Posted by Bill Vermillion on 03/23/07 15:25

In article <1174589753.067623.156380@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Cori <cmashieldscapting@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 22, 11:38 am, Gene E. Bloch <spamf...@nobody.invalid> wrote:
>
>> These two methods are almost equivalent. However, the two devices
>> (ADVC, DVD recorder) will have different qualities of digitization. Try
>> them and see what you like best.
>
>Bob, THANKS for the information! It wasn't what I asked, but as it
>happens I do want to incorporate still images into some of my DVDs.
>
>Bill, someone else told me the Canopus would be higher quality and
>certainly on any footage I plan to edit, it has to get into the
>computer somehow. It's just that the Canopus seemed like an extra
>step if I have already transferred the same footage to digital via the
>Zenith. If the Canopus really is better, though, I shouldn't take
>chances on quality even despite the extra trouble.

The ADVC units do a lot of extra processing - including having
a TBC [Time Base Corrector] to make pictures stable, 3D noise
reduction [compares previous and next frame for noise reduction]
and other goodies such as being able to change colors to some
degree, sharpness, contrast, etc. Good units if you do a lot to be
able to amortized the costs over many transfers.

They used to have some interesting comparisons with before/after
images making old tapes look really good. Those don't appear to be
there anymore. The Canpous product is probably a bit more than
you need/can handle given the questions you have posted here
before.

Tranfering from VHS to digital via the Zenith is a low-cost method
- while the Canopus lines the ADVC110 and ADVC300 are the low-end
of the Canopus offerings - and the 300 fits into the pro-sumer mode
- that is a high end consumer or low end pro device.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[Back to original message]