ADVC110 vs. ADVC300

[SteveCA]

I am trying to decide between the two devices for purposes of archiving my large collection of Hi8 tapes to my computer via either imovie of final cut pro HD. My Hi8 tapes go back to the early nineties so some may be deteriorating while many are in very good shape.

I want the best quality possible but may or may not spend the time to tweak each conversion. Do these two units use the same DV codec chip? At the default setting, do thes units produce the same results? Lastly, what do I gain by going with the 300 over the 110?

I also have a large selection of DV material and I was wondering if it is better to go thru one of these two devices (via SVHS) or is it better to go direct from the camcorder to the computer via firewire.

Thanks,

Steve

[Aristotelis]

1) You may consider ADVC-55 as well since you only need analog inputs
2) Yes, I believe all three devises (55, 110, 300) share the same chip and you will get the same result if you don't tweak the image controls and filtering available in ADVC300
3) The best way to capture your DV material is via Firewire

The following table might help you as well

http://www.canopus.com/products/videoconversion.php

[GrassValley_BH]

Aristolelis is correct, though in the case of the ADVC300, there is no way to turn the LTBC off, so theoretically there could still be some difference between Analog-to-DV output from the ADVC300 compared to output from the 5x, 1x0, 500, 700 and 3000.

[SteveCA]

Thanks for the replies. Is the inability to turn off LTBC in the 300 a disadvantage and if so in what circumstances? Also, if some of my tapes are starting to degrade, do the controls available in the 300 (and not in the 110 and 55) help to bring back some of the quality of the original recording?

Thanks,

Steve

[GrassValley_BH]

The inability to turn off the LTBC can be a disadvantage in rare cases where the LTBC is "fixing" or changing something you don't want changed.

The filtering functions can definitely help old tapes though.

So it's kind of up to you. You can get the all-in-one ADVC300, or get a separate LTBC or full TBC. The latter solution can provide more flexibility, but can also cost significantly more depending on the level and price of the TBC you get.

[pinkish]

5x, 1x0, 500, 700 and 3000.

Does the ACEDVio have the same chipset as the other cards listed? I am interested in Analog-to-Digital conversion only, VHS tapes.

[GrassValley_KH]

Yes, it does.

[hal 123]

ADVC110 vs. ADVC300

On a similar theme I also wish to capture old video 8 tapes (PAL) into AVI format for preserving the footage and future editing.

I understand that the ADVC 300 image enhancement features are not available for PAL input. For my purpose should I consider the ADVC 110 / 55 or would the ADVC 300 be better for my 'old' tapes some of which are 16 year old. Many thanks.

[GrassValley_KH]

My knowledge is a little hazy, but I believe there's still a few of the image correction features that apply to PAL footage as well (ie, not NTSC exclusive).

That said, if the feature you need is definitely not supported with PAL input, you'll save some dollars going for a lower model - the actual conversion quality is the same, since it's the same chip.

[kbosward]

I understand that the ADVC 300 image enhancement features are not available for PAL input.

I remember from reading the old forums that it was only the 3D Y/C separation that does not work in PAL, and the PAL purists would say that the reason for this is that it was not required due to PAL's inherently superior colour fidelity compared to NTSC (Never The Same Colour). Of course you can take that how you like :)

I regularly use the ADVC300 with PAL sources on old VHS and Video8 tapes and I can tell you that the image processing features are very welcome and noticeable.

Some in these forums have said that the ADVC300 can reduce the quality slightly for very good video sources (Hi-8 using S-video connection) since the LBTC cannot be switched off. However if your sources are Video8 then I would definitely say go for the ADVC300 if you can afford it.

Ken.

[2Bdecided]

I am so pleased to find this forum! I am trying to decide between the various Canopus ADVC boxes, or a DV/Digital8 camcorder.

I'm in the UK, and have about 100 hours of PAL S-VHS camcorder footage to transfer (~1992-1997), plus a little VHS (1984-2001!). Most of the tapes are S-VHS copies from S-VHS-C masters, though I have a few surviving S-VHS-C masters straight out of the camera too.

I have a Panasonic NV-SV121EB deck with built-in TBC (works well) and DNR (can do better myself in software). Obviously I'll use the S-video output. Being in Europe means it's quite hard (not impossible) to find a camcorder that will take S-video in and send it out over Firewire.

So, I was looking at the ADVC300, but I see that you can't turn the noise reduction off completely. That's a shame, because I can do wonderful noise reduction via AVIsynth scripts, and I want to capture raw. The ADVC300 TBC probably won't help more than the one built in to the VCR, so that's no benefit.

However, the ADVC300 lets you adjust the video input level, and has an AGC. That may be really important, because the highlights on these tapes have a tendency to blow out when digitised via the capture card (Dazzle Hollywood DV bridge :yuk:) and DVD recorder (Sony GX300) I've tried. The highlights aren't as bad on the tape itself - you can see this on a TV, and the digital files have "clipped" RGB value (255,255,255!) which should never be hit if the levels are set properly.

So, do I go for the 300, set the levels, but get unwanted filtering - or do I go for the 110, hope the levels are OK, but avoid unwanted filtering? Or something else?

Also, the ADVC55 is mentioned near the top of this thread as being equivalent to the 110 - however, the Canopus website lists the 110 as having locked audio, but doesn't mention this for the 55. Can anyone confirm whether the 55 has locked audio? I probably don't need the outputs of the 110.

Finally (tech question) given that the analogue input video will never be exactly 25fps, what do the Canopus boxes do to generate 25fps DV? Drop/duplicate frames? Or something more clever?

Cheers,
David.

EDIT: P.S. is the ACEDVio a fine substitute for the ADVC110? I see it has locked audio, the same converter chip, and also some video controls.

[GrassValley_BH]

Get the ADVC110 (over the ACEDVio because it's portable and can be better isolated from interference from the computer), a audio pre-amp or mixer for the audio, and an external video pre-amp or TBC. This setup is more components, but will give you a great amount of control.

Both the 55 and 110 will maintain audio/video sync. There's a slight technicality in the definition of locked audio which keeps us from saying the 55 has locked audio. For the general definition of "synchronized audio/video" all ADVCs address this.

I usually recommend that people get the 110 over the 55, unless you are absolutely certain that you will not be using the output (which can be very useful for editing, checking color correction, etc).

[2Bdecided]

Thank you for your help! I will go and research TBCs and pre-amps.

Any idea how it handles video signals that aren't exactly 25fps?

Cheers,
David.

[GrassValley_BH]

If the input isn't standard PAL then it likely will either get confused, or it may not even display/encode the signal at all.

For example, in the NTSC world there exist true monochrome NTSC devices that output 30 fps (versus color NTSC which is 29.97 fps), and the ADVC can't capture that.

[2Bdecided]

It's standard PAL, but an analogue signal can't be "exact", can it? I don't think my VCR includes an atomic clock! So I was wondering how these devices make up the difference between the 25fps of the ADVC110, and the not-quite-the-same 25fps of the VCR. Especially as the audio has to remain locked.

Cheers,
David.