VOGONS


First post, by protivakid

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Got a Presario 4840 to mess around with. It's a '97 model with a P2, Windows 95, and has the front panel composite video input connectors. I wanted to test the recording feature so using the built-in Intel Video Capture software that came with the original OS install I tried first with a 240p source (my Sega Genesis Nomad), and a 480i source (my Goldstar 3DO).

The result was that both of the recordings were just terrible. To start the audio is so dim you have to crank up the speakers to barely hear it. There are no leveling options in the recording software. Oddly, when recording off of the live stream the audio levels sound great so I know it's going into the Compaq fine.

The bigger issue is that the picture is awful. I know screen resolutions were not great back then, but even on 800 x 600 resolution straight from the compaq, windows media player displays the video in a 2x3inch box. I'm not sure how anyone would have watched anything they recorded on this pc, or how the feature would have been any use back then in general. Perhaps I don't remember how bad 1997 videos looked, but even when exported on the "high setting" within the software, it just looks like junk. The text from Phantasy Star 4 is completely unreadable yet when the genesis is hooked up to a "70 tv using the same cables, yes it's blurry as any 90s console would be, but perfectly playable and readable.

I feel like ATI's all-in-wonder type cards were decent back having messed around with them but was this feature always a bust on these Compaq's? Perhaps that's why the composite inputs were gone on the next case design. I uploaded two videos below straight from the Compaq's HD if anyone wants to take a look. Added some screens from the software as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnwlRTqOMh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SXH92795Rk

Reply 1 of 5, by protivakid

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Update! I purchased a Presario 4824 (the beige version of my charcoal 4840) and the video capture is also completely awful! Seems like the ports were mostly a selling gimmick most users probably never leveraged.

Reply 2 of 5, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

It was a "dancing bear" thing, i.e. not about how well the bear can dance, but that it does it at all.... hey look ma, when I hold my hand up on the camera an additional tiny blob appears next to my head in this postage stamp thing on the screen.

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 3 of 5, by jmarsh

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

If you were using that "Intel Video Capture utility" it's probably using an Indeo codec which is guaranteed to look terrible. I'd try capturing with Virtualdub before writing it off completely.

Reply 4 of 5, by NeoG_

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

My understanding is that consumer video capture devices around this time were mostly focused on sending short postage stamp sized video clips to people via email, usually recorded from the family camcorder. There was not enough storage on typical computers at the time to do anything with high quality video, that was relegated to built-for-purpose machines with hardware codecs that would bounce the capture to and from tape media.

98/DOS Rig: BabyAT AladdinV, K6-2+/550, V3 2000, 128MB PC100, 20GB HDD, 128GB SD2IDE, SB Live!, SB16-SCSI, PicoGUS, WP32 McCake, iNFRA CD, ZIP100
XP Rig: Lian Li PC-10 ATX, Gigabyte X38-DQ6, Core2Duo E6850, ATi HD5870, 2GB DDR2, 2TB HDD, X-Fi XtremeGamer

Reply 5 of 5, by protivakid

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
jmarsh wrote on 2026-05-27, 21:25:

If you were using that "Intel Video Capture utility" it's probably using an Indeo codec which is guaranteed to look terrible. I'd try capturing with Virtualdub before writing it off completely.

Thank you SO MUCH for this suggestion, the results were amazing with Virtualdub compared to the Intel Video Capture utility! Audio levels are correct now (though there is a delay I can probably solve with tinkering), framerate is better (I cranked it up to 60 and it was able to hang on decently for a PII compared to the slideshow of the Intel utility), and resolution is far better. I laughed because the 200+mb file it created for a 1-2min video would have been something almost impossible to share in 1997. The Intel utility was saving "high definition" files as 1-2mb hence the post stamp quality. For future readers I did have to use ver 1.6.19 as that was the last I saw to support Windows 95. Anyway, youtube video below for those curious. Neat what these machines can do, even if I may have not had Virtualdub in 1997.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht9u5DeQpzI