Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ADVC300 vs DV Tape Deck converter . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ADVC300 vs DV Tape Deck converter . . .

    In converting analog tapes (Hi8, VHS) to digital AVI for purposes of editing in Premiere 2.0 or converting already edited analog tapes directly to DVD's I have been evaluating two options.

    1. Using the ADVC300 which provides some fine tuning of the signal and costs around $400. Or . . .

    2. Using a DV Tape Deck that I have (Panasonic AG-DV1000) by hooking up the S-Video and RCA audio connections and then firewiring into my PC.

    If the ADVC300 is set to it's default settings, is it true that it will provide essentially the same result as passing it throught my tape deck? If that is the case, are you bacically paying $400 for the software that comes with the ADVC300?

    Then the question is whether the software provided with the ADVC300 is as good that in Premiere 2.0; although the ADVC300 software is easy to use.

    Keep in mind that both of my analog decks (SVHS & Hi8) are high qualitiy units with TBC (time base correction).

    Thanks.

  • #2
    Not that I don't want you to buy a product, but if you already have the AG-DV1000, I'd try that first. I do vaguely recall some kind of trickiness with that deck though...

    The "Picture Controller" software included with the ADVC300 is just to set the filtering settings - you can do the same with the on-unit controls.

    Remember however, that any changes done in the digital space have already been quantized. For example, it's almost impossible to fix overblown whites after DV encoding because everything's been clipped to DV white. That's why it's better to correct things in the analog space where there's still a bit of "headroom" left.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the prompt response. I find your last comment interesting. I was thinking that it would be better to bring in the "raw" analog footage into the digital realm with as little processing as possible. That way you can always go back to the original digital conversion. Anyway your notion of adjusting in the analog domain provides a reason for the ADVC300.

      BTW, I have tried my Panny DV1000; not tricky at all and it works fine. Just was curious as to how much better, if at all, the ADVC300 would be. Are you saying that absent the Picture Controller software (or set at the default settings) the result would be the same as the Panny 1000?

      Can you please recommend a list of settings for the Picture Controller software that would provide a solid conversion for analog tapes that are in decent shape although maybe 2nd generation (edited tapes)?

      Thanks again.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by videoroy View Post
        I was thinking that it would be better to bring in the "raw" analog footage into the digital realm with as little processing as possible.
        That notion holds true if you're going from one bucket to a larger bucket. However, almost all digital capture is a smaller bucket, beit from color sampling to lossy compression.

        Originally posted by videoroy View Post
        Are you saying that absent the Picture Controller software (or set at the default settings) the result would be the same as the Panny 1000?
        It should be, though you can't turn the TBC off in the ADVC300, which in rare cases can be an issue. Personally my preference is an ADVC110 and a separate TBC. Or if your source has component output, an ADVC700 would provide a better input signal for the DV conversion.

        Originally posted by videoroy View Post
        Can you please recommend a list of settings for the Picture Controller software that would provide a solid conversion for analog tapes that are in decent shape although maybe 2nd generation (edited tapes)?
        Wish I could, but that's highly subjective - depends on the tape and resulting signal.

        Comment


        • #5
          When does using a TBC adversely affect the signal?

          Also, the analog decks I'm using have TBC built-in (Sony EV-S3000 Hi8, Panny AG-1980 SVHS); any problem having two TBC's in the signal path (analog deck and ADVC300)?

          Both of these analog decks have S-Video (no component) so no benefit to using the 700. Does the 500 offers any benefits over the 300 or 100?

          How would the ADVC100 be any different than running the signal through may Panny DV1000?

          Thanks again for your help.

          Comment


          • #6
            TBCs can introduce A/V delay. Generally, if one has made a "good" signal, then the ones further down won't have much to do, but there's always the slight possibility of loss just because of the signal chain.

            The ADVC500 was essentially the ADVC700 without the device control and filtering.

            You're right, since you have the DV1000 already in the chain, maybe all you need is an adjustable TBC/pre-amp. Or you may not even need that either.

            If your source has a lot of noise, the 2D and 3D noise reduction of the ADVC300 might help, but again, it really depends on the footage.

            Comment


            • #7
              Some of the Sony D8 camcorders will also transfer Hi8 without the many analogue interfaces/cables involved in other transfer methods. This is how I have transfered my Hi8 tapes using a TRV740. Most of my VHS went straight to DVD in a Panasonic DVD recorder which has excellent input filtering and produced images that if anything looked better than the VHS!!!!!

              Ron Evans
              Ron Evans

              Threadripper 1920 stock clock 3.7, Gigabyte Designare X399 MB, 32G G.Skill 3200CL14, 500G M.2 SATA OS, 500G EVO 850 temp. 1T EVO 850 render, 6T Source, 2 x 1T NVME, MSI 1080Ti 11G , EVGA 850 G2, LG BLuray Burner, BM IP4K, WIN10 Pro, Shuttle Pro2

              ASUS PB328 monitor, BenQ BL2711U 4K preview monitor, IP4K, EDIUS 9.5 WG, Vegas 17, Resolve Studio 16


              Cameras: GH5S, GH5, FDR-AX100, FDR-AX53, DJI OSMO Pocket, Atomos Ninja V x 2

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by GrassValley_BH View Post
                TBCs can introduce A/V delay. Generally, if one has made a "good" signal, then the ones further down won't have much to do, but there's always the slight possibility of loss just because of the signal chain.
                But then you're dealing with loss and noise below the percentage range of the total signal. In the end, in my experience, potential loss caused by stacked TBCs are of no value compared to what you're doing to the signal in several later stages. Say you're going to create a DVD9 from your signal, all compression used will overblow any previous TBC 'noise'.

                The only issue to look at is AV-sync, but I have yet to meet the TBC that messes up in this area during VHS/Hi8 to digital conversions. You'll get a delayed video-signal, but it will always be a steady (and controllable) one. Usually around 7 frames per TBC. If you're capturing with Premiere, this is nothing to worry about. You just delay the audio-tracks a couple of frames.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Please keep in mind that all Canopus/TGV converters use the Canopus DV hardware codec which is known to be among the very best in the world. Furthermore, I trust a converter more than analog inputs on a DV deck. Just my 0.02$.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X