Looking for a better way to convert vhs to dvd

[gjjcve]

The settings for my computer are P3 933 machine with 256 mb of ram and a 120 GB WD 8mb cache hard drive. The OS is windows 2000. I have the Sony DRU 510 dvd burner and I am currently using Pinnacle Studio Deluxe.

I have about 150 VHS tapes (at least two hours long each) I am trying to convert to DVD. Of the 125 videotapes 50 need to be edited. The current process is to capture the tapes with the use of a vcr plugged into the Pinnacle Studio deluxe converter. This sometimes works and sometimes does not. If it does work the file is captured as an avi file. Which means every 17 minutes it stops recording since I reach my set windows 2000 file size limitation of 4.7 gb. This can be a real pain. Once I have finished capturing all the necessary 17 minute segments I then edit them together back into there complete format (using Studio 8.5). Once the editing is complete, still using pinnacle, I will render the information and burn it on to disc. The rendering process can sometimes take as much as 50 hours… So throughout the 50 hours I keep my fingers crossed and hope the DVD turns out.

There must be a better way of doing this. I am considering rebuilding my computer.

Things I have considered to purchase are the following:

Canopus ADVC 100 –
Would this allow me to convert directly to MPEG2?
Can I edit this with Studio 8.5? I do not think this will work? If Studio does not work what can I use to edit the file?
Will an ATI card do the same as the ADVC 100

A faster processor – Possibly a P4

Upgrading to Windows XP – this would erase the file size limitation problem?

Purchasing more RAM


Basically I am looking for the best way to convert the tapes into DVD’s…. I am willing to do whatever it takes to speed up this process. Money is not a question – I would be willing to upgrade all my hardware and software if needed.

Thanks

[LanEvo7]

Well to truely speed up capturing, you should upgrade your cpu to the best thing out there. Since you said that money is no a problem, the best thing you could get is the Intel 3.2 ghz C, a good 865/875P motherboard, with about 512- 1 gig of ram, and a better capture card if it has problems not working. Get a good large 7200RPM IDE hard drive. Upgrading to windows xp would eliminate the file size problem.

Or if you don't mind quality, by a standalone dvd writer.

[holistic]

There is NO best way

windows 2000 file size limitation of 4.7 gb
That's a new one on me ! . Win2000 can use NTFS and so should you. File size restrictions of 2Gb and 4Gb are FAT32 issues.

A faster processor – Possibly a P4
A faster processor will result in faster encodes - pure and simple number crunching.

Upgrading to Windows XP – this would erase the file size limitation problem?
XP is win2000 with 'eyecandy' so no.

Purchasing more RAM
Well if you are set on a new machine, start with DDR3200 - 512Mb and upgrade from there if necessary . (personally more is overkill)

Money is not a question
O i bet it will be... or contact me i will part you from it .

If time is an issue and you don't plan on editing the video then perhaps a straight to MPEG2 capture is your best option.

https://www.videohelp.com/capturecards.php?CaptureCard=&mpeg2=1&searchconnection=Any&Sea...Submit2=Search

I have read good things on the DV storm by Canopus.

][

[Bob W]

I believe you need to format your hard drive to NTSF to get around the file size limit. I won't go into my experience with Studio8 or Pinnacle support.

I get very good quality VHS captures using the AVerDVD EZmaker PCI capture card ($39 at CompUSA)) which captures directly as DVD compliant mpeg2. Then I process the mpeg2 files with NeoDVD which comes with the AVer capture card and the program does this in less than an hour. To burn to DVDR I also use NeoDVD and I always have a DVD copy of my VHS that looks every bit as good as the original tape.

BTW to get rip of any macrovision on the VHS and to filter, amplify, and level the output of my VCR I use the Sima CopyMaster which goes for a mere $39 at BestBuy and worth every dime of it IMO.

[holistic]

or if you don't mind quality, by a standalone dvd writer.

Intresting observation. Never gave it a thought since i am in the PC / editing group. But there are others that swear by this method and it is the fastest.

[Popee]

To gjjcve:

How about posting in one forum at a time, instead of asking the same question in 2 different forums and never even acknowledging the answers that are given to you.

[richard98]

I used a set top recorder to back up some home videos and laserdiscs. I tried the PC route, but quickly realized that it was a very time consuming process. The Panasonic DMR-E80HS set top recorder is approx $600 with a hard drive . You can capture your videos, then edit them on the recorder or import the captured videos to your PC.

[hardcore]

id ditch 2000 for xp... even 98 would be better....

[booyah]

2000 is basically XP without any eye candy! Its really a great OS and I prefer it far better than XP.

[phinsman]

id ditch 2000 for xp... even 98 would be better....

There's nothing wrong with Windows 2000 as far as capturing/converting video. The file size limit he mentioned does not exist in Windows 2000 as long as you use NTFS. As another user said, XP is little more than a jazzed-up 2000, and it's loaded with bugs and security issues.

Dale

[SatStorm]

First of all, don't expect miracles by converting your VHS to DVD.
People believe that converting VHS to DVD gonna boost the picture. That is not true. The best you can succeed is a picture virtually identical the source. Using a couple of filter, you may clean some aerial noise of the source, the same way a State of the Art combo can do with any analogue source.

Anyway:
Basicly, CPU power from a point and beyond don't help for capturing, at least for Huffyuv and PicVideo Mjpeg codecs.
I can give a personal example: My second PC, includes duron 1200 and for capturing a Hauppague win tv primio fm card. Well, I can capture avi from any source, @ win2K, with no framedrops @ any resolution. So, all modern CPUs are doing this job well.
Memory about 512 is the top. You can do anyjob with 256MB also, but sometimes things pop up, not exactly relating with the programs we use, but with win 2000/xp background services. Even if you de-activate somestuff manually, you can't de-activate anything...

For me is more a matter of drivers. There are solutions with good hardware and weak drivers, so they end up useless. Asus Cards with video in is a typical example for this. I searched 2 years hard to find a solution to capture with my 7700 asus card. But my cheap Haupauge win tv primio fm, works flowesly from day 1, using the drivers of the CD shipped with it.

There are also hardware compatibilities issues. More rare, but they exist. Unfortunatelly is not "buy a card, plug in, you captrue". I know cards impossible to be used with my motherboard correct for example...

If I have to advice you something, is that you don't need the latest hardware to succeed excellent results. Also, consider to built in a dedicated PC only for capturing and post processing (filtering). This PC doesn't need to be for encoding neccessary, you can always lead via a house LAN your files to a PC with a better CPU for faster encoding.

And this PC doesn't have to be expensive. A easy combo could be any cheap asus or msi nforce 2 motherboard (less than 90$ today), an athlon XP @ 2400 (about 70$) and let say an older Asus card like 7700 or 6800 with video-in (about 90$). Just spent money for a big HD like WD 250GB (about 250$), you always need space!
With latest motherboards, you don't need anymore soundcards or Network cards, there are all built in.
Add memory (256MB is enough) a ATX case and a cheap CD-rom and you are OK.
With about 550 $/Euros, you have a perfect capturing device.

Almost all the programs for capturing and processing the video are freeware: You gonna need FreeVCR, Virtualdub (and filters) and Huffyuv (or other freeware codecs)for capture.

With a combo like this, I can transfer easy any 3 hour 15 year old VHS tape to a DVD-R disc. It looks identical the source (or better, with the help of some filtering...), no blocks, no blurness nothing. And we talking for extreme source: 80s and 90s Dance music videoclips.... They are like home movies, anything moves all the time!

I can succeed a full 3 hour VHS transfer to DVD-R with: Capturing, post proccessing, encoding, authoring, burning need in about one and a half day! And my presence ain't neccessary on most steps! I just leave the PC do the job for me..

[TechieMan]

SatStorm

What bit rate are you using for the Mpeg encoding. I have tried capturing with AVI_IO and I use CCE to encode.
I am only getting about 1:45 minutes to a DVD and no where near 3 hours. If I use anything less than 5.5 Mb, I do see a degrade in quality in the final Mpeg. But the again I think I am using an overkill resolution of 720X576. However if I was to use half the resolution and lower the bit rate would I not get blockiness on a large TV (32").

Eagerly anticipating your response.

[FulciLives]

SatStorm

What bit rate are you using for the Mpeg encoding. I have tried capturing with AVI_IO and I use CCE to encode.
I am only getting about 1:45 minutes to a DVD and no where near 3 hours. If I use anything less than 5.5 Mb, I do see a degrade in quality in the final Mpeg. But the again I think I am using an overkill resolution of 720X576. However if I was to use half the resolution and lower the bit rate would I not get blockiness on a large TV (32").

Eagerly anticipating your response.

Half D1 resolution (352x480 for NTSC and 352x576 for PAL) should still be fine for a 32" TV. As for bitrate try to keep your AVG at around 3000kbps and do a 2-pass VBR encode (I set my MAX at 5000kbps).

You will most likely be happy with the quality

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[SatStorm]

The secret is a combo of resolution - filtering - bitrate!

I post proccess my captures, using virtualdub filters. Not to clean the picture neccessary for the things I (you, anyone) visually can see, but for the things we don't see but the encoders do! This is the secret!

Also, the resolution is definatelly 1/2 D1 CCIR for my analogue captures. For VHS/SVHS/Live TV transmissions, a target framesize beyond 1/2 D1 is an overkill!

The bitrate I use is about 2300kb/s with 192kb/s audio.

A tip that helps a lot visually, is to encode your source all together and not partly. That means not 20 min now, 20 min later, etc. All 3 hours in the raw! VBR encoding shows it's benefits on big (huge if you prefer) files, not in small ones!

[mkelley]

I think the original poster has given up on his own question... I guess money was no object but interest was <g>.

However, just to add my own two cents, I've converted about 80 VHS tapes in the past two weeks and it was simple and (relatively) quick: I just captured via my Dazzle Hollywood bridge (never a dropped frame) the whole two hours (as others have correctly stated, NTFS doesn't have a 4gb file limitation), edited out the commercials (takes a few minutes in Premiere), encoded via MainConcept in Premiere (real time -- takes about 90 minutes to encode the 90 minute program) authored with DVDLab (around 20 minutes) and burned to DVD (15 minutes). So each episode takes an average of 4 hours or so from start to finish.

I have a standalone recorder as well, but with no way to edit on it it wouldn't save me any time (well, I suppose if I had a DVD-RAM reader I could take the encoded files off directly and save an encoding step, but then I'd have to edit MPEG which I am NOT going to do). Still, I can do 6 episodes a day (batch encoding at night) and only the editing needs my attention (the rest is computer unattended) so it hasn't been a lot of work. And soon I'll have ALL my MST3K episodes on DVD (hmmm, now that IS off topic).

[housepig]

Also, the resolution is definatelly 1/2 D1 CCIR for my analogue captures. For VHS/SVHS/Live TV transmissions, a target framesize beyond 1/2 D1 is an overkill!

I'm not so sure about that... at least from clean sources.

I ran a test disc with the same footage, captured at full frame (720x480) and at 1/2 D1 (352x480). Footage was a commercial VHS of Glengarry Glen Ross.

I need to find the screenshots I took after encode, but the upshot was the 1/2 D1 was noticibly less detailed and blurry, both on the computer and on a 27" tv.

screenshots to follow... give me a few hours.

comments? is there some 1/2 D1 trick I don't know?

[mkelley]

Ya know, I am *so* glad to hear you say this, Housepig. At least I'm not feeling so alone.

I, too, have done similar tests and have found that even with not so good sources (my MST3K tapes, for example) full D1 looks better to me. I just chalked it up to my imagination, but I still continue to use D1 in all my caps.

Perhaps there is something going on in regards to downsampling that gives it better quality. I dunno, but I'm convinced it's better (as my wife says, Don't confuse me with the facts!).

[Redd]

First of all...Keep it simple.

1. Convert Win2000 to NTFS
2. Capture with scLive. It works well with Studio 8 and does not have the dreaded OOS syndrome (Audio out of sync). Check it out at: http://scenalyzer.com/main.html

Why spend all that money when there's a simple solution?

[mtgoat]

Canopus ADVC 100 –
Would this allow me to convert directly to MPEG2?

The Canopus ADVC-100 is an excellent Product. Get one! It does not convert /capture in mpeg2. It captures in avi.

Can I edit this with Studio 8.5? I do not think this will work? If Studio does not work what can I use to edit the file?

I'm not familiar with Studio 8.5, but it probably can edit avi. If it can't, I'd recommend Adobe Premiere or Sonic Foundry Vegas 4.0. You can capture with them as well and export to DVD or VCD compatible mpeg files. I believe both are available bundled with DVD authoring software as well.

A faster processor – Possibly a P4

Upgrading to Windows XP – this would erase the file size limitation problem?

Purchasing more RAM

Definitely go with a new machine (faster is better). XP has NTFS file system which does not place a limit on file size. More RAM can't hurt.

[SatStorm]

@ Housepig and kelley

You are NTSC, I'm PAL!

With NTSC, you capture the higher you can, you filter, you encode to your target framesize.
With PAL you capture @ the framesize of your target file, you add the less possible filters and encode.

[gavmiester]

sorry satstorm......but I disagree with your 1/2 d1 call.......Im in PAL as well, and I agree with you that you can get away with it for regular viewing...but I dont think it look as good ( more artefacts etc etc - however, this is an old argument, thats been repeated far to many times) ie pissing competition.
My point is that it depends upon your subject matter. If its high action or animation....wind up those settings or its going to look shite! If its episodes of seinfeld, go to the half settings.

Bottom line is...all of these posts are wasted as mentioned above, as our original poster is too rude to even check for responses

[Dennis1968]

I use a Dazzle DVC II PCI capture card. Even though it doe not have aturner built on, it does however allows me to record up to 137 gig file without breaks. I personally have only used it to record 5.5 hours (11 gigs) unintterupted in 720 x 480 MPEG 2 @ 4 Mega bits per second. Have not been dissapointed in the quality of captures. ONly thing i dread is editing 11 gigs with commecial breaks

[SatStorm]

@gavmiester
Yes, this is an old subject indeed.

Most of the people say that 1/2 D1 is ok (me included) less (but also plenty) state "no, full CCIR is needed".
Basicly, they have there reasons to tell it so! It is not one or two individuals, so to say "you don't know how to do it".

So what really happens?

Well, I can say for sure that it has a lot to do with the hardware we use. There are cards with better chips or better drivers capable to capture with a better detail than others for true. Also the connection types can do a difference: For example S-Video can be used for TV transmissions and Laser disc with benefits over Composite. But for VHS and SVHS for true you don't have benefits from S-Video, expecially on good cards. S-Video can help cheaper cards, even if that sounds oxymoron...
The cable quality and lenght also plays a role on this. You have benefits if you use good cables over cheap, but no benefits at all if you use the best expensive calbes.
So, you see it so relative, that's why I say "for PAL capture @ your target framesize, use the less possible filters, encode". It is more of a practical suggestion, not a rule or -neccessary - 100% true.

The magic word here is "filtering". Use anykind of filter and you loose any kind of benefits a higher resolution for PAL capture can give you.
Personally, I don't believe that exist a good analgue to digital convertion without filters. I mean, you can boost up the bitrate and create identical the source mpeg 2 results, but from the other hand you can use a couple of filters and gain visually better results in smaller filesizes.
Here is the matter of taste: I prefer the second root and I believe most of us here do so. In this case, the benefits of capturing PAL @ higher resolutions from non perfect sources are just gone for good... IMHO always!

[gavmiester]

all fair and valid points........

[gjjcve]

I apologize for not responding to the posted suggestions. I a was unaware that someone had posted information on this topic.

Yesterday I spent a significant amount of time speaking to a sales rep from Canopus. I think the solution to my problem starts with getting a better capture device. I am undecided as to go with the Canopus acdv-100 or the Canopus ACEDVio. Both, according to Canopus, will work with Pinnacle studio 8.5. I am also considering purchasing Vegas video 4.0 and Uleads dvd workshop as well. I am not sold on studio 8.5 as my editing/authoring software.

With my computer I will do a modest upgrade. I think most of you are right when you say a P4 with 512 mb of ram, with a HD configured correctly, running XP should do the job.

Thanks again for the help