Best quality analog TV card? (1 Viewer)

[osksa]

Hi, I have a Hauppauge PVR-150 and HVR-1100. The PVR with hardware encoding looks OK set to highest bitrate, but no where near the image quality I get from just plugging the cable into the TV. With the HVR i'm having trouble with the encoding. Image looks worse than the PVR and rapid movements look really bad.

Read this old review of ATI TV Wonder Elite:

Scrolling text was clear and easy to read. The picture was bright and colors were vivid, although with traces of softness. We wish the tuner handled channel changes more quickly, but we'll take image quality over quick channel surfing every time. The Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-150 had less lag, but its image quality was not as good.

So there is better image quality to be had than the PVR-150 already ten years ago. The ATI TV Wonder Elite seems to be NTSC only, and I need PAL so its not an option. And its got to be really old.

Does anybody know about the quality of the analog-digital conversion and mpeg2-encoding chips of the new Hauppage? They seems to be the best selling cards around here. Like the HVR-2205? Would it give any better image than the old PVR-150?

 

[mm1352000]

Hello again

I only used analog TV for a little while before digital TV became more widely available. Therefore I'm not able to offer much advice regarding picture quality. Maybe all that I could add to what I said in the other thread would be to say that "encoding is not everything". Other factors can also influence picture quality. For example you could check if the settings here offer any improvements:
http://wiki.team-mediaportal.com/1_.../02_TV_Servers/7_Scan_Analog#Video_Parameters

Having said that, honestly I doubt whether it is possible to get picture quality equivalent to a TV with a PC tuner. A PC is a very "noisy" electrical environment, and modern tuners use highly integrated chips. Both of these factors are not conducive to preservation of analog signal quality.

With the HVR i'm having trouble with the encoding. Image looks worse than the PVR and rapid movements look really bad.

If I were you I would check the settings here:
http://wiki.team-mediaportal.com/1_...guration/02_TV_Servers/7_Scan_Analog#Settings

Especially the frame rate. In my experience with software encoders, the best settings aren't always the obvious ones. For example, I recall having to use NTSC frame sizes (and maybe even rates???) with certain encoders.

Does anybody know about the quality of the analog-digital conversion and mpeg2-encoding chips of the new Hauppage? They seems to be the best selling cards around here. Like the HVR-2205? Would it give any better image than the old PVR-150?

I really hope somebody is able to answer these questions for you (I can't), but don't be too disappointed if you don't get any response. Based on the forum comments, few people seem to use analog tuners these days... and I'd imagine there are not very many people who would have more than one tuner to enable them to compare encoding quality.

Good luck!

 

[sdf]

Seems to me that you're not having encoding problems, but deinterlacing problems.
If you're in the PAL world, from my (old) experience (we don't have analog tv anymore) the real problems are in the decoding part, not encoding.
Bye,
sdf

 

[mm1352000]

Some screenshots to illustrate would be very helpful.

 

[sdf]

Image looks worse than the PVR and rapid movements look really bad.

Seems like ghosting/deinterlacing artifacts. pal tv is critical if you don't have a modern graphics card and a 50 hz monitor. You will never have the same quality of a real pal tv, if you don't have the right hardware.
Bye,
sdf

 

[osksa]

If I were you I would check the settings here:
http://wiki.team-mediaportal.com/1_...guration/02_TV_Servers/7_Scan_Analog#Settings

Especially the frame rate. In my experience with software encoders, the best settings aren't always the obvious ones. For example, I recall having to use NTSC frame sizes (and maybe even rates???) with certain encoders.

Thanx, tried messing with the frame rates too, since I noticed that my old WMC recordings are 29.x fps, even though they are pal recordings which ought to be 25 pfs. My experience is that changin framerate does not affect my picture quality. I suspect it does not work to select NTCS frame rates, because when I do and click OK, and re-open the TV-Server settings application it is set to empty. The NTSC selection does not stick. The video parameters does not seem to be what I am looking for.

Seems to me that you're not having encoding problems, but deinterlacing problems.
If you're in the PAL world, from my (old) experience (we don't have analog tv anymore) the real problems are in the decoding part, not encoding.

Thank you. Well I have tried a bunch of different decoders, inluding microsofts own. And since there were no motion issues with the card what I recall when using Windows Media Center, and it looks the same regardless of the decoder I select, and the hardware encoding card PVR-150 mpeg2 stream is decoded without issues, I believe it has to do with the encoding. Also, the motion issue is corrected when I change encoder to ATI, which also indicates it is an encoding problem. However, I think the ATI encoder image quality is not as good as my hardware encoding card.

Some screenshots to illustrate would be very helpful.

Ok, I add some screenshots from my two cards. Unfortunately they are not from the same moment, I have to switch tuner priority or start recording another channel to be sure I use the lowest priority tuner. Perhaps there is some smart tool or trick to capture screenshots from the two cards from the same channel and same frame. Anyway, see attached files. The motion problem can not be seen in these screenshots, but I believe the general difference in picture quality comes through. They are captured using the "snipping tool" in windows. To not bias you I don't include the name of the tuner. Some are from the PVR-150, some are from HVR-1100. If you see which one is which clearly, it is not just me imagening... =)

Seems like ghosting/deinterlacing artifacts. pal tv is critical if you don't have a modern graphics card and a 50 hz monitor. You will never have the same quality of a real pal tv, if you don't have the right hardware.

I believe my graphics card is sufficient, it is not that old. Nvidia GeForce GTS 450. I don't have a 50 Hz Tv, Tv can only do 60 Hz. However, somehow connecting the cable right into the TV gives alot better quality. And the hardware decoding card (PVR-150) gives a log better quality than the software decoding card.

I appreciate your suggestions to make the HVR-1100 work better. But as I said in the first post, even if I get it to work just as good as the PVR-150, it still seems that there is more to be had in the market! The question is where! =)

 

[mm1352000]

Thanx, tried messing with the frame rates too, since I noticed that my old WMC recordings are 29.x fps, even though they are pal recordings which ought to be 25 pfs. My experience is that changin framerate does not affect my picture quality.

I also wouldn't expect it to affect the picture quality, but I might expect it to affect the "rapid movement" issue (which is why I mentioned it). Ideally the source frame rate (PAL 25/50) should match the encoder frame rate, which should also match the display refresh rate. You mentioned that your TV doesn't support 50 Hz, so you already have a problem there. Frames will be repeated when displaying 50 Hz content on a 60 Hz TV, and this can be seen as movement judder. This problem would be much less obvious with the 29.97 fps WMC TV/recordings (because 29.97 x 2 = 59.94 fps, which is a much closer match to 60 Hz than 50 fps is).

I suspect it does not work to select NTCS frame rates, because when I do and click OK, and re-open the TV-Server settings application it is set to empty. The NTSC selection does not stick.

It's entirely possible there is a bug in the settings display (as previously mentioned, not many people use analog TV anymore. Only the log files would be able to confirm...

The video parameters does not seem to be what I am looking for.

I thought the "sharpness" and "contrast" could be helpful, but I guess you tried them (if they were available).

To not bias you I don't include the name of the tuner. Some are from the PVR-150, some are from HVR-1100. If you see which one is which clearly, it is not just me imagening... =)

I would guess 2 and 5 (and maybe 4) are from the PVR-150. Did I guess right?

In my opinion all your screenshots are pretty reasonable for analog TV picture quality on a PC. My picture quality (at least as I remember it now, several years later) was like 1/4/5 at best (except when viewing a VCR via composite/s-video input).

My experience has been that lower signal strength/quality or interference/noise cause the "grainyness" like in 1 and 3. No encoder will be able to fix that. If that is what is bothering you then I would suggest to try to remove splitter(s) and/or add an adjustable amplifier/attenuator and see if that improves the situation.

However, somehow connecting the cable right into the TV gives alot better quality.

As previously mentioned:

• a PC is a very noisy electrical environment; attempting to filter out the noise usually leads to grainy (under-filtered) or "soft" (over-filtered) picture quality
  
• analog-to-digital conversion for many "modern" analog inputs is optimised for lower cost highly integrated circuits/chips; lower resolution/quality A-to-D leads to lower picture sharpness/detail
  
• the encoders (software and hardware) are optimised for high speed (real time) encoding at SD resolutions

 

[sdf]

I think if you can post somewhere a few secs of a .ts recorded with the HVR-1100, we can try to understand where the problem is.
Also could be a BFF/TFF problem. Have you tried lav video decoders?
Bye,
sdf

 

[osksa]

I also wouldn't expect it to affect the picture quality, but I might expect it to affect the "rapid movement" issue (which is why I mentioned it). Ideally the source frame rate (PAL 25/50) should match the encoder frame rate, which should also match the display refresh rate. You mentioned that your TV doesn't support 50 Hz, so you already have a problem there. Frames will be repeated when displaying 50 Hz content on a 60 Hz TV, and this can be seen as movement judder. This problem would be much less obvious with the 29.97 fps WMC TV/recordings (because 29.97 x 2 = 59.94 fps, which is a much closer match to 60 Hz than 50 fps is).

True, I have a hardware problem regarding the TV refresh rate. But video from all sources except the HVR-1100 looks perfect to me, so somehow the players or whatever it is smoothen this out so I can't notice it. For example on mkv movies and live/recording tv when the source is my hardware encoding PVR-150 card looks perfect to me. So although an issue, I don't think it is the source of the motion problem on the HVR-1100.

I thought the "sharpness" and "contrast" could be helpful, but I guess you tried them (if they were available).

Sorry did not think about the sharpness, I red that when set to high it can introduce noise in the image. Tried to change it to min (and also max). It did not have much effect. Perhaps it might be just somewhat better with minimum sharpness, but that could also be placebo effect. Contrast setting is not available for the HVR-1100.

I would guess 2 and 5 (and maybe 4) are from the PVR-150. Did I guess right?

In my opinion all your screenshots are pretty reasonable for analog TV picture quality on a PC. My picture quality (at least as I remember it now, several years later) was like 1/4/5 at best (except when viewing a VCR via composite/s-video input).

My experience has been that lower signal strength/quality or interference/noise cause the "grainyness" like in 1 and 3. No encoder will be able to fix that. If that is what is bothering you then I would suggest to try to remove splitter(s) and/or add an adjustable amplifier/attenuator and see if that improves the situation.

You are totally right, 2, 4 and 5 are from the PVR-150. They look pretty good to me. Image 1 and 3 is as you say grainy. Regarding the sollution, I have perhaps not been clear all the time that I see two different problems:
1. Motion is not smooth (Here my prime theory has been the encoding, since it looks good when I change encoder. And since the PVR-150 gives good motion with its hardware encoded mpeg)
2. The image is noisy and grainy. (Here I suspect that the Analog-to-digital converter and/or receiver is of less quality than the ones on the PVR-150. But maybe certain settings can give more noise, like some faild attempt at image enhancement that the card performs perhaps

Actually I do have a splitter, and it is a good suggestion to check it out. I tried connecting the cable directly from my cable tv outlet to the HVR-1100, and did some screenshots and compare with screenshots with splitter. I could not see any difference. I think the signal is pretty good. The cable TV installation is made in the nineties, and there is only about a meter of cable from the outlet to my computer. The splitter has a dampening of 3.5 Db which is pretty normal as i understand. And, the PVR-150 gets the same signal and has a lot less noise.

Regarding the high noise environment: That is totally true, but does not really explain why one card is giving much better image than the other. And the card Cnet tested from my first post, was also i such a environment, and according to them gave clearly better image than my best card, the PVR-150.

Also could be a BFF/TFF problem. Have you tried lav video decoders?

I do use LAV for decoding, and I have the BFF/TFF set to auto. Tried setting it to both manual settings yesterday, did not seem to have any impact.

I appreciate the input from both of you. What I did notice yesterday was that I did not use the latest driver on my HVR-1100. I thought that there might be some fix there, so I upgraded. No the image looks worse than before, text is difficult to read. I posted these results on the Hauppauge forum as I don't want to take your private hours to figure that out. This is what it looks like after driver update: =) I will get back here when I have the answer from Hauppauge.

 

[mm1352000]

Hello again

True, I have a hardware problem regarding the TV refresh rate...

I accept your point. To be "on the safe side" I would still recommend to check the frame rate on some of these sources. You might be surprised and find that many are 29.97 fps, and that would explain why they do not have the problem when the HVR-1100 does.

Sorry did not think about the sharpness...

Okay. You're right about too much sharpening introducing artifacts/noise.

You are totally right, 2, 4 and 5 are from the PVR-150.

Yay!

1. Motion is not smooth (Here my prime theory has been the encoding, since it looks good when I change encoder. And since the PVR-150 gives good motion with its hardware encoded mpeg)

I agree that this is an encoder problem. As previously mentioned, the only causes I can think of are:

1. Mismatched frame/refresh rates between the tuner, encoder and TV.
2. Encoder quality settings too high to do real time encoding.

I know you already tried different frame rate settings in TV Server configuration, so I'm not sure what else to suggest.

2. The image is noisy and grainy...

Yes, I generally agree with everything you said about this. 3.5 dB is a fairly standard splitter insertion loss.
Please do not forget the possibility that the signal is too strong for the HVR-1100. Signal can be too weak or too strong. That's why I suggested an adjustable amplifier/attenuator. Here in NZ you can buy something then return it if it doesn't do the job... or alternatively pay for a technician to check the signal. I don't know if it is worth the money/hassle/time for you to do that.

Regarding the high noise environment: That is totally true, but does not really explain why one card is giving much better image than the other. And the card Cnet tested from my first post, was also i such a environment, and according to them gave clearly better image than my best card, the PVR-150.

The PVR-150 and HVR-1100 are completely different designs with different components. Having done a little with analog electronics, I know that it is entirely possible for one to handle the same environment better than the other.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to hear what Hauppauge says.