What beats DV for image quality of film capture?

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Doc, Sep 1, 2006.

  1. Doc

    Doc Guest

    Capturing old home movies to DVD. What would provide a better image
    quality than capturing to Dig8 tape - in this case a Sony TRV-240 -
    assuming using a projector/screen/mirror method - then dumping to the
    computer, tweaking in Virtualdub and compiling a DVD with Pinnacle

    Is there anything in the mjpeg "analog" capture realm - such as using
    an analog (or the digital) cam as the interface between the
    projected/reflected image and the composite or S-Video in's on a
    capture card (card recommendations?) that's going to provide a better
    image than DV?

    I'm talking about capturing the film real time. I'm aware there are
    other ways to do it - frame by frame scanning etc, but the transluscent
    screen/mirror method is what I'll be using. Would you have to go to
    pro telecine gear to get demonstrably better quality than DV assuming
    doing it this way with the DV cam?

    Thanks for all input.
    Doc, Sep 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Doc

    Ken Maltby Guest

    Google "telecine".


    If it were me I would hand it over to a proshop with some good
    transfer equipment. A lot depends on the format of the "old home
    movies" 16mm or larger transfers would be more common for the
    larger shops. If you are talking 8mm, I would want to see what
    they would be using to do the transfer.

    Ken Maltby, Sep 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Doc

    Doc Guest

    I was actually trying to circumvent this kind of answer by indicating
    I'm aware there are other ways of doing it. Using the method I've
    outlined, is there something that will give better results than the
    Dig8 cam?
    Doc, Sep 1, 2006
  4. Doc

    Ken Maltby Guest

    Sure, any larger format camera. A 3CCD Mini-DV perhaps.
    But to tell you the truth, the "method 'you've' outlined" won't
    produce very good results.


    P.S. You don't need to circumvent this kind of answer"
    just ignore what you aren't interested in. No skin off our
    Ken Maltby, Sep 1, 2006
  5. "Doc" wrote ...
    Using a better camera is the primary thing that "would provide
    a better image quality"
    Quite unlikely.
    The quality of the camera (lens, imaging, video processing, regardless
    of the tape encoding part) plays the primary factor in the quality of
    the image.

    What you use for a screen, and how you handle the frame rate
    conversion (flim vs. video) also play crucial factors. Have you
    actually tried it yet?
    Richard Crowley, Sep 2, 2006
  6. Doc

    Doc Guest

    Yes. As far as the frame rate conversion, there really isn't any since it's
    being captured realtime to the tape.
    Doc, Sep 2, 2006
  7. What is the frame rate of your film/projector. If you are not
    seeing any artifacts of the very different framerates (video vs.
    film) then you are quite fortunate.
    Richard Crowley, Sep 2, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.