EyeTV vs Canopus ADVC110
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: gtr on 20 Sep 2006 21:34 I was looking to get a gizmo tthat would allow me to import VHS tapes into a digital format. I called a local Mac show and they were adamant that the Canopus ADVC110 was the one and only way worth considering. Then there's chatter about EyeTV, which I assume has the same general feature set. If I'm going to drop some coin on one of these gizmos I'd like to get the most bang for my buck. What do you think? -- Thank you and have a nice day.
From: sbt on 21 Sep 2006 15:44 In article <info-818678.20230321092006(a)europe.isp.giganews.com>, Richard Burke <info(a)richardburke.co.uk> wrote: > In article <210920061102056721%dogbreath(a)chaseabone.com.invalid>, > sbt <dogbreath(a)chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > Excellent response. Still a difficult choice though. They EyeTV, > > > then, reads it on the fly and compress to MPeg format. Does this also > > > mean that it is not "suitable for hi-res editing" or that one must then > > > convert it to a uncompressed format before toting it into iMovie or > > > Final Cut? > > > > > The latter (conversion) because the former is true :) Depending upon > > which EyeTV unit you get, it either does a hardware encode to MPEG and > > pipes that into your Mac or (the EyeTV Hybrid) transfers the signal to > > the Mac and does the encoding there -- no encoding needed for HDTV > > content as that is already an MPEG transport stream. > > If the main issue is resolution, then what's the best choice? I ask, > because I made TV progs for years, and they're all sitting there on VHS > tapes that even *I* now struggle to read... > > Thanks, > The following assumes that you're using NTSC, but being as you're in the UK, the numbers for PAL will be slightly different. The differences will disappear when we're all on HD. VHS resolution is in lines rather than pixels, but it pretty much translates to 352x240 (rectangular pixels) or 320x240 (square pixels like you get on a computer). In either case, you're going to get an upsampling to "DVD resolution" (720x480/640x480). What it boils down to is that if you're just doing the transfer to get them in digital form and you're not going to be "splicing" stuff nor inserting titles/captions or applying special effects, the EyeTV units will more than fill the bill. If you're planning to repurpose the content rather than just convert to a new medium, the Canopus would be the more flexible alternative. The difference isn't in the resolution, which is the same for the two devices, but in the format (DV vs MPEG). MPEG Transport streams are compressed and multiplexed, making them unsuitable for lossless editing. It's (very) roughly analogous to TIFF vs JPEG -- the resolutions are the same, but you can edit the TIFF losslessly. -- Spenser
From: Tim Crowley on 21 Sep 2006 16:34 gtr wrote: > I was looking to get a gizmo tthat would allow me to import VHS tapes > into a digital format. I called a local Mac show and they were adamant > that the Canopus ADVC110 was the one and only way worth considering. > > Then there's chatter about EyeTV, which I assume has the same general > feature set. > > If I'm going to drop some coin on one of these gizmos I'd like to get > the most bang for my buck. > > What do you think? > -- > Thank you and have a nice day. i have owned and and used both. I like them both. I think which one to choose depends on what you want/need to do with the files when they are in digital format. If you want to do heavy editing, mixing scenes adding titles, do anything fancy - I would choose the Canapus cause it outputs DV which will easily work with video editing. If all you want to do is so basic cropping, taking out commercials, cutting where the camera took pictures of Aunt Jane picking her nose, I would choose the Eye TV cause the output is already compressed real time. That's the way I look at it, anyway. I hope this helps and you too have a nice day.
From: gtr on 21 Sep 2006 18:12 On 2006-09-21 13:34:16 -0700, "Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil(a)gmail.com> said: > i have owned and and used both. I like them both. I think which one to > choose depends on what you want/need to do with the files when they are > in digital format. If you want to do heavy editing, mixing scenes > adding titles, do anything fancy - I would choose the Canapus cause it > outputs DV which will easily work with video editing. If all you want > to do is so basic cropping, taking out commercials, cutting where the > camera took pictures of Aunt Jane picking her nose, I would choose the > Eye TV cause the output is already compressed real time. That's the > way I look at it, anyway. I hope this helps and you too have a nice > day. You've both helped immeasurably. I have scant few tapes I intend to convert, and none of them are buckets of raw footage that needs to be cobbled into art. EyeTV it is. Thanks to all. -- Thank you and have a nice day.
From: gtr on 22 Sep 2006 10:34
On 2006-09-22 03:33:12 -0700, Martin Trautmann <t-use(a)gmx.net> said: > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:36:17 -0700, gtr wrote: >> Also, I've never been quite sure how I would get EyeTV to play me >> television without yanking the DirectTV pipe out of the back of my TV >> and dragging the line and interface across the house. Is that the >> demands the EyeTV would have? > > If you are not in a hurry, you might wait til next year for iTV - this > will be a wireless option, too. From the loosey-goosey announcement of intent, I saw nothing that indicated we could more easily be watching whatever-is-on-the-TV on our computers. I got the impression that the feed was the opposite direction: that whatever-is-on-the-Mac could go to the TV. -- Thank you and have a nice day. |