advantages of capturing analog video to lagarith vs. dv-avi

[TrackingError]

I have many self-recorded/non-commercial analog videotapes (mainly VHS and Hi8) that I wish to digitize. I have settled on using Stoik Capturer to facilitate the capture-process itself, as per some recommendations found on this site, but I'm unsure as to where to go from there.

I want my end-result digital file to be of archival quality, so I am looking at capturing to either Lagarith or DV-AVI. DV seems to result in slightly smaller digital files, but I'm not sure if perhaps Lagarith might have some other advantages over DV which might make it the better choice despite the increased size.

Any thoughts/suggestions would be very much appreciated.

[manono]

One's lossless and the other isn't. Also, if the tapes are NTSC and if the material being captured is in color, DV AVI isn't kind to the colors. Me, I cap in DV AVI, but almost all my material is black and white and PAL.

[TrackingError]

All right, thus far it sounds like I should choose Lagarith. Thank you for your input

[jagabo]

If you zoom into any DV capture you'll see blocky artifacts caused by DV compression. Not a lot, but a little.

For NTSC VHS caps the 4:1:1 chroma subsampling isn't really an issue as long as you use a decoder that smooths the chroma channels rather than duplicating them. (VHS has color resolution more like 4:0.1:0.1 so 4:1:1 is more than adequate).

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/289684-DV-capture-quality-sucks?p=1758114&viewfull=1#post1758114

Note the color bars in that post were from a high quality source. If it had been VHS tape the bars would barely have been visible. See the second image in this post (color from a VHS tape):

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/319420-Who-uses-a-DVD-recorder-as-a-line-TBC-and-wh...=1#post1980652

Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that any particular DV device has it's own problems.

[themaster1]

I'm told that UTvideo codec is best now it compress like lagarith ( so smaller file) yet retain the same level of quality than huffyuv it's worth a try i guess (i still haven't)

Dv ntsc should be avoided it use a 4.1.1 yuv colorspace which can lead to problems if you don't have a good decoder

[poisondeathray]

I'm told that UTvideo codec is best now it compress like lagarith ( so smaller file) yet retain the same level of quality than huffyuv it's worth a try i guess (i still haven't)

No, it's still slightly worse than lagarith (in the same colorspace) compression wise, but encoding and decoding speed is faster than lagarith and huffyuv. Quality wise, lossless codecs are all the same when used properly (they are "lossless")

UT is more of a performance lossless codec. For HD streams, it's almost impossible to get decent editing performance with lagarith or huffyuv (seeks are slow in a NLE) , they feel "sluggish" and unresponsive . But for SD streams, any of them should be fine with a decent computer

[TrackingError]

Thanks for the input, everyone!

[2Bdecided]

If you have the space and the speed, capture to lossless. If you are "archiving", make sure you archive a copy of your chosen lossless codec (binary and source code).

I use DV-AVI, because I can't see what harm it does to (S-)VHS sources (even if you intend to post-process heavily). HuffYUV takes 2-4x as much space, and doesn't playback or edit smoothly on my old PC.

Cheers,
David.