![original canopus video capture card original canopus video capture card](https://gd1.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/0/TB1qHAmIpXXXXaoXVXXXXXXXXXX_!!0-item_pic.jpg)
Has anyone ever compared both possibilities (ADVC-100 versus tv capture card) and is there a website with more information?įirst, and foremost, the end result is pendant upon the user and What I really want to know is: do internal tuners generally add more noise to the video than external tuners connected to an analog->DV converter? However, an internal tuner can suffer from interference caused by other hardware in your pc, which wouldn't happen with an external tuner. I assume an analog->DV converter is more user friendly but you have more control with a tv capture card. And by the way, if you connect an external tuner (VCR for example) to an ADVC-100 or similar device I suppose s-video is better than composite, but then you would need a VCR with s-video support. I wonder what the capture experts here would recommend: a tv capture card, maybe with a Philips chip, or an ADVC-100 with an external tuner connected to it. If your video material is really poor (card dropping frames because of it,) also pick up a $270 TBC-1000 time base corrector. I'd suggest a $70-$100 TV tuner/capture card using the new CX23880 or CX23883 chipsets, capture with VirtualVCR, using huffYUV compression, clean up the video with AVISynth filters, then edit in the editor or your choice, then encode to mpeg-2 with CCE SP. Brent Geery wrote:Īs you are already comfortable with using HuffYUV, and off-line MPEG encoding, I don't see what the ADVC-100 DV transcoder has to offer you! It's quality is not better then the current (second generation) of TV tuner/capture cards (it just uses the same phillips chip, found in current TV tuner cards,) with the disadvantage of adding an extra layer of compression artifacts, not to mention the cost. Most people seem to agree, but not everyone. There's a reason nearly everyone at says it's great. However, if you are capturing VHS quality material, these will give you no better quality than a Canopus ADVC-100, and they cost hundreds more.
![original canopus video capture card original canopus video capture card](https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/202226685631_/Canopus-DVStorm-RT-video-capture-card-and-interface.jpg)
Some of the very high end analog capture cards (e.g., Canopus DVStorm2, Matrox RT.X10) have better quality than a Canopus ADVC-100 if you capture at HuffYUV or high-bit rate MJPEG. None of these problems exist with a Canopus ADVC-100.
#Original canopus video capture card Pc#
Also, some PC motherboards with poor PCI bandwidth (e.g., VIA chipset-based AMD) have problems capturing at high-resolution/frame rate because of too much PCI traffic. You've also got potential problems with audio/video synch, especially on long captures, which I guess can be somewhat solved if you use the proper capture software. to clean them up, and then sometimes it still doesn't work. I guess some people can tweak the captures thru filters, etc. With many cheap analog capture cards (e.g., Brooktree chipset based, ATI All-In-Wonder), they may use cheap filters/parts and I've found colors come out not correct and the images don't seem clear. It is better than any analog capture card I've used in its price range. I've had a Canopus ADVC-100 for over a year now and it kicks total ass.