vonhosen has it right.
I've had a ADVC-100 for several months, been very satisfied. Of course another option is to use a camcorder that has a pass through feature. Just an opinion, but either of the above methods worked much better for me than the Dazzle devices I tried (and returned).

I've had the ADVC-100 for about a year and have never looked back. I also tried a Hollywood Dazzle DV Bridge, which did most of what it was supposed to do, but not nearly as well as the ADVC. I suffered with an ATI All In Wonder and Matrox Rainbow Runner prior to getting it right with the ADVC 100.

Since the ADVC 100 came into the picture, capturing video has become so simple and easy that capture is simply an afterthought. I've captured large video segments (over an hour) with no lost frames or syncronization issues. I have been unable see any difference between the captured video and the original on my 36" TV.

Given that my final output goes exclusively to DVD, I would buy the less expensive ADVC 50 if I had to do it over again. The print to tape feature on the ADVC 100 works perfectly, but I bought mine a few months before the less expensive alternative came out and I never print to tape. I believe the ADVC 50 captures video but does not send it back to tape.

Good luck with your decision.

Heard good things about the ADVC 50. Anyone know where to buy for less than $199?

TomG

I still use the Pinnacle DC10+ with 1.06 software. On Win 98/SE it works great and the quality is excellent. They never got it working right on XP/2K however, despite two major software upgrades.

I'll probably get the ADVC-100 eventually.

TomG:

The ADVC-50 will very likely capture just as well as the ADVC-100, but does not have a DV-to-analog output, so you won't get to use the wonderful External Monitor features of Vegas. If you can, get the ADVC-100 instead.

Did you see the new ADVC-500. Holy smokes, component I/O, rack mount: cool!

///d@

Did you see the price? Ouch!!!! But it does it all.

Does anyone have any experience, info, opinions on the formac studio dv (formac.com)? See it has various format capabilities (4:3 16:9 etc).

While that goes for ~ $300 US, macs4all.com has the DATAVID-DAC-100 for $189. (http://www.datavideo-tek.com) Seems to do it all as well, but without the aspect ratios... Any comments?

Thanks
mike

Spurred on by curiosity - it's been a while since I visited the analog capture hardware options out there - did a bit of online research [translation: wasted a bit more time then I should have].

Seems there might be a diminishing market for the analog/digital convertors, they start at the $189 quoted earlier, and can be as problematic as anything else connected to a PC. The canopis forum for example had a repeated theme - incompatibility after installing xp sp1. Therefore, I would assume it's safe to say that manufacturer support is critically important, else one risks an expensive, & relatively unattractive, paperweight.

Also seems with the dv camcorder prices continueing to drop, it might be a better deal to just buy one - if the camera you buy has basically the same circuitry for analog conversion, you would get more for your money. Not only do you still have something useful if there are unresolved firewire problems, but I would imagine those problems are more rare as the base of users for a camera is probably many times that for any one brand of a/d convertor box.

OK, so what about the practical issues of using some sort of add on card versus an external box? The box would be easier to install (assuming you already have powered firewire capability - most boxes I found required the powered part), but on the other hand perhaps more difficult to fix a bug through software updates as any software is likely embedded. A box (with one exception I found) uses hardware compression to encode your analog video to the DV format. Is this a good thing?

Sure hardware compression frees up the CPU, but we all seem to have plenty of horsepower now days. It makes it easier to send a video stream through a wired connection, but with USB2 & firewire is this still needed? It does convert the color space, & it does compress the video, and for those reasons alone it is less accurate to your original then captureing uncompressed, & *perhaps* less accurate then a codec like HUFFYUV.

Looking at the cards then, one recurring problem is driver support. Another hassle is getting the true facts about any card before you buy, as in will it deliver the video stream to your drive fast enough, or will you have to resort to captureing mpg2? Does it capture with decent quality - not just show nice video on your screen? How big a problem is it going to be getting software that will allow you to capture into the future - analog capture software is getting rare, & windows' support for it is dwindling.

In the end if I were to make a buy tomorrow, for the sole purpose of getting video into my PC, IF I liked the convenience and TV of an aiw, I'd probably go that route. IF I was captureing for wmv or similar, I'd probably go Osprey. IF that was less important, I'd buy a camera & reap the extra benefits of being able to shoot DV. This of course avoiding the more expensive solutions available in pro &/or prosumer products.

FWIW
mike