that spec requirements.

I've used TMPGenc Smart Renderer since 2005 when it was called TMPGenc MPEG Editor. You wanna prove that it's giving you valid BDAV, cut a piece of an authored BD disc from a using TMPGEnc and post it. BDAV is an alternative consumer format to BDMV for BD video with no menus or any of the usual interactive features. It is closer to AVCHD and is mostly compatible with players that can play AVCHD.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/...o-on-a-blu-ray

I am using TMPGENnsc tools since year 2003. TMPGenc MPEG Editor is totally different tool comparing to Smart Renderer. Only Smart Renderer and Video Mastering Works has capabilities to author a valid BDAV.
TMPGenc MPEG Editor can not authort BDAV.
BDAV is more like a container for M2TS files.
I will try to drop a short fragment of movie authored as BDAV.
But you can also download a free demo.
I am trying to bring this idea to this forum as my contribution, as it looks like a big kept secret :)

I have uploaded a 12 seconds 1080/60p clip from my camcorder. I used the .mts file from my camcorder (just shot for this test) imported to Smart Renderer and authored BDAV, resulting in BDAV folder with all files. The m2ts file inside has the same properties, size as an original from camcorder:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qvv2r30l26pqcs7/BDAV.zip

You can burn this folder to BD-R or to DVD-R. To get DVD-R with BDAV folder on it as BDAV compliant disc use ImgBurn, UDF 2.5 structure and burn it (let me know if need an advsise on ImgBurn settings to get that BDAV properly burnt on DVD-R).
Try how well it plays on any your player.

Thank you for the sample.

I know that. You miss my point. I'm saying I have the same tools you do. If you've been paying attention you'll note that the product started out as "MPEG Editor" and they kept adding features. "MPEG" is still part of the title (TMPGenc MPEG Smart Renderer", with the same core MPEG edit engine they started with years ago). The name of the product isn't "TMPGenc HD Smart Renderer" or even "TMPGenc BluRay Smart Renderer" or "TMPGenc BDAV Smart Renderer". It's "TMPGenc MPEG Smart Renderer".

All that aside, if you examine what you have in the folder structure of your BDAV discs you'll see, besides nothing for interactive features, the BDAV structure is the same as AVCHD. Everybody knows that all those kids out there with HD cameras aren't shooting BluRay at 60fps. They're shooting double-rate AVCHD for Memory/progressive format. Or look at it another way: essentially BDAV/59.94i Authoring = AVCHD for progressive media.

TMPGenc's Video Mastering Works would not allow re-encoding this video for BluRay BDAV/BluRay disc at 59.94 fps, it only allowed AVCHD/Progressive at that frame size and speed -- which basically means that it's written to BluRay disc as data.

TMPGenc Authoring Works would not allow BDAV or BDMV at 59.94 fps. It would allow a "BluRay" choice only by re-encoding to 29.97 fps. The only 59.94p choice available in Authoring Works is "AVCHD for Progressive Devices". Any other form of AVCHD or BluRay would be re-encoded to 29.97 fps.

This is what I'm trying to tell you. At 1920x1080p/59.94 you maintain that you have BluRay. I maintain that what you have is the same thing as one form of AVCHD.

I've never been anti-format (or "format") as long as you recognize the limitations. This BDAV issues seems a lot like the old xVCD issue from 15+ years ago. It's not officially supported, but may still work due to the chips in the BD players. Sort of like MPEG-2 audio on NTSC DVD. Not official, yet often works.

I'm not sure what this has to do with PAL capture cards anymore. I'm thinking this needs to be split off to its own thread. He's not the OP, and the topic changed drastically.

The point is that Smart Renderer allows to author 180/60p to BDAV. The BDAV is supported by all BluRay players, as it is a part of BluRay spec. and is mandatory for all players, all players must support BDAV, and they do. Where AVCHD is supported only by a few players, and only AVCHD 2.0 by the specs supports 60p. The BDAV structure is similar but not the same as BDAV. My camcorder shoots at 1080/60p creating an actual 60fps stream. That mpeg 2 file is in compliancy to be used to author BDAV.
My mistake regarding TMPGenc's Video Mastering Works, it does not allow to author BDAV. It's been a long time ago I have been playing with this. The Smart Renderer allows. It has those setting to author 1080/60p, no ned to re encode it.
Did you have a chance to check, examine the file from BDAV folder I have uploaded, was using Smart Renderer? Or just try to download Smart Renderer demo.
If you will finally convince your self that this actually true, I would advise to make a tutorial, start separate topic on this forum. Again, I am not the only one use this tool for 1080/60p.

Anyway, I came here for capturing advise. Did not want to derail this topic.
Sorry for being off topic. I did not see Lordsmurf's post.

Authoring Works allows authoring to AVCHD for Progressive Devices -- which is the same thing (exactly, bit for bit) that you're getting from Renderer. Mastering Works does the same thing but calls it AVCHD. I just did it using all three programs with your sample, and they all came out exactly the same way. Set Authoring Works for "No Menu" and you get your same BDAV structure and files.

Dont buy that AIW 9600
 

I bought that AIW from ebay that you mentioned. It looks brandnew, the capture box is included, but.... the output cables are not..... So there is no way to connect a display. :mad4: The output cable is so special that noone has it.

I tried some capturing with Remote desktop, but its a lot of hassle. I'm returning it.

I had a feeling those cards had no input. The old "includes everything pictured" auctions, casually forgetting to mention this glaring omission. The seller is an ass. It's why I didn't bother to buy any, even if cheap.

Maybe I am bit late to the party, but I would like to share my experience with Linux, to show everyone it is not scary at all. :D I have already captured successfully two tapes, and I must say I am very pleased with the result.

Setting up the ATI 600 is in fact much easier under Linux. There is a detailed manual, including hardware overview, in LinuxTV. But the short story is - install xc3028-l firmware from your package manager, or if you don't have it, download it from steventooth.net, then copy it to /lib/firmware. That is, if you have kernel 2.6.27+, which you probably will, unless you want to experiment with distributions from 15 years ago.

Configuring is done using "Qt V4l2 test utility". All the options, that ATI control panel under Windows has, are available here. Just make sure you "open" the correct video device - in my case it was /dev/video1. The screenshots below illustrate my words.

Monitoring the levels is possible using ffmpeg, and in my opinion it is much more flexible than VirtualDub. The fancy filtering guide in their documentation shows how to visualize the video input as histogram, waveform and vectorscope. I prefer using a waveform to verify I am within the safe limits, because I understand it better than the histogram, but it is a matter of taste.

And that's it! You are ready to start capturing. You do not need to worry neither about the driver, or if it is the correct version, nor about ATi's stuff.

As for built-in audio chips, I am a 100% with lordsmurf and sanlyn - find something else. Personally, I use Alesis IO/2.

The ATI 600 USB audio works well, if you can hack the registry (Windows). Unsure what exists in Linux for similar workaround.

Beware audio lag when using external audio for the card. There is delay to be compensated for.

I'll have to try this soon. Using Xubuntu 16 x86 on that system.

Are you are talking about lowering the sound volume from Windows registry? If yes, then there is no need to "hack" anything. ATI 600 appears as another recording device in the audio mixer (at least in KDE 5) and it can be adjusted there.

Another option is to set the volume in Qt V4L2. You can see it on the second screenshot in my previous post.

I can't comment audio quality, though. I have never heard of Empiatech audio chips before I bought the ATi 600, so they are the same as Realtek to me. This is why I prefer using my Alesis audio interface, that I know is of good quality and I have already done many recordings with. Music is my hobby, by the way, this is why I have it. :)

As for audio lag, yes you are right, it is always there, and it has to be compensated one way or another. What I do is I capture audio through JACK (something like ASIO drivers in Windows), so that I can adjust the latency. Just like in ASIO it depends on buffer size and number, and the sampling frequency. It is usually not much - less than 50 ms, but I shift back audio to match video perfectly anyway.

Attaching another screenshot, this time of JACK's settings.