Video Capture Device vs 'pass through' using a camcorder

[Eugene5077]

Hello All,
New to the forum. This may of been covered already. Is there an advantage to using a dedicated video capture device such as a Canopus ADVC-100 Advanced Digital Video Converter ADVC100 as compared to using the 'pass through' feature on many camcorders?

[2Bdecided]

For NTSC capture, the ADVC110 is far more likely to get the black level correct - most camcorders don't understand the black-level-offset known as "setup" / "pedestal" in NTSC video.

Otherwise, for any capture from a standard VHS machine, if the camcorder includes a TBC, it will be preferable to the ADVC110 which does not.

[Eugene5077]

Thanks for your reply. My source VHS player is a JVC with TCB. Is that taking care of my black level automatically before it passes through the camcorder or does the 'pass through' camcorder need to have TBC also to effect the black level? So do I buy a camcorder with 'Pass Through'
capabilities or the dedicated video capture device?

[sanlyn]

If your JVC player has TBC, you don't need a second tbc device. Your JVC outputs the correct NTSC black levels. You will need a dedicated capture device.

Note that a component used as "pass-thru" doesn't capture or record anything. The signal just "passes through" it. That's what pass-thru means.

[Eugene5077]

Thanks guys for the information. Will be in the market for a capture device. Out of curiosity, when the signal 'passes through' it doesn't capture or record anything but does it alter the signal in anyway? increase or decrease the black levels for example?

Gene

[Richard_G]

No idea if it alters the black levels (not relevant in my part of the world) but it doesn't just pass it through. It takes an analogue video signal in and outputs a digital signal out in DV-AVI format.

[Eugene5077]

Thanks Richard-G. Does anybody out there know if the signal passing through a camcorder using it's 'pass through' function is altered in anyway other than converting from analog to digital? The black level for an example.

[sanlyn]

Some do, some don't. Not all cameras can be used as tbc pass-thru. You already have tbc in your VCR anyway. Capturing to DV-AVI through a camera is OK, but not as clean as capturing directly to lossless AVI if you intend to do any post-processing or re-encodes. And not all cameras offer DV output.

[lordsmurf]

Canopus ADVC may may get NTSC IRE right,
but it gets the color wrong.
4:1:1 is from ideal from VHS conversion.

[Eugene5077]

Thanks for all the replies. So I'm lost here. Between correct black levels and getting the color right what would be my optimum set up and reasonably priced? I'm finding hi-end camcorders w/pass through and firewire or video capture boxes.

Gene

[sanlyn]

If I'm not mistaken (often I am, so chime in), your impression at this point about VHS to DVD is this: play the tape in a VCR, use a capture device to record the tape to DVD, then burn it to disc. This is what most people do, and it's the main reason why most VHS->DVD projects look like badly recorded tape. It is pretty much the same process as playing a tape directly onto DVD disc in a DVD recorder. These two methods are the quickest, easiest, and probably the most grubby-looking ways of converting analog to DVD. But that's up to you. If digital noise and artifacts don't bother you, then I'd suggest that you do it the way most people would.

Another method is feed your tape from the JVC, thru a pass-thru camera device, and record directly to compressed DV-AVI via Firewire. You will have pretty much the same results you'd get from the above method, although it does involve extra steps if you want the video to be compliant with standard DVD playback. If you want standard DVD, either record directly to MPEG2 thru the camera, or convert the DV-AVI to standard DVD and lose more quality by converting to other formats and playback media.

The other method is to play a tape on your JVC, into a capture device that creates a lossless AVI movie file using lossless Huffyuv or Lagarith compression. Then repair and clean the usual analog garbage and junk, cut/edit/join the scenes you want, encode with a good free video encoder (there are several) to DVD, AVCHD, Standard-def BluRay, or whatever, author for disc or other playback media, and burn or archive in its final format. This takes a long time, and you have to learn a few things about what you're doing.

If you need more detail about specific cameras and/or capture devices, consult the Tools section of this forum and make a choice or two, then discuss further in the forum. It's not possible to list the pros and cons of every camera and capture device out there.

[Eugene5077]

Dear Sanlyn and others,

Thanks for your time. I am understanding it a lot better.

[yoda313]

to DVD, AVCHD, Standard-def BluRay, or whatever, author for disc or other playback media, and burn or archive in its final format.

Just so eugene5077 understands this clearly making a avhcd or bluray won't make it high def. You do point it out as "standard def bluray" so that just needs emphasis. You won't make vhs look like high def. There can be "upconverting" done on the player side or tv side but it still won't make it magically look high def. You are still stuck with the source you have aside from minor tweaks here and there you can't make it "perfect" just so you know.

[sanlyn]

True. VHS can't look like DVD or hi-def. However, there is a vast world of difference between a straight VHS-to-DVD transfer, as compared to VHS -> Lossless working capture -> cleanup of VHS defects -> more careful encoding -> final product. The first method will look like VHS with some digital noise and slightly worse than the original (or often much worse, depending on the source), the second way looks far better than the original.

[lordsmurf]

True. VHS can't look like DVD or hi-def. However, there is a vast world of difference between a straight VHS-to-DVD transfer, as compared to VHS -> Lossless working capture -> cleanup of VHS defects -> more careful encoding -> final product. The first method will look like VHS with some digital noise and slightly worse than the original (or often much worse, depending on the source), the second way looks far better than the original.

^ This.

[Eugene5077]

Hello All,
I don't know if I got an answer to my original query. 'Does using a dedicated capture device vs a camcorder with 'pass through' capabilities give you a better transfer. My source is coming out of a JVC w/TBC. I am not interested in editing the video after the transfer.Maybe to simplify it, I am going directly to a DVD recorder. And I understand how bad that can be in quality. So does the camcorder 'pass through' give me an MPEG2 out the other end and that is what the DVD recorder is burning? And if I was to use a 'capture device' instead can I set the output to give me an AVI file using losses compression directly to the DVD recorder. And is that a better file than the MPEG2? Maybe I am lost here!

Thanks.
Gene

[sanlyn]

Hello All,
I don't know if I got an answer to my original query. 'Does using a dedicated capture device vs a camcorder with 'pass through' capabilities give you a better transfer. My source is coming out of a JVC w/TBC.

The JVC and its TBC/NR will do what you want and clean up the source -- not entirely, but more than a non-TBC machine with no DNR could do it. What the camera outputs depends on the camera, but it lilkely is not native MPEG and might be DV. People who use cameras for pass-thru can chime in there, but the camera and its TBC, if it has one, won't hurt as it won't see any line-timing errors from the JVC's output. Even with the cam, you still need a way to record a digital video. What your camera can record if anything, I don't know, but you'd have very little control over the encoding. So if you're using the JVC/TBC for play, I don't know what purpose the camera would serve except to deliver the output to a capture device or a DVD recorder.

I am not interested in editing the video after the transfer.Maybe to simplify it, I am going directly to a DVD recorder. And I understand how bad that can be in quality. So does the camcorder 'pass through' give me an MPEG2 out the other end and that is what the DVD recorder is burning?.

In that case, you don't need the camera. The DVD recorder gives you exactly what you want: a DVD.

And if I was to use a 'capture device' instead can I set the output to give me an AVI file using losses compression directly to the DVD recorder.

No. DVD recorders record MPEG2, nothing else.

And is that a better file than the MPEG2? Maybe I am lost here!

The lossless capture will be cleaner and allows you to filter, edit, and encode to any digital format you want. But I don't think you're interested in that. All you need is your JVC and a DVD recorder.

[smrpix]

Forgive me if I've missed this, but I see no reference in this thread to how the signal is getting into the DVD recorder -- DV, analog, S-Video or component. (Nor specific model #s other than ADVC 110.)

Obviously that will make a difference in quality and determine whether a DV passthrough device is required.

There's a lot of good advice here, but still some missing pieces.

Which JVC with TBC, which DVD recorder?

[Eugene5077]

JVC SR-V101S SUPER VHS ET/wTBC Professional Series (continuation of 7000 series)
Magnavox MDR513H/F7 HDD & DVD player/recorder
pass through device Sony HDR FX-1

These are the devices I am using. So questioning whether adding a capture device will improve my results short of editing in my computer which I don't want to spend the time to do.

Thanks Gene

[sanlyn]

Forgive me if I've missed this, but I see no reference in this thread to how the signal is getting into the DVD recorder -- DV, analog, S-Video or component. (Nor specific model #s other than ADVC 110.)

Obviously that will make a difference in quality and determine whether a DV passthrough device is required.

There's a lot of good advice here, but still some missing pieces.

Which JVC with TBC, which DVD recorder?

The video is being playd with a JVC. s-vdieo-out, to s-video input on a DVD recorder. A camera for pass-thru offers no advantage, and usually makes undesirable changes in black levels and blows out bright luma. I don't see any need for a pass-thru with the JVC player. The more components you place in the capture chain, the less contol you have and the more unpredictable are the results.

JVC SR-V101S SUPER VHS ET/wTBC Professional Series (continuation of 7000 series)
Magnavox MDR513H/F7 HDD & DVD player/recorder
pass through device Sony HDR FX-1

These are the devices I am using. So questioning whether adding a capture device will improve my results short of editing in my computer which I don't want to spend the time to do.

Thanks Gene

You don't need the camera.

Using a capture device (without the camera) has already been discussed. You'll get better results capturing thru a capture device that allows you to capture to lossless AVI (with Huffyuv or Lagarith compression). Doing so, you will still have to encode and author to DVD in the computer. If you're doing JVC -> DVD recorder, skip the camera and skip the capture device.

[Eugene5077]

OK I understand.

Thanks for your time and knowledge.

Gene

[sanlyn]

Whew! What you say you want is "DVD". That means MPEG2. DVD isn't DV, DV-AVI, h264, DivX, Xvid, MP4, ZIP, RAR, or anything else. In WI it's NTSC MPEG2 with 48KHz Dolby AC3 audio, period. On a DVD disc, the video is arranged for the proper file type for playback, menus, etc. That's what your Magnavox will give you, straight from the JVC.

[smrpix]

Gene, I completely concur with Sanlyn.

With your equipment list, given you want to go straight to DVD, you have 3 (ok 4) theoretical options but the best is
Deck to Recorder using S-Video.

Go for it.

[2Bdecided]

Canopus ADVC may may get NTSC IRE right,
but it gets the color wrong.
4:1:1 is from ideal from VHS conversion.

Classic typo - because 4:1:1 choma is already way overkill for VHS conversion. (what does VHS chroma work out at? 4:0.2:0.2, or some silly small number like that?).

Cheers,
David.

[Brad]

You know what he means though: if your goal is DVD you don't want an intermediate step of 4:1:1 on the way there.

[2Bdecided]

You know what he means though: if your goal is DVD you don't want an intermediate step of 4:1:1 on the way there.

With a VHS source, it makes absolutely no difference!

[Brad]

I've never understood the issues with DV 4:1:1 so I'll just bow out here. I have a general preference for as few conversions as possible.