-
Data from a DV/HDV tape always the same?
I feel like this is a silly question, and the answer is probably yes, but…
Is an .avi file created when you capture via Firewire from DV or HDV always the same no matter which program did the capturing?
I’m wanting to capture all my old DV and HDV tapes to archive / convert to disc / possibly use in a podcast later. I still have good ol’ Premiere CS4 on Windows 7. I hope to eventually go with CC6, or possibly another video editor altogether. I just want to make sure than any .avi files I create by capturing now are the same as anything I might make on another program. It’s one of those stupid nagging questions you want to clear up before you spend hours upon hours and gobs of hard drive space sampling tapes.
Secondary related question: If I use my Panasonic DV camcorder’s pass-through feature to sample from VHS, 8mm, Hi-8, etc., would that be significantly better or worse in terms of picture quality versus something like the Matrox MX02 mini? I realize this ain’t the Matrox forum. 😉
Any answers GREATLY appreciated, so I can decide whether to go ahead and begin archiving!
-
8 Replies
-
Hi Lee,
DV or HDV video captured in any version of Premiere ought to be the same files and editable in any version of Premiere, or other editors.
There is a free utility called “HDV Split” for capturing and not sure how those files are saved, but should also work with any editor.
Years ago I used a Matrox RT.X2 capture card and it did actually put the HDV into some sort of proprietary Matrox codec/wrapper, but if you are capturing straight into an editing app via Firewire, should all be pretty generic at that point.
DV capture vs. Matrox MXO2 Mini? Well, DV compresses at about 5:1 ratio with 4:1:1 color, at 25mbps. Matrox will also capture at 25mbps (or more if you choose), but using 4:2:2 color. On old VHS material, you’d probably not see any visual difference necessarily. The DV conversion method will likely be more forgiving of tracking issues/glitches in the source video without aborting capture.
If you planned to do a lot of post processing of the file, such as running enhancement filters using Virtual Dub or similar, then perhaps the 4:2:2 source would yield better results.
Thanks
Jeff Pulera
Safe Harbor Computers -
Thank you so much, Jeff!
Sounds like there’s no harm in me starting my capturing project, at least with the DV and HDV. No loss, generic DV and HDV .avi’s it is!
The analog-to-digital capturing is more involved, apparently. I also had a Matrox editing product, the RT.X100. It did indeed use a proprietary Matrox Motion-JPEG codec for DV and any analog signal that was captured. It looked nice, and was the only way you could do real-time effects or send it out to an NTSC TV, but you couldn’t just take the .avi’s to another computer without that codec. I recall experimenting once with it vs. capture via camcorder pass-through, and did notice precisely what you describe, although subtle. The color seemed richer on the Matrox encoded file, but the camcorder just plowed right on through problem tapes. SUBTLE is the keyword here, and I wasn’t sure if I was experiencing a placebo effect when I thought the Matrox file looked a bit better.
Another worry of mine was that with camcorder pass through, you couldn’t set audio levels, so a loud audio signal from a hi-fi track might get even more compressed by the auto-leveling in the camcorder. And as I type that, I wonder now if I could set audio levels manually on that Panasonic camcorder during pass-through. Hmmm.
Anyway, the computer with the old Matrox RT.X100 died before massive archiving became practical with giant cheap storage, so I never used it to do what I want to do now. Sounds like to satisfy my image quality OCD, I need to get something like that MXO2 mini. But if I wait too long, I may never get going. Don’t want perfect to be enemy of good, ya know. 🙂
My next question will be about best methods for de-interlacing, when you want to use tons of interlaced footage in a project with modern non-interlaced HD footage, or simply when exporting to a H.264 file. De-interlacing with CS4 isn’t particularly pleasing. I assume that should be put in another topic.
Again, thanks for the help.
-
Hi Lee,
I also used the RT.X100…then RT.X2…now on MXO2 Mini unit.
Technically, when you capture HDV using Premiere, the extension will be .mpeg while DV is still .avi format.
As for deinterlacing, I typically let that happen upon export and Adobe Media Encoder just does it. Not something I’m doing in Premiere at all, but can’t speak for how CS4 handles things, I skipped over that version as it was overall not a good release.
Thanks
Jeff Pulera
Safe Harbor Computers -
If I may, I’d like to ask a related question regarding capturing mini DV. I have a relatively new PC desktop running Windows 8.1 pro. I’d like to capture the mini DV tapes using my Canon HD20 camcorder as the source. The Canon has a 4 pin firewire port. The PC has no firewire and I will need to get a card (I’ve looked at some Startech cards). Alternately, we just got a MacBook Pro and Apple offers thunderbolt to firewire adapter but I’m reading mixed results regarding it’s ability to capture and, if so, how (Adobe Premiere Pro CC, iMovie, windows movie maker…???) Any feedback would be most helpful.
-
Do you plan to (or want to) edit in the Mac world or the Windows world? That would answer the question for me right there. Otherwise, the Windows PC hardware will be much cheaper. Any Firewire card that works at all will work perfectly. Windows will likely install its own drivers and recognize it immediately. Premiere will make an .avi file on a Windows machine and, I believe, a .mov file on a Mac, but the data is the same from the tape. An HDV tape generates a .mpeg on a Windows machine. I wish I knew anything about Mac / thunderbolt hardware.
-
Hi Lee and thank you for the response. I’m most familiar with the PC world and would prefer using that. Also, the Mac is my wife’s so I may not be able to use it as readily. Since writing my post, I successfully captured video from the camcorder via a thunderbolt to FireWire adapter Apple sells. I’m guessing from your comments, that any FireWire card I get for the PC desktop should successfully install the correct driver. I was uncertain if windows 8.1 abandoned FireWire drivers. The PC FireWire cards I’ve seen are about $20 so it’s not a huge investment (actually the Apple adapter was $30). I’m more interested in avoiding wasting time.
-
I totally understand about not wanting to waste time. I just want stuff to work.
To be clear, I don’t know FOR SURE that Windows 8.1 has Firewire drivers, but I would be SHOCKED if it didn’t. Firewire is an old, established i/o system. One system in my house has it built-in on the motherboard, and another one has it on a SoundBlaster sound card!
And now, after a moment of research, I find a page that should get you a driver if any card you buy doesn’t immediately work:
Good luck with it.
-
Lee… You are FANTASTIC! I can’t tell you how grateful I am for you to have researched this information. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I’m now confidently going to order the card for my PC. [:#)
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up