From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailex.mailcore.me ([94.136.40.62]:40669 "EHLO mailex.mailcore.me" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750781AbaDYMT3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:19:29 -0400 Message-ID: <535A52CB.7060106@sca-uk.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:19:23 +0100 From: Steve Cookson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Cookson , Linux Media Mailing List , Steven Toth , Hans Verkuil CC: ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com Subject: Re: Comparisons of images between Dazzle DVC100, EasyCap stk1160 and Hauppauge ImapctVCB-e in Linux. References: <5357DAC2.20005@sca-uk.com> In-Reply-To: <5357DAC2.20005@sca-uk.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Guys, (I'm copying Ezequial on this because of the work he has done on the stk1160). My colleague (a Doctor) had this to say on the medical images I posted earlier (see below): > The impactVCB-e image is redder and less clear. The dvc100 and easycap seem similar to me and both of them are not as good as the original one. So I have to ask how is it that the cheap little EasyCap is performing at the same level as the Dazzle DVC100 and better than the ImpactVCB-e? It seems to me that the more complex and expensive DVC100 and ImpactVCB-e should perform well and that the EasyCap should be the runner up. If the DVC100 and ImpactVCB-e had had the same love and attention that Ezequial has shown the EasyCap would they outperform it? The ImpactVCB-e is easier to use internally and the Dazzle is external. Does the fact that the ImpactVCB-e has a PCI-e connector help it at all? Otherwise I should just focus on EasyCap for my raw SD capture and move on. Thanks, Steve On 23/04/14 16:22, Steve Cookson wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I would be interested in your views of the comparisons of these > images. The still is the image of a duodenum taken during an > endoscopy and recorded to a DVD player (via an s-video or composite > cable). Although the endoscope is an HD endoscope, the DVD recorder > isn't and the resulting video is 720x480i59.94. > > Here are further details of the video:- > > Format : MPEG Video v2 > Format profile : Main@Main > Format settings, BVOP : Yes, Matrix : Custom, GOP : M=3, N=15 > Bit rate mode : Variable > Bit rate : 4 566 Kbps > Maximum bit rate : 10 000 Kbps > Width : 720 pixels > Height : 480 pixels > Display aspect ratio : 4:3 > Frame rate : 29.970 fps > Standard : NTSC > Color space : YUV > Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 > Bit depth : 8 bits > Scan type : Interlaced > Scan order : Top Field First > Compression mode : Lossy > Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.441 > > The video was played through Dragon Player and the video signal has > exited through a mini-VGA port defined as 640x480 and passed through a > VGA->S-Video converter to an s-video cable. > > The cable has in turn been connected in turn to a Dazzle DVC100, an > EasyCap stk1160 and a Hauppauge ImapctVCB-e. > > Each setting (eg brightness and contrast etc) has as near as possible > to mid-range and a screengrab taken. > > The results are shown here: > > Original: > http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=fNkd6hpTbcMrgmD6gSf74Ih4l5k2TGxc > > Dazzle DVC100: > http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=fNkd6hpTbcMaOf4QTsIefYh4l5k2TGxc > > ImpactVCB-e: > http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=fNkd6hpTbcM7i72IqGujuIh4l5k2TGxc > > STK1160: > http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=fNkd6hpTbcPO7kmQk/IS94h4l5k2TGxc > > I would be grateful for your views on the quality of the images. > > Is one of materially higher quality than the others, or can I adjust > the settings to improve the quality of one of them more. > > It seems to me that the Hauppauge is marginally better than the > others. What do you think? > > Can I improve the test? > > Regards > > Steve. > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >