rubbish quality after capturing?

fersy · #1 (**permalink**) 10-12-2004, 02:33 PM

i have just bought a jvc gr-d73ek mini dv camera which seems great playing the video directly from the tape onto my tv but when i try to capture the video on my pc to burn to dvd the picture becomes pixelated.

i have it connected by the usb lead which came with it (with core filters attached) and i have tried capturing it with 3 different software programs,
1. windvd creator which works but the quality is rubbish, 2. pinnacle studio 8 which recognises the camera but when i click the capture button and start the camera playback comes up capture error (although before i start the capture the quality in the preview screen is also rubbish) and 3. the software which was bundled with the camera "imagemixer ver 1.7" which has the best quality but is still heavily pixelated.
i do not see the point in having a camera which takes good quality footage if everytime you try to get it onto your computer to work with it looks as if it was taken by a webcam.
i notice that my soundblaster audigy soundcard has a 1394 firewire port and i'm wondering if connecting the camera's dv output to that would result in better quality but i read that usb 2 is faster although whilst i think my ports are usb 2 i'm not 100% sure.
then i was wondering if perhaps i need a graphics card as my pc uses the motherboards onboard graphics and i thought maybe it was a limitation with that although i dont want to spend £100 on a graphics card if i don't even know if it will make a difference.
my other main specs of my pc are
athlon 2400 xp+ 2ghz processor
maxtor 4700 rpm 40 gb hd (slave)
seagate 7200 rpm 80 gb hd (master)
1024 mb pc 2100 ddr dram
i have tried all week to figure it out but to no avail. i don't mind spending some money to correct the problem but i don't want to fork out a small fortune and find out it makes no difference.
i would greatly appreciate any help which anyone can give me as its irritating me quite a bit at the moment.(and so is my missus who wants to see her stuff on dvd)

Alan Mills · #2 (**permalink**) 10-12-2004, 02:57 PM

I'm not familiar with your particular model of camera but you said it is Mini-Dv format whcih is all I need to know to answer your question.

Firstly, thanks for all the details. It's refreshing for someone new to post a decent system config and spec. It can help no-end.

The irony, though, is in this case the details aren't needed.

The simple answer to this is to perform your capture through a firewire port/lead. Forget the USB lead that came with the camera. You might as well drop it in the bin for all the use it will prove to be. Although it might be handy for transferring stills if the camera can take them.

Quite simply, connect up using firewire and transfer that way. MiniDv was built for firewire. Even though USB2 is faster you get lousy results.

Hopefully the firewire port on your graphics card will do. I do remember reading something once that showed someone had problems using that port and all was ok when they changed to a 'real' one. Try it.

But the short answer is 'Alwsy use firewire for MiniDV transfers/captures'.

LJR · #3 (**permalink**) 10-12-2004, 04:09 PM

Pinnacle's new BoB being released with LE 6 will capture 8-bit uncompressed video over USB! Remember that the max throughput for USB is 480Mb/s and although this is theoretical it does only require a throughput of 148.8 Mb/s to capture 8-bit uncompressed (and only 235Mb/s for 10-bit uncompressed).

However, it would require the USB bus to itself but with today's abundance of USB ports in every PC (mine came with 6) this shouldn't be too much of a problem and in any case the same would true of Firewire.

Also, I read recently that a lot of camcorders will be ditching the DV out port in the future and using only USB. Can't remember where I read it but I will dig through my mags this evening and try and find the reference.

Having said all of that.....I believe Millsy is almost certainly correct in his assumptions. Make sure the ports are USB 2 and ensure also you have no other devices (mouse, printers) sharing the bus you capture on.

Marc Peters · #4 (**permalink**) 10-12-2004, 05:28 PM

Surely it would be foolish to ditch firewire just when it's been developed as a standard, better suited for transferring multimedia and we're about to step up to the next generation of firewire which is faster tham USB2.

Jeesh, these hardware manufacturers eh?

fersy · #5 (**permalink**) 10-12-2004, 06:24 PM

cheers for the quick replys guys i'll give the firewire a go and let you know how i got on.
thanks again

LJR · #6 (**permalink**) 10-12-2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Peters

Surely it would be foolish to ditch firewire just when it's been developed as a standard, better suited for transferring multimedia and we're about to step up to the next generation of firewire which is faster tham USB2.

Jeesh, these hardware manufacturers eh?

You would think so wouldn't you until you then think that a manufacturer has to build two interfaces on a camcorder, one for the stills (USB) and the other for the DV (Firewire). I guess ultimately they questioned why? When firewire was first conceived it was up against USB 1.0 - frankly no competition. However, USB 2.0 certainly makes it a different ball game and I guess this has something to do with the way of thinking.

Who knows eh? Us poor punters will just end up towing the line

Personally I quite like the Firewire interface.

Ian in Northampton · #7 (**permalink**) 10-13-2004, 09:18 AM

I'm interested that no-one picked up on the lack of a decent standalone graphics card. Surely that is a issue here also - perhaps?

Marc Peters · #8 (**permalink**) 10-13-2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian in Northampton

I'm interested that no-one picked up on the lack of a decent standalone graphics card. Surely that is a issue here also - perhaps?

Not really. Only in so far as shared RAM may reduce comparative system performance.

Ian in Northampton · #9 (**permalink**) 10-13-2004, 12:36 PM

Interesting. I'd assumed that not only would the graphics card's own memory be helpful, but also that perhaps the graphics card's own processor would have some role to play in processing the images. Not so?

mrlipring · #10 (**permalink**) 10-13-2004, 01:03 PM

nope. Only in 3d applications. OpenGL or D3D. An onboard card using shared ram will only be limited in ram and ram throughput, but anything relatively modern should be able to handle what we need here.