Announcement

**Brian Ellis** · 30 December 2002, 04:19

FD

Must admit I'm rather underwhelmed by their publicity. It borders on the unethical as they imply you can edit and burn a 120 min DVD with any 98SE-driven 600 MHz/128 Mb computer with a USB 1.1 port from any VHS tape, according to http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/sup...&fromarea=prod

Ever tried titling/editing in MPEG-2? I suspect that this kind of thing would be very attractive in the supermarkets, with a lot of guys buying it from the publicity, being disappointed with the results and giving up video work for ever.

**wkulecz** · 30 December 2002, 07:11

Why the persistant misconception that USB 1.1 lacks the bandwidth for mpeg-2? USB 1.1 is 12 Mbps. Mpeg2 for DVD tops out at what 10000 Kbps which would be less than an hour on a 4.36 GB DVD-R.

Also lots of compalints exist about USB 2.0 flash RAM readers and scanners being no faster simply because their USB 2.0 rating is pure specmanship -- a USB 1.1 device relabeled as USB 2.0 simply because it'll sell better and USB 1.1 is a subset of the USB 2.0 spec.

No other industry can be so deceptive and not get sued.

I've tried and returned: Hauppauge WinTV/USB, ADS Instant DVD, Pinacle Bungee, and Dazzle DVC-100 USB to MPEG-2 devices. Brian's guess is exactly correct, these things promise a lot more than they can deliver -- even when running on a P4. The buggy software transcends problems with "slow" processors.

If you want to try, be sure to buy from a place with a good return policy!

--wally.

**Brian Ellis** · 30 December 2002, 07:35

Wally

You're partially right, but it doesn't warn you not to use a USB mouse or any other USB device at the same time, does it?

I've got a still camera that downloads ~ 160 jpg pics @ 750-850 kbs each to my computer via USB 1.1, but it takes ~ 5 minutes to do so. This works out at 3.4 Mbit/s or 0.43 Mb/s- and my mouse is on COM1 ! This is a practical USB speed, because it is faster on one of my other computers with USB 2 (I haven't timed it, because I don't use that computer for anything graphic, as a rule).

**wkulecz** · 30 December 2002, 12:13

Yes you are warned not to share a port. Its possible some lame chipsets have an internal hub and call it N ports, but I don't specifically know of any.

Each port should be a 12 Mbps channel if the hardware and driver are not broken by design.

Obviously a real USB 2.0 interface wouln't hurt, but USB 1.1 isn't the reason the current crop of USB MPEG encoders suck. The problem is poor quality in the analog front end (Bungee), non-satandard MPEG stream (Hauppauge), Problems with audio sync (Instant DVD), and generally buggy software that just doesn't work correctly (Dazzle).

Maybe someone will someday get it right, but the current stuff is junk. I've not yet tried Adaptec's offering(s), but past experience with these things suggests be sure to buy from a place you can easily return it if you want to try.

--wally.

**Flying dutchman** · 15 January 2003, 13:28

There's a comparative test between Adaptec's VideOH! and Dazzle DVC150 in today's German CT (issue 02/2003). Both devices cost 250 Euro and are based on the same encoder chip, yet Adaptec's has by far worse picture quality. Moreover, Dazzle's box can also be used for playback.

**wkulecz** · 15 January 2003, 16:36

I tried the DVC100, Picture quality looked pretty darn good, but unless they've fixed lots of bugs, don't get your hopes up. Attempting playback on the DVC100 locked up the computer to the point of having to power cycle it :-(

Buy it only from a place that'll take it back without hassles if it don't work!

These things really need a scheduled recording capability (time and duration) and at least a decent cuts only mpeg editor to be useful.
Which only Hauppauge and Pinnacle addressed, albeit unsuccessfully in the revisions I tried.

--wally.

Announcement

Adaptec VideOh!

Adaptec VideOh!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment