Advice needed for converting family VHS tapes to digital

[jadoggin]

This is my first post on this forum, so bear with me. I have about 20 family VHS tapes that I need to convert to a digital video file and store on my computer. From my research, the H.264 format is currently superior (although H.265 is right around the corner). While I'm at it, I'd also like to burn to DVD. I'm figuring the best way to do this is to capture the video as an AVI file (I know it's huge), and then Edit in a video editing program and then burn to DVD. I'm thinking I could then take the edited video and export back as an uncompressed AVI, then run it through VidCoder to convert to the H.264 format. This way I'll get the highest quality of both.

I currently own a nice JVC 4-head VCR with a composite output. I know using S-Video out would probably product a bit better picture, but I don't want to spend the extra if possible. I also have an Osprey 230 capture card capable of capture up to 640 x 480.

What I would like to know is the best settings for capturing and also for converting to final format (and the best tools used to get me there). I've already tried my hand at VirtualDub as this seems to be the tool of choice for many, but after spending 4 hours playing with it, I gave up. I simply was unable to capture any video (only audio). I also read many other accounts of the video and audio being out of sync in addition to how difficult and sensitive this program is. So here's what else I've tried so far:

1.) Debut Video Capture
2.) Fly 2000 TV
3.) iuVCR
4.) PowerDirector 12 and 13

All of these can capture raw uncompressed AVI. The first three are very similar and are all capable of capturing at 640 x 480 at 29.97 or 30 fps. PowerDirector defaults at 640 x480 seems to only capture at 60i but also seems to have the best picture.

I've spent a good month playing with all of this testing various formats, but I'd still like to get a professional opinion from those of you with experience. Some are recommending that the best method is to use a VCR/DVD combo recorder to directly transfer/burn my videos. Then rip the dvd image and transcode using VidCoder/Handbrake to an H.264 file. But I would like to get an opinion on a forum with users more involved with this type of work. If I can use the capture card and VCR that I already have and get the same or better quality, I'd prefer to go that route.

And if using my capture card, then here are the questions I have:

1. Software recommendations for capturing?
2. Should I be capturing in 60i, 30 or at 29.97?
3. What is the best resolution for capture? 640x480?
4. Do I need to de-interlace? Usually this seems to make the picture worse.
5. What should I set my output file resolution at (if VHS is 352x240, will setting it higher make a difference?)?
6. What should my output framerate and bitrate be? And what about top field or bottom field first settings?

Just trying to get the best quality possible for archiving some memories, so thanks in advance for any help!

[LMotlow]

This is my first post on this forum, so bear with me. I have about 20 family VHS tapes that I need to convert to a digital video file and store on my computer. From my research, the H.264 format is currently superior (although H.265 is right around the corner).While I'm at it, I'd also like to burn to DVD.

Good luck, but your research is a little faulty. DVD is not h264 or h265. It's MPEG2. It can't be anything else. If you want standard definition h264, the BluRay/AVCHD specs include 720x480 standard definition for authoring to disc. Forget what you read in the consumer mags about h264 being superior to MPEG. That's an overgeneralization that you'll soon learn will depend on the video source and what you want to do with it. Versions of MPEG encoding are used for both DVD and BluRay, while h264 is only for various flavors of BluRay. DVD and SD BluRay are both interlaced at 720x480 (720x576 PAL) for burning to disc.

The format specs are here:
DVD (PAL + NTSC) https://www.videohelp.com/dvd#tech
BluRay/AVCHD: https://www.videohelp.com/hd#tech
Take our advice: don't attempt to upscale VHS source to high definition. Your TV will upscale it anyway, and SD-to-HD seldom looks like anything but crappy upsized VHS.

I'm figuring the best way to do this is to capture the video as an AVI file (I know it's huge), and then Edit in a video editing program and then burn to DVD. I'm thinking I could then take the edited video and export back as an uncompressed AVI, then run it through VidCoder to convert to the H.264 format. This way I'll get the highest quality of both.

No you won't, sorry to say. It's more involved. The people who recommended Vidcoder neglected to mention that h264 encoded video requires a BluRay player or other settop device that can handle h264 encodes. Standard DVD players won't play it.

Your JVC might suffice, but a player with s-video output will avoid the kind of dot crawl and ugly artifacts you see with composite output. You'll also need a line tbc for VHS playback. Some players have tbc built-in, most don't. Tbc-equipped players aren't cheap. Most used models have been run into the ground, but there are shops that specialize in rebuilding prosumer legacy players. Without a line tbc you're in for some nasty surprises. From what you say, your JVC is not a tbc-equipped player with s-video output.

Friends don't let their friends use Power Director or Osprey capture cards. When you say you want to capture to "AVI" keep in mind that AVI is a container, not a format, but I assume you mean lossless YUY2 AVI, not uncompressed RGB. Capturing tape to RGB wouldn't be the best idea anyway. Most would capture one of two ways: (a) To lossless YUY2 AVI with lossless huffyuv or Lagarith compression, for edit, cleanup, encoding, and authoring. Most old timers would consider this the "best" way. The best of the VHS-optimized capture devices around these days would be the ATI 600 USB, sold often as the Diamond ATI 600 USB TV Wonder. (b) Or capture with slightly lossy compression to DV-AVI, which can be edited, decoded to lossles AVI and cleaned up, etc., and re-encoded and authored. DV-AVI has its points, but its compression artifacts are difficult to clean. Still, many do it that way (I guess they aren't annoyed by the problems, or don't notice). This method involves two lossy encode steps rather than one, which can lower quality if you don't know how to handle it.

As far as I ever knew, Power Director doesn't capture to lossless AVI. It captures to lossy DV-AVI. If you gave up on VirtualDub, you gave up too soon. Most use VirtualDub for lossless capture, but you're using a capture device it doesn't recognize.

What I would like to know is the best settings for capturing and also for converting to final format (and the best tools used to get me there).

There is no "best setting". VHS plays as interlaced 29.97 fps and is captured that way. Some capture devices will get you 720x480, some are limited to 640x480. Either will do, but eventually 640x480 will be resized to 720x480 for DVD or BluRay, either by your encoder or by yourself. Filtering and denoising during capture are not recommended: such filters are too slow and use the wrong colorspace, which will give you level problems, burned out highlights, etc. The only "filters" you really need during capture are Brightness and Contrast to control the luma and chroma levels of the input and set them within the acceptable RGB 16-235 range for video. Denoising, color correction, repair of VHS defects, etc., is best handled after capture in software designed for it.

Some are recommending that the best method is to use a VCR/DVD combo recorder to directly transfer/burn my videos. Then rip the dvd image and transcode using VidCoder/Handbrake to an H.264 file.

I'd say the pros would disagree 100%. One of the "worst" ways to capture VHS is directly to lossy formats. It's convenient, though. Don't even try to clean it up. DVD, like BluRay, is not an editing format. They are final delivery formats which are very unfriendly for editing and can be seriously damaged by doing so.

1. Software recommendations for capturing?
2. Should I be capturing in 60i, 30 or at 29.97?
3. What is the best resolution for capture? 640x480?
4. Do I need to de-interlace? Usually this seems to make the picture worse.
5. What should I set my output file resolution at (if VHS is 352x240, will setting it higher make a difference?)?
6. What should my output framerate and bitrate be? And what about top field or bottom field first settings?

1. VirtualDub for lossless capture--using a compatible capture device, of course. DV-AVI cards use their own software, unless you can get hold of a FireWire input device for DV-AVI.
2. 60i? Losssless capture and DV-AVI capture at 29.97 frames per second interlaced. That's the same as 59.94 fields per second.
3. Depends on the capture device. If you can get 720x480, Okay. 640x480 will do.
4. DVD and SD BluRay are interlaced. Period. You deinterlace for stuff like Web posting, and you have to know what you're doing.
5. Forget 352x240. You can't capture interlaced video at that resolution. Smaller frame = lower quality and it can't be used as DVD/BluRay.
6. Frame = 29.97 fps. There is no setting for bitrate with lossless capture, and DV-AVI usually sets its own bitrate depending on the DV codec used. If it means anything, my ATI capture software in VirtualDub captures lossless AVI at about 49Mbps, which is a higher spec than BluRay encoding. For practical purposes, bitrate comes into play during encoding, not during capture. VHS, DVD, and BluRay are usually Top Field First. DV-AVI is almost always Bottom Field First. Capturing Top Field VHS to DV-AVI changes the field priority to Bottom Field. ED: Audio for DVD/BluRay is 48Khz 16-bit sampling and should be captured that way as uncompressed PCM. Most DV-AVI devices capture at 44Khz, which means DV audio has to be resampled for DVD/BluRay. The audio codecs for NTSC DVD/BluRay are either Dolby AC3 or PCM.

A lot of the software you could use for this project is free, including encoders that use HCenc for DVD and x264 encoders for h264. Cleanup means VirtuaLDub at the least. Avisynth would be essential for some bad VHS problems, which you'll undoubtedly encounter, but that's another story. I'll wager you're not willing to go that far. A far better editor than Power Director would be Movie Studio Platinum, sold at discount just about everywhere. For denoising and other cleanup, most budget NLE's are totally inadequate.

Don't know what you've been reading, but you might want to take a look here: http://www.digitalfaq.com/guides/video.htm. There have been about a dozen posts similar to yours in videohelp during the past few months. Try browsing the capture and restoration areas.

[redwudz]

I use Virtual Dub mostly for the filtering available. Avisynth is more versatile, but a much sharper learning curve.

If you need VD filters, look here: http://www.infognition.com/VirtualDubFilters/

You will likely get more information here on your subject, but it may take a day or two.

And welcome to our forums.

[jagabo]

2. Should I be capturing in 60i, 30 or at 29.97?

Those are usually all the same thing. 60i is just the new marketing buzzword for 30i. 30i is usually shorthand for 29.97i which is shorthand for 30000/1001i. VHS is standard analog NTSC interlaced video at 59.94 fields per second, normally captured as 29.97 interlaced frames per second (2 fields per frame).

3. What is the best resolution for capture? 640x480?

If you are planning to make DVD, 720x480.

4. Do I need to de-interlace?

For DVD? No. DVD (and TV) fully supports interlaced video. But if you plan on extensive filtering -- some filters only support progressive frames. So it sometimes makes sense to deinterlace to 60p, then re-interlace back to 30i for DVD. If you plan on uploading video to Youtube or some other video sharing service you'll want to deinterlace first.

5. What should I set my output file resolution at (if VHS is 352x240, will setting it higher make a difference?)?

VHS has a full 480 scan lines (really, it's 485 scan lines but it is customary in digital video to use 480). The horizontal resolution is roughly 350 "lines" but you're better off capturing, filtering, and encoding for DVD with a 720 pixel width (capture devices are standardized for this). Some devices may allow 704 pixels and that is acceptable too (720 is really the same as 704, just with ~8 pixels of padding at the right and left). So you want to keep a 720x480 or 704x480 frame. If you really must put more than about 90 minutes on a single layer DVD you can step down to 352x480 with only a minor loss of visual resolution. If you must go with 4+ hours on a DVD you'll want to step down to 352x240. But you'll be losing spacial and temporal resolution.

6. What should my output framerate and bitrate be?

29.97 interlaced. AKA 59.94 interlaced.

And what about top field or bottom field first settings?

Whichever is correct for your capture device.

[jadoggin]

First of all, thanks so much for the helpful information. I'm so glad I joined this forum.

@LMotlow

Just to clarify, I stated that I wanted to convert to a digital format (being H.264). Then I stated that I'd also like to burn to DVD. These were meant as two seperate tasks so that I'd have a copy on DVD and as a digital format archived on a hard drive. I know they are not the same and that only MPEG2 is for DVD. Also, I don't ever intend to burn my h264 file to a dvd, and am quite aware that it won't play on most dvd players. I will be streaming from a hard drive to my XBMC box, so that's not an issue.

Good to know about de-interlacing, I never knew that. Makes sense.

Thanks for the links. A lot of great reading and I'm not sure how I missed it when I spent time initially researching .

Ok, so here's what I understand so far. Virtualdub would be the best choice for capturing software from my VCR. However, since my card does not show up as a choice under the Video menu, then it means that this software is not compatible with my card. I also understand that using an expensive VCR with TBC will produce a better picture, unfortunatly, I don't think I have the money to invest in this type of hardware. Also a better capture card would be nice, but again, how much difference will I really notice?


I do own a mini dv camcorder with AV inputs and am wondering if I could us that with WinDV to record from my VCR. I'll take a look at that as well as another look at VirtualDub. Stay tuned!

[jagabo]

I do own a mini dv camcorder with AV inputs and am wondering if I could us that with WinDV to record from my VCR.

Yes, you can do that if you have a firewire port on the computer. But you probably won't have any control over brightness, contrast, saturation, etc. of the capture. Ie, the camcorder is going to do what it wants, you'll be stuck with that as your starting point. If brights are blown out or darks are crushed there will be no way to recover them.

An old DVD recorder like the Panasonic ES10 or ES15 can be used in pass-through mode and act as a line TBC. That reduces the horizontal jitter of tape sources. You can get used ones well under US$100 now. Unfortunately, prices have been going up the last few years as the demand has gone up and supply down.

[LMotlow]

Good tip from jagabo about DVD recorders used as pass-thru line tbc's. Pass-thru means you don't use them to record, you just pass the signal through them from your VCR to your capture device. Can't use just any old spare DVD recorder, though, only a few work as pass-thru. As jagabo said, they cost far less now than when new, but lately the prices are edging up because people have finally "discovered" the darn things for what they can do with analog capture. And yep, they make a big difference. The older and more screwed up the tape, the bigger the difference. Jagabo posted this example a while back -- one of tons examples of line tbc's in action: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/319420-Who-uses-a-DVD-recorder-as-a-line-TBC-and-wh...=1#post1983288 .

@LMotlow

Just to clarify, I stated that I wanted to convert to a digital format (being H.264). Then I stated that I'd also like to burn to DVD. These were meant as two seperate tasks so that I'd have a copy on DVD and as a digital format archived on a hard drive. I know they are not the same and that only MPEG2 is for DVD. Also, I don't ever intend to burn my h264 file to a dvd, and am quite aware that it won't play on most dvd players. I will be streaming from a hard drive to my XBMC box, so that's not an issue.

Good, glad you're up on this. But why encode twice? You can stream DVD just as well as h264, and there's not such a great improvement that it calls for managing two encodes. MPG can often look better when done right and is universal to more players. The ideal archive would be your original capture. Keep that, and it's the cleanest archive you'll have. Everything else would be a re-encode that's a lot tougher to re-use when encoders improve later.

Ok, so here's what I understand so far. Virtualdub would be the best choice for capturing software from my VCR. However, since my card does not show up as a choice under the Video menu, then it means that this software is not compatible with my card.

It means that neither the card nor the software are compatible with VirtualDub. Each capture device comes with its own drivers.

Also a better capture card would be nice, but again, how much difference will I really notice?

There's a big difference over the equipment you described so far. Something like an ATI 600 USB or even PCI version doesn't cost much and is cheaper than many cards that won't capture to losssless media. 600's are found for well under a c-note. That's up to you, but every link in the capture chain becomes an issue.

Yep, the super VCR's take a big bite outta the budget. I have one of those dudes, but maintaining it is a headache. Also collected three other players that were more mainstream in their day but above average playing. A pass-thru device has one big advantage: you don't get stuck with any single expensive vcr to get tbc capability.

Likely when you make your first captures most of this arcane stuff will seem more clear. Best bet is to start making captures as soon as you can, with whatever you have. Don 't copy 20 hours of tape before reporting back, though. When you're getting used to this crazy business just cap a few minutes so you can check things out for yourself. You can also submit short samples to the forum to address your concerns.

[jadoggin]

Ok, so it seems like you all have talked me into buying some additional hardware. I was a bit wary that I wouldn't see any significant differences, but I'll take the word from you pros . I like the idea of using a dvd recorder as a pass-through, so I'll check into that. Does this panny ES10/15 have a DV out connection or how will it connect to my computer? I was also looking into the ATI 600 USB devices. Is this what you are talking about? Just curious how this device compares to some of the Canopus capture devices.

Regarding encoding twice...
I'm moving over to an entire digital collection. I haven't played a DVD for years. I'm only encoding to DVD to give to a family member and keeping a copy on a hard drive myself for streaming. Since my original capture will probably be an AVI (compressed with huffyuv) I won't likely have the room to store those large files. Or are you saying I can capture a two hour film and store the original without it taking up more than 10GB of space?

[LMotlow]

Ok, so it seems like you all have talked me into buying some additional hardware. I was a bit wary that I wouldn't see any significant differences, but I'll take the word from you pros .

You don't have to be a pro to see differences between capture devices.

I like the idea of using a dvd recorder as a pass-through, so I'll check into that. Does this panny ES10/15 have a DV out connection or how will it connect to my computer?

It connects via s-video or composite output to the inputs of your capture device. No DV out. DV has always taken a lower place on the ladder than DVD or BluRay, which is one reason why you don't see retail DV movies sold at Walmart. DV's biggest hurdles are that it's PC-only or thru-camera-only playback, is not supported by Ye Olde UTube and the like, and not supported by most external media players. To get DV delivered into any other format, it has to be re-encoded.

was also looking into the ATI 600 USB devices. Is this what you are talking about? Just curious how this device compares to some of the Canopus capture devices.

As you can tell by the broken link, 600's don't stay listed very long. The ATI 600 is also available as a PCIe card. Re: Canopus can't capture to lossless media. Canopus is a huge favorite with users of Canopus who've mostly never used anything else and are convinced that DV is the greatest thing since fire. Something like the ATI 600 is a favorite for lossless captures as well as direct to MPEG and recommended by restoral/archive labs who still capture analog tape with ATI All In Wonders, from which the ATI 600's have borrowed much. Users of lossless capture devices like the ATI 600 are familiar with Canopus and Canopus marketing and have walked away from it concerning analog capture. Canopus lovers will never be converted to anything else. The ATI-lossless crowd will never be converted either. Your move.

Regarding encoding twice...
I'm moving over to an entire digital collection. I haven't played a DVD for years. I'm only encoding to DVD to give to a family member and keeping a copy on a hard drive myself for streaming. Since my original capture will probably be an AVI (compressed with huffyuv) I won't likely have the room to store those large files. Or are you saying I can capture a two hour film and store the original without it taking up more than 10GB of space?

2 hours of standard def huffyuv or Lagarith AVI would run 50GB or more. As DV it would still be bigger than 10GB. What you do is encode to high-bitrate h264 from that original lossless capture, then you make a DVD from the same original cap. You don't make the DVD from the lossy h264, unless that's all you have available (in which case you're pretty well stuck with the results, which always get worse, more or less, but never the same or better).

Video encoding is not like ZIP. ZIP and RAR are lossless. Video encoding is not. If you encode once and lose 20 to 35% of the original data (or lose more at low bitrates), then the next encode loses another percentage from the first encode. If you start out with DV, you lose 15 to 20% of the original VHS data, not counting 50% of the original chroma resolution. Encode to h264 from that, and you lose more data, just as you'll lose data if you encode DV-to-DVD. Encode from DV to h264 to DVD, and fuhgeddaboudit. Remember, you started with low-resolution, low-detail VHS, and you're lopping off more detail and adding more compression artifacts with each encode and re-encode. You can imagine how things end up. Any tomcat can drag in stuff that looks better.

[jadoggin]

Lots of excellent information. Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge and experience! I found a Panasonic DMR-ES15 with a broken DVD tray that I'm guessing will work just fine as a TBC. So then I'll be feeding my video/audio from my VCR through the composite video/audio cables to the ES15, then from there to my video card, right? Do you think I'll be able to tell any difference between using my VCR and one that has an S-Video out?

Also wondering if the performance of the ATI 600 PCI cards are any better than the USB counterpart. However, I'd prefer the USB as I could use it with a laptop or other computer that doesn't have a PCI slot. Also, I suppose I could even repurpose it later as a TV Tuner in my XBMC box .

I don't think I'll need to keep/archive the original AVI. I intend on doing this once for my VHS tapes and if future formats get better, it's unlikely it will be able to change the original quality, so I'm ok with that. I do wonder though if I should hold off in favor of encoding with the H.265 format when it becomes more available. Any thoughts on that?

[LMotlow]

So then I'll be feeding my video/audio from my VCR through the composite video/audio cables to the ES15, then from there to my video card, right?

Correct. But you'll get a visibly sharper and cleaner image if you use composite into the ES15 but use the ES15's s-video output to your capture device. The ES15 has a good y/c comb filter that can clean up most of the dot crawl and other problems from composite input. Its y/c filter is always turned on. Use input Line 1 if you want the tbc. Some production models have tbc on all inputs, some use only Line 1. Its impossible to tell by looking at the unit.

You need the ES15 manual. If you don't have it, a copy is attached.

The ES15 setting for "TV type" should be set to 480i. Don't use progressive or wide screen TV settings for interlaced capturing. If your capture device offers to deinterlace during capture, don't do it. Their deinterlace algorithms suck. If you have some VHS tapes made from TV movies or such, they aren't interlaced, they're hard-telecined. Deinterlacing film-based source will ruin it.

To access noise reduction and other picture items:
Press DISPLAY
Select PICTURE and set to "Normal"
Select DNR and turn DNR "Off"
Select LINE-IN NR and turn it off
(The ES15's NR, as on most Panny DVD components, is too aggressive. It can cause smearing and softening. Fix noise problems in post-capture. More effective and less destructive filters are available.)

Return to the DISPLAY menu
Select AUDIO
If Surround Sound is on, turn it off

Do you think I'll be able to tell any difference between using my VCR and one that has an S-Video out?

For sure.

Also wondering if the performance of the ATI 600 PCI cards are any better than the USB counterpart. However, I'd prefer the USB as I could use it with a laptop or other computer that doesn't have a PCI slot. Also, I suppose I could even repurpose it later as a TV Tuner in my XBMC box

It's an analog tuner.

I don't think I'll need to keep/archive the original AVI. I intend on doing this once for my VHS tapes and if future formats get better, it's unlikely it will be able to change the original quality, so I'm ok with that.I do wonder though if I should hold off in favor of encoding with the H.265 format when it becomes more available. Any thoughts on that?

The point of archiving the original isn't to improve the original, but to improve encodes made from it. If you archive a lossy encode or DV there's no way to improve that either, other than cleaning up defects and making a new high-quality encode. As for h265, it's still in development. h264 and MPEG2 will be around for a long time. I've made hundreds of lossy captures, but I didn't save all of them. Most of them just didn't matter. You can always edit a lossless capture in VirtualDub and save only the parts you want.

Many people assume that something like h264 for archive will look exactly like a lossless original. It won't. You can make it look pretty nifty, but VHS always requires some cleanup before encoding. Once you see the kinds of problems inherent with VHS and how they get exaggerrated and distorted thru encoding, you'll know more. If you're capturing to DV, I'd suggest that you keep it. You can use an editor that smart-renders DV and cut out parts you don't want.

As far anything I've seen from users, the PCI and USB versions of the ATI 600 give the same capture results. The tuning software with the PCI is different. But it's still analog-only.

Good luck

[jadoggin]

Thanks for the information and education. This project just got a lot more expensive . I'll keep you posted!

[LMotlow]

Thanks for the information and education. This project just got a lot more expensive . I'll keep you posted!

Yep, everybody here has had to make at least a nominal investment in improvements. Luckily almost all of the software for VHS projects is free, and lots of budget stuff is around. Before you go out and spend a ton of $$$, keep a few things in mind:

VCR's: Yep, we have people here with $5000 players but they're usually in business and have heavy tech backgrounds plus the expertise and shop gear for using that stuff. Bless 'em, but most of us mortals can't handle it. When you read about these super tbc machines be aware that they haven't been made for more than a decade and they're pretty well used to death, with no parts support. A member here named Orsetto has dozens of posts about the pros and cons of the high priced spreads. They're good, but temperamental. Orsetto also mentioned a few lesser models but good mainstream players that can do the job with a pass-thru . I have three of his recommendations that often get used instead of the rebuilt AG-1980 that cost me a ton of nickels, simply because VHS is such a hassle and some tapes look better on different machines. You might look up some of his posts. Other than my pro model (which I don't always use), I get some darn nice captures with old Panasonic SVHS players from 1996. Took a while to find them, but I got each for less than a c-note from eBay sellers who specialize in tweaking legacy gear.

Software: Most budget NLE's like Movie Studio Platinum can get decent results, but their main use is cut-edit and final encoding/authoring. They're incapable of cleaning most VHS defects, even when the NLE's run into hundreds of bucks. People spend a king's ransom for Vegas Pro and Premiere Pro but use them like $50 editors and never read the 400-page user guides. Besides, with the big guys you pay big bucks for 75% of features you'll never use. You'll find free software in videohelp's tools section that can do just about anything. There's always VirtualDub and over 200 filters, and Avisynth -- a few things to learn, but more documentation and special routines than you can shake a stick at. There are freebies that do things Adobe Premiere never heard of. They have learning curves but so does everything else, free or not.

Everyone in this forum was "new" at one time. We even have pros who come here to pick up processing tips. Looks a bit intimidating at first, but you don't have to know everything about everything. I learned a bunch from members like jagabo, poisondeathray, an old buddy from my home state and some others who aren't around any more. Made my share of stupid moves along the way -- and right here in public, too (LOL). Some here are perfectionists, some aren't, but most do the best they can with what they have.

[jagabo]

Another technique you can use is to blend multiple caps together. Or take a median. That will reduce noise that's created during playback (it will not reduce noise that's on the tape -- that noise will be identical in each cap).

One common problem that's overcome this way is "comets" -- short horizontal white lines caused by static discharge during playback.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/357149-Can-someone-create-a-comet-removal-Avisynth-...=1#post2260833

Those occur in random places each time you play the tape and each comet only appears on one field. Since a comet isn't likely to happen in the same spot in three caps you can take the median of 3 at each pixel. For example if a particular pixel in one cap has a brightness of 100, a brightness of 102 in the next cap, and a brightness of 251 in the third (the comet), a median filter will pick 102 for the output, thus eliminating the comet. A blend (average) of the three caps would give you (100 + 102 + 251) / 3, or 151. The comet would be reduced but would still be visible.

[jadoggin]

Any specific models you recommend for SVHS players that won't set me back too far and can be used with the Panasonic ES15?

I'm thinking that I'll simply use VirtualDub with NeatVideo (to clean the image) as a way of capture. I'm concerned that if I adjust the dark or white balance too much, the scene will change and it will be too far the other direction. So I'll probably just leave the color and contrast settings alone.

Regarding video editing...most of the NLE's I've demoed, don't seem to have an optimized setting for exporting as an H264 format. I've typically found that Vidcoder (fork of Handbrake) has been able to do the best job for the file size. I am expecting about 1.5GB per 2 hours of film. However, none of the budget programs seem capable of doing this with a high bitrate setting and still maintain a smaller file size. So I was thinking that I will need to make my edits, export back to the lossless avi, and then run it through Vidcoder/handbrake to encode to h264. Any thoughts on this process?

[jagabo]

I am expecting about 1.5GB per 2 hours of film. However, none of the budget programs seem capable of doing this with a high bitrate setting and still maintain a smaller file size.

No program/encoder can create small files with high bitrates. Because:

file_size = bitrate * running _time

That is a constant no matter what codec you use. So the only way to get a small file is to have a low bitrate or a short running time. At a particular bitrate, what varies between different codecs is the quality of the video produced.

[jadoggin]

Good idea - I'll have to play with blending caps together.

So what size of file should I expect? This is VHS so I know I won't be getting DVD quality. Are you saying I should use the built in H264 export from the NLE software as apposed to using handbrake?

[LMotlow]

I am expecting about 1.5GB per 2 hours of film. However, none of the budget programs seem capable of doing this with a high bitrate setting and still maintain a smaller file size.

No program/encoder can create small files with high bitrates. Because:

file_size = bitrate * running _time

That is a constant no matter what codec you use. So the only way to get a small file is to have a low bitrate or a short running time. At a particular bitrate, what varies between different codecs is the quality of the video produced.

jagabo's exactly right. 2 hours of video encoded at under 1.5GB is unrealistic. You won't like the results. Probably viewers will just sit looking puzzled and wondering what's wrong.

2 hours at decent quality will more than fill a DVD disc. You can get more on a dual-layer DVD. Since you want to get into h264, you can get a few hours of SD BluRay or AVCHD on a BD-R. If you want h264 for archive, you'd better use a high archival bitrate or suffer disappointment later. The bitrate range depends on the video and what you expect of it. Since we haven't seen any sample video you'll be working with, we can't say much about it now.

Any specific models you recommend for SVHS players that won't set me back too far and can be used with the Panasonic ES15?

Many of Orsetto's posts mention some of the non-tbc "AG" series SVHS pro players that are nice units. Lots of 'em around on eBay. The two 1996 SVHS models I collected were PV-S4670 and PV-S4672. Be very careful about any Panasonic "PV" series made after 1998. Panasonic re-started the 4xxx number system around 1999-2000 and made real junk of it. The giveway is that an old "PV-4xxx" isn't the same as a newer "PV-V4xxx" with that extra "V" in front of the number. Mitsubishi and JVC also made some good units during the late 90's, but only a few of the most expensive have survived.

I'm thinking that I'll simply use VirtualDub with NeatVideo (to clean the image) as a way of capture. I'm concerned that if I adjust the dark or white balance too much, the scene will change and it will be too far the other direction. So I'll probably just leave the color and contrast settings alone.

I use NeatVideo myself for years, but it's not an all-purpose filter and doesn't suit everything. Choose filters for later after we (and you) see some captures. That first capture will also teach you something about levels. Not difficult, but important.

So I was thinking that I will need to make my edits, export back to the lossless avi, and then run it through Vidcoder/handbrake to encode to h264. Any thoughts on this process?

If you work with lossless, edit with lossless. Don't "export" back and forth and don't do editing/corrections using lossy media. The last step is encoding, after everything else.

I know this sounds like left-to-right/down-and-up Chinese, but you'll understand better after you get a capture. That step alone will be an eye opener, so let's go there first. If you can, start with what you have now.

[poisondeathray]

Regarding video editing...most of the NLE's I've demoed, don't seem to have an optimized setting for exporting as an H264 format. I've typically found that Vidcoder (fork of Handbrake) has been able to do the best job for the file size. I am expecting about 1.5GB per 2 hours of film. However, none of the budget programs seem capable of doing this with a high bitrate setting and still maintain a smaller file size. So I was thinking that I will need to make my edits, export back to the lossless avi, and then run it through Vidcoder/handbrake to encode to h264. Any thoughts on this process?

x264 actually is doing the "heavy lifting" for handbrake / vidcoder. They are really just GUI's or front ends; and there are many GUI's available for x264

While lossless intermediates are often used, other options are some NLE's can use x264 directly through x264vfw, or some can use frameservers like debugmode frameserver or advanced frameserver which elminate the need for a huge lossless intermediate.

While handbrake/vidcoder are popular GUI's, one potential problem is they cannot interface very easily with the commonly used frameservers or avisynth directly which is used often for clean up or better processing like higher quality deinterlacing (e.g. if you were going to deinterlace) . But other GUI's like megui, ripbot, xvid4psp, etc... many others can

[jadoggin]

Information overload! I think some of this I'll have to process/understand as I learn. I'm going to try to start capturing some videos with what I already have. Unfortunately, I'll have to use iuVCR as the "Format" option on VirtualDub is greyed out. In the mean time, I've been having a difficult time tracking down the ATI 600 capture device. Do you guys know how either of these devices compare?



http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/03/18/ati-tv-wonder-usb-2-0



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815294006

[SixFiftyThree]

There is a lot of good info here but, at the risk of confusing the OP, some of it needs to be addressed.

Something like the ATI 600 is a favorite for lossless captures as well as direct to MPEG and recommended by restoral/archive labs who still capture analog tape with ATI All In Wonders, from which the ATI 600's have borrowed much.

Not really. ATI-600 is not part of the ATI family, it's based on the Empia 2883 chip which makes it a relative of the infamous EzCap. I own one, it's nothing special and vulnerable to the same issues most USB grabbers are. Not to mention it's only sold used, and overpriced, and no longer receives support.

Users of lossless capture devices like the ATI 600 are familiar with Canopus and Canopus marketing and have walked away from it concerning analog capture. Canopus lovers will never be converted to anything else. The ATI-lossless crowd will never be converted either. Your move.

You assume a lot about the users of capture devices. I could likewise assume you've never actually tried DV.

So for the OP - simply that the ATI-600 can capture losslessly does not mean it's a better capture. Certainly not the best. It's the quality of conversion that's priority, how it's handled more than what it's stored in. The compression factor is secondary.

The Canopus ADVC-110 is accurate in levels and colours, captures over/under-shoot, with no over-processing and no AGC problems. Due to the design and the FW standard, performance is stable, consistent and keeps A/V in sync. The compression (standard 25 Mbps) is so benign as to be unnoticed and still leaves plenty headroom for editing. At 13GB an hour, it is the most balanced of capture options and requires no manual control.

If you start out with DV, you lose 15 to 20% of the original VHS data, not counting 50% of the original chroma resolution. Encode to h264 from that, and you lose more data, just as you'll lose data if you encode DV-to-DVD.

Losing 50% of the colour resolution - how did you arrive at this stat (other than 4:1:1)? You don't need me to detail VHS and DV specs for you, I'm sure you know VHS doesn't even offer 50% of the colour that DV can hold. Regarding colour issues, some codecs just don't interpolate chroma which is where this FUD originated. As for encoding DV to other formats, it is no more an issue than encoding from lossless, particularly when restored.

And while we're on re-encoding -

Regarding encoding twice...

No, it's not the devil as some say. It's a normal and expected task in video editing, and can certainly happen more than once without noticeable quality loss. If you need to do it, just do it with care.

Other points:

• I would've recommended the DMR-ES10 over the ES15. Out of the two I only have the ES10, but based on some research, the ES15 actually uses the 2nd gen chip with a slightly less effective TBC. The ES10 is the last of the 1st gen chip which has the reference-class TBC - it can iron out any bad signal, as experience has shown me. From what I've read, all Panasonic E/ES/EH models have this ability.
  
• Regarding VCRs - use whatever plays back your tapes well. Ignore the TBC factor - you already have the ES15 which fulfills that need so you can use any machine. If, however, you are inclined to take the risk on a high-end VCR - though I'm hesistant to advise it - I would recommend a JVC with Dynamic Drum. They work wonders for tracking, as long as they're working properly (rare/expensive). I don't know how its NTSC counterpart performs, but the PAL HR-S9600 is an astonishingly good model.
  
• If we're discussing modern lossless capture methods, the latest is using TBC-equipped DVD recorders with HDMI > HDCP stripper > HDMI capture card (eg. Intensity Pro). The signal is corrected (line TBC/frame sync), standardised, and sent out in digital form. One step of A/D and no work required by the capture card. I am currently in the process of it myself. All info on this over at the German Doom9 forum, who are ahead of the pack on this topic.

Anyway, there is a point to this post which I'm sure can be found. I may add more later.

[LMotlow]

In the mean time, I've been having a difficult time tracking down the ATI 600 capture device. Do you guys know how either of these devices compare?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/03/18/ati-tv-wonder-usb-2-0

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815294006

They're both the same thing, different packaging and marketing. Ignore the "HD" business. Neither is HD.

I could likewise assume you've never actually tried DV.

You assume incorrectly. But you did add to the validity of comments I made about those who love DV for analog source capture. The O.P. will find Canopus devices easy to locate. I've used Canopus and the 600 and seen a ton of examples of both. Those who favor analog to DV should offer to help clean up the results, but they usually run the other way afterwards.

And while we're on re-encoding -

Regarding encoding twice...

No, it's not the devil as some say. It's a normal and expected task in video editing, and can certainly happen more than once without noticeable quality loss. If you need to do it, just do it with care.

Not normal, but common. It explains many of the horrible results we see in these forums. If your contention is true, then if two or three re-encodes are a good thing, six would be even better. Lossless processing involves only one lossy encode. To say there's no noticeable loss leads me to assume that you haven't tried lossless processing of home-made VHS -- or, to restate my other assumption about most users, you either didn't see a difference or weren't concerned. What you suggest for HDMI devices ignores the fact that the device captures to final delivery formats not designed for editing or correction. Maybe adding another re-encode or two would help? (Yep, I know. Facetious. Oh, well. Don't take it seriously).

I started with an ES10 a long way back. It died (power supply) and the couple of used replacements I found were broken in one way or another. Ended up with the ES15. It does the job so far, when I need it. Otherwise I go with my AG-1980 about half the time.

This debate about DV vs lossless has gone on for years. Neither of us could say anything to augment what engineers and advanced videographers haven't already told us.

Rather than have the O.P. continue with questions about whose device is better for capturing, it might be more practical for him to make a capture with what he has and submit a sample so readers can see what his current setup can or can't accomplish. Now I'm making another assumption, that going through the paces of cleaning up home VHS to any great extent ain't likely to happen. But we'll see.

[jadoggin]

@SixFiftyThree

Thanks for your post. I appreciate your experience and contribution to my project. However, I'd like to just clarify that I don't need the absolute best capture money can give me. The memories on these VHS tapes are the most important so if I don't get a DVD quality image, I'm okay with that. With that said, I don't mind investing a hundred dollars or so to improve my project. However, from a quick search it would appear that the Canopus ADVC-110 device you referred to is going easily for $100 or more on eBay used whereas the ATI-600 devices appear to be available for nearly a tenth of that. So if they will work with Windows 7/8 and provide a relatively similar capture, I'll probably opt for going that route.

Regarding the DMR-ES15, I haven't actually purchased it yet. So if the ES10 is better, I'm sure I can find one for a reasonable price.

Regarding VCRs - use whatever plays back your tapes well.

Are you saying that I should just use my JVC HR-J692U rather than buying a used SVCR? Just to note, it is very clean and has seldom been used. If the difference will not be detectable by my eyes, then I would love to save the money. I would certainly like some clarification on this point...

[jadoggin]

In the mean time, I've been having a difficult time tracking down the ATI 600 capture device. Do you guys know how either of these devices compare?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/03/18/ati-tv-wonder-usb-2-0

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815294006

They're both the same thing, different packaging and marketing. Ignore the "HD" business. Neither is HD.

No, I meant how do they compare to the ATI-600 capture card you initially recommended. Is this the equivalent to the ATI 600 USB TV Wonder capture device? If so, then $13 isn't enough to sneeze at and I'll grab one today!

[LMotlow]

The image looks as if has all the parts (dongle, etc.). Why not? You could be in reteirement by the time you find an intact All In Wonder, and you'd never get a motherrboard to accept one. If the 600 doesn't suit you, newegg takes returns ... I never had a problem with them. You find older cards at big discounts from excess stock that sellers are trying to clean out.

I don't discount DV capture altogether. Face it, some people have no choice. It's better than most of the cheap or off-brand stuff out there. It's just more work, mainly.

For now, your JVC will have to do. Judging the results will depend on the tapes. There are better VCR's out there, but let's see what you get in a capture before you go crazy. Finding a good used unit won't happen in a day.

[SixFiftyThree]

You assume incorrectly. But you did add to the validity of comments I made about those who love DV for analog source capture.

As is clear in the post, I capture to both formats, among others, without bias. I simply dislike misinformation, particularly since DV is usually the better option to recommend. If you do in fact have experience with the Canopus devices, you appear to show little of it.

Not normal, but common. It explains many of the horrible results we see in these forums.

Normal and common, and such horrible results wouldn't have been better off either way. Actually I would say the purist lossless method is almost exclusive to this pocket of video work. Lossy high quality intermediates are welcome in other areas. I'm not even addressing the other assumptions.

What you suggest for HDMI devices ignores the fact that the device captures to final delivery formats not designed for editing or correction. Maybe adding another re-encode or two would help? (Yep, I know. Facetious. Oh, well. Don't take it seriously).

Perhaps another read or two of my post would help? I brought up HDMI devices in the context of modern lossless capture methods, and indeed, an Intensity Pro (as mentioned) qualifies.

This debate about DV vs lossless has gone on for years. Neither of us could say anything to augment what engineers and advanced videographers haven't already told us.

Well I'm not here to debate or defend DV, simply clarify some things according to my direct experience.

Thanks for your post. I appreciate your experience and contribution to my project. However, I'd like to just clarify that I don't need the absolute best capture money can give me. The memories on these VHS tapes are the most important so if I don't get a DVD quality image, I'm okay with that. With that said, I don't mind investing a hundred dollars or so to improve my project. However, from a quick search it would appear that the Canopus ADVC-110 device you referred to is going easily for $100 or more on eBay used whereas the ATI-600 devices appear to be available for nearly a tenth of that. So if they will work with Windows 7/8 and provide a relatively similar capture, I'll probably opt for going that route.

You're welcome. I also don't think you need the absolute best capture money can give you - I can assure you that most people don't know what to do with one when they have it. Exactly the reason I recommended the ADVC-110, as it is perfect balance IMO that provides great quality with almost no work. Although the ATI-600 is much cheaper, here is the kicker - depending on how many tapes you have, there are hidden storage costs due to the huge size of the lossless files. The time required to learn the process of lossless capture is a factor also when you compare it to the plug & play DV method. Just food for thought.

[jadoggin]

I'm not sure I understand exactly. How does the capture process differ between using the ATI-600 and the ADVC-110? Are both not using the same capture software?

[LMotlow]

I'm not sure I understand exactly. How does the capture process differ between using the ATI-600 and the ADVC-110? Are both not using the same capture software?

No.

[SixFiftyThree]

I'm not sure I understand exactly. How does the capture process differ between using the ATI-600 and the ADVC-110? Are both not using the same capture software?

Entirely different.

ATI-600 will require:
*Drivers
*VirtualDub
*Lossless codec (eg. HuffYUV)
*Manual setup of all capture parameters
*Dedicated HDD and optimised system for capture

ADVC-110 will require:
*DV capture software eg. WinDV
*Dedicated HDD for capture
(Capture parameters set automatically by ADVC hardware encoder.)

Like I said, ADVC is a plug & play device, and it's programmed to only capture to the one DV format. With ATI-600, you have to set everything up yourself and specify how to capture. An old outdated guide for VirtualDub but gives you some idea:
http://www.doom9.org/capture/capturing_vdub.html

[jadoggin]

Ok, I understand. If the capture is the same, or possibly even better using the ATI-600, I'll probably opt to go with that even though more learning is required. Storage isn't really a big deal as I have a nice size external hard drive to temporarily store the originals on until my project is complete. I finally located a capture card that I believe is the ATI-600.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-ATI-TV-Wonder-600-PCI-Video-Capture-Card-/191270771673?pt=...item2c88a05bd9


Maybe I'm overthinking this, but is this device better than the USB device I found above?

I'm going to try to grab a short capture this evening and upload it as a starting point. Any pointers on the best way to upload here? Even a few seconds for an AVI file will be pretty large.