Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 ... Last
[#] Mon Oct 26 2009 10:06:15 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

All right ... those of you who buy expensive speaker cable may also want to get a few of these ... "Wattgate 381 Audio Grade Duplex Socket"

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=110-439&vReviewShow=1&vReviewRand=2818820
or ... http://tinyurl.com/yjb7ytk

Please read some of the reviews! They are quite good!

[#] Tue Oct 27 2009 20:37:19 EDT from Peter Pulse @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

LOL!

[#] Tue Oct 27 2009 23:23:10 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I looked at again and only saw three reviews. They deleted all the funny ones. I hope you got to see the page before that happened.

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 10:08:53 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm cleaning house and I've come across a few vhs tapes that I want on DVD, but it has never been released that way, so I'd like to record the vhs onto a DVD. I imagine I need some kind of fancy video card to make this go. Anybody know what I need or how much it's going to cost me?
I have a pile of old video cards, some have rca connections on the back, maybe I already have such a thing.
What am I looking for exactly?

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 10:22:39 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Search for "usb video capture" on eBay. These devices are very cheap.

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 10:26:11 EST from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You need a 'tuner' card that can receive rca signals. Most vid cards only produce (output) the signals and not receive even though they have rca jacks on them.

In other words:  Vid Card = Out,  Tuner Card = In



[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 10:59:12 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


You can buy a USB device that will do what you need. I have one at home, and used it at work to record some video we have to a DVD without issue (well, except that I had to record time-code to an audio channel, as it didn't embed the timecode in the video stream like I wanted it to... but that just means it filters out certain scan-lines... for your needs, I'm sure it would work fine).

I can't recall the name of it, so I'd have to take a look at it when I get home.

Or, alternatively, I suppose I could record the VHS tapes for you.

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 16:23:51 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Is there anything that hasn't been turned into a small cheap usb device that you can get for $2.00 from china?

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 16:31:48 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I appreciate the offer, but for $5 I can do it myself. I just didn't know such a thing existed.

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 17:13:47 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


No problem... hope it works well for you!

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 18:03:56 EST from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What's the quality of those USB video capture devices? My concern is whether USB has enough bandwidth to carry a good quality video feed. I know USB v2.0 compliant devices can do 400 Mbps, but what does that translate to in terms of video frame size, frame rate, color depth, etc.
Video Binder

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 23:16:18 EST from cellofellow @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jan 7 2010 4:03pm from Spell Binder @uncnsrd
What's the quality of those USB video capture devices? My concern is
whether USB has enough bandwidth to carry a good quality video feed. I
know USB v2.0 compliant devices can do 400 Mbps, but what does that
translate to in terms of video frame size, frame rate, color depth,
etc.
Video Binder



NTSC VHS tapes run at 29.97 frames per second (actually 30000/1001), with 480
lines of 720 pixels each. When captured as digital video, it's normally 24bits
per pixel.

So, some simple math, it's framerate * frameresolution * bitdepth to get the
uncompressed bitrate. For NTSC video, that is (30000/1001) * (720*480) * 24,
which is 237Mbps. That is well under the rate for a USB 2 device, so it should
work. I don't think it'd work for high-definition (I'd use Firewire for that)
but for standard definition and lower it should
be fine.

This is all theoretical of course, a USB video digitizer could be terrible
quality or it could be prestine. The digitizer may stream to the computer raw
video to be compressed by the computer, or it could compress it using DV or some
flavor of MPEG, reducing quality.

-Josh

[#] Thu Jan 07 2010 23:44:30 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Is there anything that hasn't been turned into a small cheap usb
device that you can get for $2.00 from china?

Not quite sure. How about I jump in my $2 USB car and drive to your house, you can start up the $2 USB coffee pot, and we'll chat about it?

Don't feel so bad -- until a couple of weeks ago I still thought webcams were expensive.

[#] Fri Jan 08 2010 06:20:57 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The USB video capture device I used captured the video at a decent enough quality that we used the results for a tradeshow.  As long as the source video is of decent quality, it can capture the video at very good quality.



[#] Sat Jan 09 2010 22:20:41 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

In looking up the ntsc stuff I was surprised to fin d it's 720 x 480.
That's not fantastic, but it's a lot better than I though it was, considering how crappy video is on a television.
My perception comes from using opera on the Wii. You get maybe half the width of the page and have to scroll around a lot, and often have to zoom in to be able to read anything.

[#] Sun Jan 10 2010 00:05:24 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It shouldn't be 720x480 for NTSC. 480 lines is enforced by the number of scan lines, so to get a 4x3 aspect ratio, it really has got to be 640x480.

Unless the pixels are not square ... but if the target device is a computer, the pixels *are* square.

[#] Mon Jan 11 2010 01:16:42 EST from cellofellow @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Unless the pixels are not square ... but if the target device is a
computer, the pixels *are* square.

Yeah, NTSC pixels aren't square. They're slightly elongated
vertically. On a computer they are displayed at 640x480 to give it a
4:3 ratio, that and they have to be converted from YUV colorspace to
RGM. Analog TVs just handle it naturally.

It's so much easier to think about aspect ratios with high-def
formats. 720p is 16:9 with square pixels, so 1280x720, no
shenanigans. Same with 1080.

One of the most interesting resolutions I've seen is the NTSC Super
Video CD: it's 480x480 then stretched to a 720x480 NTSC signal by the
player, and then the TV displays that at a 4:3 ratio. That's just odd
to me.

[#] Mon Jan 11 2010 13:06:34 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

/me wants a 1080 television



[#] Mon Jan 11 2010 13:22:31 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


NTSC, technically speaking, doesn't have discrete pixels in the horizontal dimension. There is just a continuous analog signal that is scanned across the line. Of course it has discrete scanlines in the vertical dimension. Due to the subcarrier frequencies involved, the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem tells us that the horizontal dimension contains approximately 704 non-square pixels worth of information (or 720 if you count the blanking interval.)

[#] Mon Jan 11 2010 14:20:52 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


At least, if you're talking standard definition.

High definition is a different story.

Go to page: First ... 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 ... Last