Topic: VHS to DVD-R

[gewwang]

may i ask what you intend on watching these dvds on? i.e. TV set or computer monitor? i ask because a 352x480 pixel resolution = VERY poor. of course, if you capture a file at that size and play it on your computer monitor (which has a much higher resolution than your TV, unless you have a crap monitor and an HDTV), it will look 'better' a.k.a. less pixelated if you watch it using Windows Media Player or something, because the viewing size of a 352x480 video is smaller than a 720x480 video. besides, captured video (off TV sources) is interlaced, except in certain circumstances (i.e. i believe some newer HDTV broadcasts are not interlaced, but i may be wrong about that) - and computer monitors are NOT interlaced. hence, if you watch *any* captured video from a TV source that is interlaced, it will not look good when watching it on your PC monitor. you'll see a "comb" effect, because of the interlacing inherent in typical TV sources.

overall, are you pleased with the quality of the ATI card (when watching the vhs>dvd converted disc on your TV)? just curious.

I'm actually watching the dvd-r's on my tv and so far the results have been pretty good. But I know the results could be better, and I plan to try capturing in mpeg2 720x480 again tonight after I clear off some HD space. My only real open issue now is that the audiowerk soundcard I was hoping to use for the audio in isn't compatible with xp, so I have to use the analog rca ins on my breakout box and run analog out of the ati card into the integrated audio of the pc to capture the mpeg2 audio.

Files will be HUGE, but full/wide DVD quality.  I use TMPGEnc to RE-ENCODE the mpg2, take out the black edges and normalize the audio (and get the filesize down to a DVD's worth), then use TMPGEnc DVD Author to remove the commercials, setup the menu's (if any) and create the chapters.

There are other methods (some easier, some more difficult).  This happens to be the one I use, and get broadcast quality DVD's out of it.  Even though the filesize will be HUGE, you're got to capture @ 720X480 at the high bitrate or your quality will suffer. 

I know this is worthwhile for the shows/games that I am transferring from my HD recorder with S-Video out/in, but is 720x480 going to make much of a difference over 352x480 when I'm transferring from a VCR with regular video out/in?

use TMPGEnc DVD Author to remove the commercials, setup the menu's (if any) and create the chapters.

I tried using this for authoring but wasn't able to insert a background .wav audio file for the menu. Is there a way to do this with TMPGEnc DVD Author? I'm able to do it with Nero VisionExpress and have been using it for that feature.

[jaguaracer]

I tried using this for authoring but wasn't able to insert a background .wav audio file for the menu. Is there a way to do this with TMPGEnc DVD Author? I'm able to do it with Nero VisionExpress and have been using it for that feature.

Use TMPG encoder program and create an mpeg with a jpeg/bmp as the video source and your wav file as the audio source. Note: don't use the wizard for this. Just open the program, close the wizard and fill in the two source boxes.
Sorry I can't help with the other questions but I would say that the increased resolution is worth it if you can manage it. However, it doesn't sound like you are going to spreading these a la concert videos. Therefore, if you like 352x480, have no complaints and are still having some problems at the higher resolutions, just go for it.

[hyperplane]

well, with video, a lot of it comes down to time/resources vs. quality. that is, you can get a video card (like an ATI) that captures directly as MPEG-2, then just burn it directly to DVD±R(W). another route is the standalone recorder, which will also capture (and burn directly to DVD) in realtime. then there's the better quality, but more resource intensive caputre cards/methods that capture in (DV) .AVI format, and then have to be encoded to MPEG-2, authored, then burned to DVD. obviously, the cheaper options are an AVI capture card or an MPEG capture card, but the AVI capture cards require more time (encoding to MPEG-2). the standalones require more resources ($$$) than either type of capture card.

but if a direct-to-MPEG capture is acceptable quality for your own viewing of *tons* of basketball games, then i'd say you probably made the right choice.     along that line of thought, if the quality looks okay to you at 352x480, then why change anything?

note: my statements regarding "acceptable" quality are based on the criteria that the usage of the video card is for personal viewing (not for video concert releases, where everyone wants the optimal quality possible, obviously).