VideoHelp Forum

Poll: What’s the best type of VHS capture device I can buy with $200?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 57 of 57
Thread
  1. Thanks for posting that. The OP now has something to compare.

    I've taken your advice, and tried a couple of 'tweaks' to my file (especially with the lower bitrate), but as you say, there's only so much you can do!
    Personally, I don't mind a bit of noise... and I tend to prefer the less saturated color look as well, so I probably use too little color!

    I tend to think there is a bit of 'silk purse and sows ear' about VHS, and it's all too easy to get into the realms of 'diminishing returns' - A lot of extra effort and expense, for ever smaller improvements.

    Having said that, there are some very impressive restorations of older films and videos....

    I can see that some footage is worth the extra effort.... probably not mine though!!
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Yes, tutmask2 looks smoother and better. Those little ripples, which are smaller now, always drive me nuts. Looks like there's still some scanline shift and some vertical jitter, but it could have been broadcast that way. Not having seen the original capture, I couldn';t say what to do for more fixing. It depends on the personal value you place on the it. Which reminds me....

    Originally Posted by pippas View Post
    Personally, I don't mind a bit of noise... and I tend to prefer the less saturated color look as well, so I probably use too little color!

    I tend to think there is a bit of 'silk purse and sows ear' about VHS, and it's all too easy to get into the realms of 'diminishing returns' - A lot of extra effort and expense, for ever smaller improvements.
    True. VHS doesn't have the resolution to make it look like DVD. At best you can keep VHS from looking too much like VHS. There is that point of diminishing returns, which I think I've just about reached with that sample of mine. I kept most of the original film grain but pretty much got rid of the dirt and other gunk that the cable broadcast put there. That cable installation was a horrible signal, with red jumping off the screen, so bad at times that I finally cancelled the service and lived on antenna for a while until I moved elsewhere. Even today I get direct DVD recordings off some digital cable channels that look as noisy as VHS, with really ugly compression artifacts to boot. So some of this stuff just has to be taken as-is with a quickie cleanup. Life ain't long enough for fixing all of it.

    Despite the crummy M&L quality of the original movie I posted, and despite that it's a corny, goofy movie, it has nostalgic value and some classic Jule Styne-Bob Hilliard numbers I've always liked. So that's the reason for the work. I guess I just prefer as clean a cap as I can get, since a bad broadcast or bad VHS print is trouble enough without worrying about problems added by a capture device. As a side note, I originally tried capturing that tape with the AG-1980 -- whose dnr made soft mush of it. Proof that having more than one VCR is the only way to go, and that full-scale onboard dnr ain't always an asset. The 4670 does have some minimal dnr but it looks like it works only on chroma. It doesn't have the oversharpening seen with a lot of machines, especially later ones. It's rebuilt, from an era when a lot of vcr's were built like tanks. Sometimes it's so smooth I think I don't need a line tbc pass-thru. But I use one anyway. Never can tell when a bad section of tape will pass across the heads.

    I still have the tape but not the original capture, only the ivtc version and the MDegrain2 files. Every tape is a problem, unique in its way. And every recorder. The reason for the black borders on the sample I posted is because of the way that old CRT-era RCA recorded tapes. In the modern day of defeatable overscan on HDTV's, you won't see side borders that look like these, from the unfiltered ivtc cap:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	side borders.jpg
Views:	1241
Size:	106.8 KB
ID:	34547

    Just another VHS pain in the...neck. And keeping that early 50's Technicolor intact is a problem in itself.
    Last edited by LMotlow; 18th Nov 2015 at 16:49.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Portugal
    Search PM
    Hi,

    Once again i want to thank ALL you guys for all the information and advices provided to me until now.

    When I posted this thread I thought I will get some direct responses, but I see that there exists a lot of discussion and different opinions on what is the best method. From what I read it will always depend on the specific case and what kind of quality level will we want to achieve.

    I’m a newbie in this area so I must say that there so much information on this thread that I have to read carefully and in detail.

    But at this point I must make a decision and from what I read and if I understood properly, I have divided the best options in 2 different cases / scenarios:

    :: CASE 1 – VHS TO DVD ::
    - Main objective is to convert VHS to DVD, to be seen on regular living room dvd players with LCD TVs.
    - The best devices for this are devices that convert analog to analog, like Hauppauge 610 USB Live 2 or ATI All in Wonder PCI/AGP cards.

    :: CASE 2 – VHS TO USB PEN ::
    - Main objective is to convert VHS to USB PEN, to be seen on computers and also on LCD TVs that have the USB input feature.
    - The best devices for this are devices that convert analog to digital, like for example Canopus ADVC110.

    ---

    As told before I’m located in Portugal so here the system used is PAL. So can you please tell me of in both Case 1 and 2 my understanding is correct and the type of devices is ok?

    If needed, I’m willing to buy 2 devices, one analog-to-analog and other analog-to-digital if needed to have the best quality in both Case 1 and 2.

    Please advise. Thanks
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by nqservices View Post
    :: CASE 1 – VHS TO DVD ::
    - Main objective is to convert VHS to DVD, to be seen on regular living room dvd players with LCD TVs.
    - The best devices for this are devices that convert analog to analog, like Hauppauge 610 USB Live 2 or ATI All in Wonder PCI/AGP cards.

    :: CASE 2 – VHS TO USB PEN ::
    - Main objective is to convert VHS to USB PEN, to be seen on computers and also on LCD TVs that have the USB input feature.
    - The best devices for this are devices that convert analog to digital, like for example Canopus ADVC110.

    ---

    As told before I’m located in Portugal so here the system used is PAL. So can you please tell me of in both Case 1 and 2 my understanding is correct and the type of devices is ok?

    If needed, I’m willing to buy 2 devices, one analog-to-analog and other analog-to-digital if needed to have the best quality in both Case 1 and 2.

    Please advise. Thanks
    Your understanding of the process is, well, not correct. The idea is to capture VHS or other analog source to digital media. From that capture you can "convert", encode/re-encode. edit, etc., to any final delivery format you want.

    The devices in Case 1 capture analog tape data to lossless digital media (and can also capture to lossy encoded formats such as MPEG). This is considered the best method for both editing and restoration (cleanup). The final step is to encode to a lossy delivery format -- DVD, BluRay, AVCHD, or other lossy encoded formats, etc., for authoring and burning to disc, storing on HDD external players, USB sticks, or whatever storage device you want that can feed digital media to a playback device. This involves an analog to losslessly compressed digital capture as the first step and, as the last step, an encode to lossy compressed delivery formats. The objection many have to this method is that losslessly compressed files will be larger than lossy compressed/encoded files.

    The devices in Case 2 capture and encode analog tape to a lossy encoded digital format that can be edited, but its image properties cannot be modified without further loss. DV-AVI is PC playback only. It isn't playable by external players from hard disc or optical disc or the internet. Lossy DV-AVI must go through another lossy encode for your final delivery format, which can be anything you want as above. The objection many have to this form of analog capture is that it involves compression artifacts from analog noise and at least two stages of lossy encoding. Each stage of lossy encode loses more data from the original.

    Lossy means that some data is discarded during encoding. Lossless means that the captured file can be modified several times into new working files with no loss or compression effects.

    Both methods generate some form of digital video from an analog source. Which one you want to work with is up to you.
    Last edited by LMotlow; 19th Nov 2015 at 16:04.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member ricardouk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Search Comp PM
    Just recently joined the vhs capture train and here's my advice:
    1- get a usb/card to capture your video
    2- Use virtualdub with HuffYUV video codec to capture the video
    3- Create a avisynth script to clean/improve your captured video
    4- (personal option) open the avisynth script in virtualdub and convert it with HuffYUV again

    you can go from step 3 to 5 directly

    5 - at this point you have to decide which final format you need, for dvd (case 1)use the "all in one" avs2dvd or Hcenc+aften and mux it with muxman or any of the dvdauthor gui's, for case 2 use ffmpeg to convert it to mp4/mkv.

    i would only use the advc110 if i had an excelente vhs source that wouldnt require "heavy" editing/restoration after being captured, just capture and convert to final format.

    my 2 cents, this is just my opinion, im not a pro.
    Last edited by ricardouk; 18th Nov 2015 at 19:35.
    I love it when a plan comes together!
    Quote Quote  
  6. Formerly 'vaporeon800' Brad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    If you want a USB device to capture uncompressed video on a modern PC with a modern Windows OS, get the Hauppauge 610 USB Live 2.

    ...

    The two AVerMedia PCI-e cards are not well known, so is hard to say if they have any serious flaws or great virtues. If I had to pick one of them, it would be the CE310B. It appears to have a 3D comb filter. It also has controls for brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, sharpness, plus it works with a variety of third party software. All good things.
    Evidently it uses the Conexant CX23888 from 2006. (It's tough to read the specific chip on the photo, but the driver's INF says 888 all over the place.) Hauppauge used it on a few cards. Could be good...

    The Hauppauge USB-Live-2 uses Conexant CX23102. Despite the numbering, it's actually newer than the 888. But only 2D comb.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by vaporeon800 View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    If you want a USB device to capture uncompressed video on a modern PC with a modern Windows OS, get the Hauppauge 610 USB Live 2.

    ...

    The two AVerMedia PCI-e cards are not well known, so is hard to say if they have any serious flaws or great virtues. If I had to pick one of them, it would be the CE310B. It appears to have a 3D comb filter. It also has controls for brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, sharpness, plus it works with a variety of third party software. All good things.
    Evidently it uses the Conexant CX23888 from 2006. (It's tough to read the specific chip on the photo, but the driver's INF says 888 all over the place.) Hauppauge used it on a few cards. Could be good...

    The Hauppauge USB-Live-2 uses Conexant CX23102. Despite the numbering, it's actually newer than the 888. But only 2D comb.
    I could make out the Conexant logo but couldn't read the number on the chip. I didn't think to download and examine the drivers.

    Yes, it looks promising to me also. However as you are aware, a product's specs can look wonderful, but when you get one you find out that it has a serious flaw. The ATI TV Wonder HD 650 and 750 cards and their AGC-related problems are a prime example.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Yep, good point. Stay away from the 650 and 750. The luminance pumping will ruin a video. Can't be disabled.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Portugal
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by vaporeon800 View Post
    The Hauppauge USB-Live-2 uses Conexant CX23102. Despite the numbering, it's actually newer than the 888. But only 2D comb.
    So you are tellimg me that Hauppauge USB-Live-2 is a goodd option and better than the Avermedia cards, correct?

    Thanks
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    It will suffice. It can be used to capture to losslessly compressed YUY2 AVI with Virtualdub. There are several lossless compressors around that are fast enough for real-time capture. Try huffyuv or Lagarith. UT Video Codec is also used, but for a newcomer the setting options can be confusing. Huffyuv and Lagarith are simpler to use.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by nqservices View Post
    Originally Posted by vaporeon800 View Post
    The Hauppauge USB-Live-2 uses Conexant CX23102. Despite the numbering, it's actually newer than the 888. But only 2D comb.
    So you are tellimg me that Hauppauge USB-Live-2 is a goodd option and better than the Avermedia cards, correct?

    Thanks
    He's saying that the AVerMedia CE310B card has an older Conexant chip but a better comb filter than the Huauppauge USB-Live 2. (A better comb filter helps when capturing from a CVBS/composite connection.) I don't know which of the Conexant chips is better. I don't research them to the extent that some here do. However, older does not always equal worse.

    The main reason for not recommending the AVerMedia CE310B is that it a new product. I could find no reviews to read. (The only drivers on the download page have a 2015 release date, so it must be new.). I can't even find anyone in N. America who is selling it, but it is possible AVerMedia doesn't plan to distribute it here.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    The O.P. will can use a DMR-ES15 or ES10 for tbc pass-thru, which have comb filters. He'll need a tbc anyway.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Latvia
    Search Comp PM
    Hi nq,
    I have read your thread with interest. I was in a similar position some months ago and was looking for advice in another forum like this. I received advices from experts much like you got here. And then I read tens of similar threads about VHS capture. And what did I decide? I followed my own route.
    Here is my advice- you can listen to experts, but don't necesarily follow their advice. The most valuable expierence is to read the thread in this forum by a member buyabook named Capturing VHS, started at 8th of March 2014. He started with questions like you and his learning curve extended on 4 pages for 1.5 years!!! I guess that at the end of this he was more confused than at the very beginning.
    For what I learned from this thread is that there is no one perfect method of VHS capturing. And what's more important- many of the devices and software adviced by experts have no less problems than those NOT adviced. I use LG LV880 4 Head HiFi VCR, Canopus ADVC 110 and Sony Vegas for VHS capture. I know it's not the best available way,... but it works! Here are the Pros:
    1. basic and not expensive equipment involved
    2. stable capture with accurate video/audio sync
    3. quick learning curve
    4. only 3 straightforward steps- capturing to DV-AVI; triming, bordering processing(if wanted) in Sony Vegas; Rendering in Vegas to whatever video format you need.
    If you wish so you may even skip the editing and/or processing in Vegas and burn you captured DV- AVI files directly to DVD-Video by using such freeware soft like Free Studio. In this scenario you have ONLY 2 steps involved- capturing to DV and burning to DVD-Video. This scenario should be favoured by experts who warn not to capture to DV because of double lossy encoding- first to DV-AVI and then to let's say mpg (for DVD) or mp4.
    From what I read in the thread by buybook, I learned that the devices adviced, mostly different capture cards and TBC's, had lots of problems and defects like ghost images, out of sync audio and video, jittering video and more. I too have problems. Not all tapes are captured well. Allthough the capture shows no dropped frames there are interuptions in video, but luckily this does not produce audio out of sync.
    My advice again- read this thread and you won't want to go the BEST WAY. Go your own way!
    Quote Quote  
  14. The poll now has more votes for Canopus DV capture than all the other options put together!......But this thread has once again illustrated how opinions are always divided on the issues surrounding VHS capture.

    The advantages of using a Canopus converter are simple capture, perfect audio sync, and reasonable file sizes.
    The disadvantages are poor color handling (especially with NTSC DV) and the introduction of some new 'artifacts', which can be difficult to correct.

    The advantages of uncompressed capture are the knowledge that you will have captured at the best possible quality, so that any further processing will not involve have to remove any new artifacts introduced by the capturing process itself.

    The main disadvantages are huge 'working' file sizes, and the possibility of loss of audio sync.

    As described earlier, there can be elements of 'overkill' often involved with capturing VHS tapes. The source material itself is not very good, so it can be argued that overly complex processing will, if you're lucky, only produce marginally better results.
    For serious restoration work of course this is important - Every little helps.

    But for most of us, the relative simplicity of DV capture will normally produce quite adequate results from our old - and often failing -VHS tapes.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Terms like "best quality", and the Q-word itself, have no meaning for most users. Comparisons are a waste of time and effort.
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Portugal
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Maris 55 View Post
    Hi nq,
    The most valuable expierence is to read the thread in this forum by a member buyabook named Capturing VHS, started at 8th of March 2014. He started with questions like you and his learning curve extended on 4 pages for 1.5 years!!! I guess that at the end of this he was more confused than at the very beginning.
    Hi @Maris55,

    Thanks your advice and the indication of the thread "Capturing VHS". I will read it in detail in order to see if i can understand better the "best" possible way for me to go.

    At the momment i'm considering buying one Canopus ADVC110 and also one Ezcap.tv. I will do this because the EZcap.tv is cheap and that way i can compare the results from using a DV converter vs a "analog".

    Also i will see the results because here in Portugal we use PAL and from what i reads here the PAL used in Portugal is "good" so i guess try and see will be the best way to go.. because as you said there are a lot of different opinions about this.

    Thanks
    Quote Quote  
  17. There is absolutely no doubt that a YUV 4:2:2 capture device saving uncompressed or losslessly compressed files can deliver better quality than a DV capture device. DV compression will always add DCT blocking and ringing artifacts. Whether those artifacts are severe enough for you to care is the issue. Many people consider the artifacts a fair trade-off for simpler, less finicky capture.

    Of course, that doesn't mean all YUV 4:2:2 capture devices are superior to all DV capture devices. There is quite a lot of variation between different YUV 4:2:2 devices. The acceptable ones start around US$35. A $1000 HD capture device with SD capture thrown in as an afterthought won't perform any better than a decent $35 device when it comes to SD video.

    Watch out for $5 to $15 ezcap clones, mostly sold under the name easycap. They are mostly poor quality, difficult to get working (wrong drivers, require Windows XP), noisy, etc.
    Last edited by jagabo; 22nd Nov 2015 at 12:17.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    DV compression will always add DCT blocking and ringing artifacts.
    I'm sure you're right of course, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for there? .... The attached short clip is from a DV capture, and I can't see any introduced artifacts, over those on the original tape.

    In fact, playing the original tape back from the VHS player out to my monitor - via SCART - actually looks slightly worse than the digitised version!....

    I think there are probably two entirely separate 'schools of thought' when it comes to capturing old VHS tapes. For many of us, DV capture - or even direct to DVD transfer - can give pretty good results. Certainly mine are way better than I was expecting, and as I say, in some cases better than the tape. I'm quite happy with the quality of my DV captures, even if if it's not quite 'up to the mark'...

    On the other hand, when someone asks specifically about obtaining the best quality I think we soon enter the realms of real archiving and restoration....and the high degree of expertise needed to get the very best from a source.

    I think for for many folk the effort required to squeeze that 'extra' few per cent of quality out of an analogue source is way beyond what most folk are actually prepared to do, once they get into the detail.

    Especially if they have a lot of tapes to capture!....
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Say, pippas, you have vision problems? That video is full of noisy fuzzies, and if you kept it interlaced and to spec for common commercial formats it would look worse. It's washed out, IRE is elevated, highlights are clipped, and you used the old make-it-double-rate trick to keep DV buzzing edges and sloppy interlace from showing up. You can see compression artifacts in her face during motion.

    Sorry. Not sold. Good thing you didn't pay to have it done. Why didn't you post something from the original?

    What's with the odd frame size?
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by pippas View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    DV compression will always add DCT blocking and ringing artifacts.
    I'm sure you're right of course, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for there? .... The attached short clip is from a DV capture, and I can't see any introduced artifacts, over those on the original tape.
    After adding deinterlacing artifacts and another round of DCT compresssion artifacts with h.264 encoding one can't point to specific artifacts that were created by the original DV encoding. I can only tell you that there would be fewer artifacts had you captured with lossless compression.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Thank you both for your comments. I shall compare her face with the original tape, so that I can see the details of the introduced artifacts, and get a better idea of what you are describing from that.

    It could well be that my vision is deficient, but I found that the digitised files are better than I expected them to be. Good job I have low expectations.. should save me a bunch of time!

    I'm only really interested in transferring my last few tapes before either they - or my VHS player - finally expire.
    I found that a progressive, square pixel, x.264 encoded format - in an mp4 wrapper - seemed to suit my replay options best ( PVR and TV USB inputs - WD player - computer replay).

    The odd frame size allowed me to cut out the unsightly borders, while still retaining square pixels. I do not then need rely on any aspect ratio 'flags' being present, to correct non square pixel files.

    I have no interest in 'burning' any more optical discs, so I have no need to be restricted to any specific frame size.

    I have read that it is often advised that interlacing should be retained, but I have had variable results from different players with interlaced files, so tend to make my final encoded files progressive. Doubling the frame rate seems to keep motion 'smoothness' similar to the original interlaced files.

    As the files are for my own use, and not for any formal 'archiving' purposes, the format seems to work OK for me.

    Thank you again for your comments.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Memphis TN, US
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    After adding deinterlacing artifacts and another round of DCT compresssion artifacts with h.264 encoding one can't point to specific artifacts that were created by the original DV encoding. I can only tell you that there would be fewer artifacts had you captured with lossless compression.
    I agree with that, or most of it up to a certain point -- it's like asking which component holds the smoking gun. IMO, a lot of the DCT stuff is in the tape.

    Being nicer about the matter than my earlier post -- sorry, folks -- and getting more specific:

    My main contention with the DV sample is that it's not made from an under-powered, noisy cable broadcast with a cheap RF amp in circuit and cheap RF cables on a cheap VCR, or from aged and overplayed consumer-photographed home tapes made with horrible consumer gear and low-rent lenses. Instead, it's a relatively decent recording made from a signal created and transmitted by professionals. That broadcast couldn't possibly be as crummy and noisy as a typical Hi8/analog home video.

    The noise I refer to is fuzzy, buzzing stuff around small objects and intricate patterns, especially when those objects move. I note particularly the woman's red jacket and the burned out highlights of the white blouse, flickering noise in the red when the woman's left shoulder moves, and aliasing in the shoulder stitching of her right shoulder (your left). You do find a certain amount of that noise on tape itself but not as much as I see here, especially with progressive video and denoising. This dancing noise is an old acquaintance from years of watching tape-to-DV captures. I often see it in DV originals. It can be cleaned a bit, but a lot of video will fall off the edge on the way there. DV capture usually looks kinda denuded or overfiltered, as this one does, so I guess the tradeoff is living with the noise. The posted sample looks a lot better than a typically noisy home tape capped to DV.

    The more aesthetic matter is that, in my humble view after years of correcting photos and processing film and negatives some years ago, there is something wimpy with DV color. It always seems a bit transparent to me, or unrealistic, a vague feeling that something's missing or has been rounded-off too much. Subtely of tone and fine, textural detail are not DV talents. Maybe that's just me, but if you try to add saturation to the thin-looking DV sample you'll see some loco things happen to separate colors and the overall balance.

    I guess that's as detailed and specific as I can make it without getting into highfallutin' language such as used by Poynton and the big boys.

    As for personal taste in aspect ratios, I'd really hate living if I detested aspect ratios just for being there and had to force myself to rework and deinterlace and lossy re-encode my collection of 3000 DVD and BluRay movies, as well as stop watching broadcast TV forever. But some people are like that. You have to do what you think is best. Whew!
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  23. Formerly 'vaporeon800' Brad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by LMotlow View Post
    IMO, a lot of the DCT stuff is in the tape.
    Just to clarify terminology: DCT is a part of digital compression, not VHS.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Yes, if it was never digital before being recorded to VHS tape it couldn't have DCT artifacts. Even it it had been digital before recording to VHS tape the low resolution of VHS tape would have blurred much of the DCT artifacts away.
    Quote Quote  
  25. The posted clip was from a tape made of a BBC program, broadcast here in the UK in the early 1990s. So none of the DV artifacts are from the original broadcast file ....

    The broadcast was recorded onto a simple consumer VCR - long since dead - and that clip was made from the tape being played on a similarly aged consumer VCR. So no 'pro' gear involved (obviously, I hear you say! ).

    I only have a Canopus converter - or a DVD recorder - to make my transfers. So far I prefer the results from the Canopus, but am grateful for the comments here that help educate me, should I wish to move a little further up the video capture 'ladder', in the future...
    Quote Quote  
  26. This post shows some DCT ringing artifacts from DV encoding:

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/294144-Viewing-tests-and-sample-files?p=1792973&vie...=1#post1792973

    That wasn't a VHS tape but a pristine digital video encoded with a software DV codec. Bit it shows you what to look for. All DCT based encoders deliver artifacts like this (JPEG, MPEG, Xvid, AVC, etc.).
    Quote Quote  
  27. Thanks for that link. Fascinating thread.... and shows me exactly what to expect DV artifacts to look like.

    So, if all DCT based encoders deliver such artifacts, does that mean that Wavelet based codecs like Cineform are immune.... or do they have their own - but different - artifacts?...
    Last edited by pippas; 26th Nov 2015 at 09:44.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!