Is this a waste of time?

[lnetzel]

Capturing VHS at 352x288 with Huffyuv 2.1 codec... and then converting to SVCD resizing it to 480x576 in TMPGenc???

is the SVCD just stupid here or what.. woudl it be better to go with VCD?

[resnullius]

at the size your capturing you should go to vcd, it'll be faster and your capture won't be streched... (and vhs quality is about the same as vcd)

[Triffid]

If you want to do MPEG2, use SVCD template, but change the output resolution to 352x288. You don't really have the second field anyway, so it won't give you the main (IMO) advantage of SVCD which is retaining the interlacing, so you may as well put the bit rate to good use.

It will allow you to set the DC quantisation thing (whatever it is called) to 10bits instead of 8bits which must have some effect. You also get alternate scanning instead of zig-zag, but I've no idea if that is a good thing or a bad thing when you don't have an interlaced source. I've done it, and it worked great for me. NO blocks (at a bitrate of 2300) and it worked fine on my Pioneer 444.

(But then it may just be some psychological effect gained from using MPEG2 intead of MPEG1!!!!)

[Kdiddy]

From the info you have given, I would say stay with VCD.

[Bud]

I just did a capture of an original VHS tape (From S-Video) to VCD format with VirtualDub Capture, I set it uo for 352x288 with NO COMPRESSIONS, used the deinterlace filter only, then did a Frameserve with the Panasonic Encoder, the Panasonic did the resize for me the end result for a standard VCD was great, at least as good as the original if not better, you could also allpy addition filters to sharpen, do the color thing or whatever to clean up a bad tape image. I have also tried to set it to 480x480 and again got great results, bu you have to have a large hard drive to use the higher settings. It did take 10 hours of pressing, the movie was 136 min and created a 77GB AVI file which I convereted to MPEG. This is not for everone, but may give some ideas.

Bud

[mijman]

It did take 10 hours of pressing, the movie was 136 min and created a 77GB AVI file which I convereted to MPEG. This is not for everone, but may give some ideas.

Bud

Is this a typo, or do you actually have a drive this big? 77GB!?!

[Bud]

No TYPO, I have a master drive at 100GB and the second drive is a Westren Digital 120 GB 7200 RPM, so I do have all the space I need to run the high rates and get great results. Maxtor makes a 160 GB but it's rated at 5200 RPM, not recommended for Video.

Bud

[w00kiee]

any good consumer capture software will split the files over drives.. so he may have a 40 and a 60 gb drive... or 2 60's they arent expensive now adays

[Bud]

No split drive, out of the box 100GB and 120 GB, both were purchased at COMPUSA stores.....

Bud

[LavaJockey]

>Maxtor makes a 160 GB but it's >rated at 5200 RPM, not recommended >for Video.

The 160 GB drive uses a higher data density meaning faster data transfer rates at lower rotational speeds. This drive is not necessarily slower than a 7200 RPM drive at transferring data. Should be fine for video.

I'm a little bit curious as to what the actual transfer rate is on a real system as compared to, say, a Western Digital 100 GB 7200 RPM drive. Anyone here have it?

[Mr Walker]

Can't you go higer in resolution, and then downsize. This gives better quality both to to vcd and svcd.
Try to capture at 704*576 or 352*576 then use some filter in Virtualdub in this order:
*deinterlace
*sharpen
(noisereduktion if needed)
*resize to 352*288 or 480*480

/sorry ment 352*576

[kinneera]

Guys, if you are capturing at x240/288, you don't need a deinterlace filter because you aren't capturing the second field anyway.

[Bree]

use svcd!!!