My Wishlist for a new PC-VCR

[Phire]

I wish they'd have an option to set your own framerate in PC-VCR than choosing preset ones. I'd like to record some things at 25 fps.

I would also like it if it let you set your own resoultion to capture at, im wondering how 400x300 capture would be.

[This_Idiot]

Hi Phire,

From your post it's a good bet that you're on NTSC ?

Surely you have to capture in the standard of your local broadcaster ? After you've captured then you can play around with frame rates and sizes.

What is it that you are trying to do exactly ?

[Brian Ellis]

Hi!

For serious users, don't you think the PC-VCR is a little gimmicky, anyway? An alternative of a simple menu-driven window would be easier and more intuitive for many of us. OK, I know it is possible to do most things with it, if you try hard, but ...

Now, I'm not saying 'get rid of it', all I am saying is 'give us a default alternative for the computer literate'.

My tuppence worth.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

[This_Idiot]

Hi Brian,

No, I don't consider PC-VCR a toy. It's true that the earlier versions were short on some features, but gradually these have been filled out and the latest 1.5x VTs are pretty damned cool. Instant-click record, audio levels accessible from the VT menu's, multi-file capture etc.

Maybe not perfect, but then who is ?

[Pertti]

We computer illiterates likes PC-VCR

Pertti

[fluggo99]

It's wonderful as a TV viewer, but for capture I like VidCap or Ulead's Video Capture because I can specify all the details. For one thing, I can't set 29.97 fps in PC-VCR. (wuzzup Phire!)

I keep laughing at my Dad...his TV viewer doesn't have an "always on top" feature ...he also can't activate TV at higher than 1024x768x16, and he's got a HUGE monitor! (HAHAHAHA)

<ahem> Yeah, PC-VCR is cool.

[Flying dutchman]

To: Fluggo

As far as I know, you won't get 29.97 fps whatever you try: I've read somewhere that the Zoran chipset in the Marvel only allows for x milliseconds/frame where x must be an integer number. 40 milliseconds would be a PAL frame, 33 or 34 would be NTSC (making up 30.3 or 29.4 fps) ...But it's only hearsay.

[Rick6612]

If you really want to do it right, get AVI_IO. You can specify the exact frame rate you want, and your captured files will end up with that EXACT frame rate. AVI_IO can also capture to multiple files without losing a single frame between files. In AVI_IO, you can specify a maximum capture file size. This is really nice because the Scratchpad in Ulead MSP can only handle files up to 1GB in size. So, with AVI_IO, you can tell it to limit all capture files to, say, 1000MB, and then you can capture away until you fill up all your hard drives. You will end up with a series of .avi files all less than 1GB in size, and the will all flow together perfectly when you put them on the timeline.

And, as for capturing at 400x300, the Matrox hardware only supports certain specific frame sizes. 400x300 is not one of them. You would have to capture at a standard size and then convert the video to 400x300 using MSP.

The standard frame sizes for NTSC are 704x480, 352x480, 352x240 and 176x120. For PAL, I believe its 704x576, 352x576, 352x288 and 176x144? (I use NTSC, so I'm not certain about the PAL stuff).

Rick

[This_Idiot]

Ouch. I just knew this would get involved.

No, 704*480 NTSC (or 704*576 PAL) is not strictly full-frame. It's the "standard" cropping that Matrox has adopted to give it best results. In the same manner as Pinnacle's Miro products use 608*456 (NTSC) or 720*540 (PAL) as THEIR standard.

(stands aside opening the floor for further comment)

[fluggo99]

There are a few inconsistencies here...

Mr. Dutchman:

Would that not mean that the hardware (if it indeed could only encode at 30.3 or 29.4) would have to skip frames every once in awhile, since it can't keep up with true NTSC? What good is it then?

If I remember correctly from the Vid for Windows API, you specify rates in microseconds per frame. Perhaps you're getting micro confused with milli...I seriously doubt Matrox would have labelled a product "NTSC" if it couldn't really do NTSC.

This_Idiot:

So, if 740x480 represents full frame, and 704x480 is a cropped version of that, is the resulting aspect ratio 740:480?

[Flying dutchman]

To:Fluggo
As I said, it's just what I've read. But theoretically you're right. The hardware should either skip frames or duplicate ones. I'm not sure if this "problem" concerns both recording and playback though, maybe it's just during playback in which case one probably doesn't notice it anyway...I can't reproduce it myself since I use PAL.
But one should be able to verify it by recording a PAL movie and converting it to 29.97 fps NTSC, after a few minutes the sound and picture should go out of sync...

[This_Idiot]

Fluggo,

I don't really know. I would think that the aspect ratio must be 704*480, but the underscanning keeps the individual pixels to their original AR otherwise we would all be seeing distortion on TV-O (which we're not).