Questions about the Methodology of this Tape-Capture Business?

[PacificSurfer]

I have a total of 20 Magnetic Tapes 8mm, recorded between 1990-2001, old handycams. I believe all are analogue. Im looking to digitize them locally. I went from knowing nothing to learning a TON the past few days of reading and searching, my eyes are sore. It's a much more fascinating and complex trade than I realized. But still have some questions about which place I should pick, and what other questions to ask them.

Place #1 Setup:
Price: $25 per total hrs of video content total.
Setup: "We capture through our decks that are linked to capture cards (firewire) and then into our PCs using DV codec and then we output to the desired format."
Output options: AVI, MOV or MP4 output options.

Place #2:
Price: $35 per 30 minutes of content. $10 for all further 30 minute increments
So if a tape is 60 minutes long the cost is $45, if it is 90 minutes long the cost is $55.
Setup: "We use broadcast equipment and AJA capture cards for our digitization processes"
OutPut Options: We will provide you with master files which can be one of the following formats:
10 bit uncompressed - Approx. 100 GB/hour of footage (archival standard)
ProRes 422 HQ - Approx. 35 GB/hr of footage. We will also provide you with .mp4 access files for ease of access and viewing.


1: If I went with Place #1, What is the best Output option to choose from between AVI, MOV, and MP4?

2: It sounds like Place #2 is offering a lossless conversion based on that file size? Should I question them if they use VirtualDub and what Codec? Such as Huffyuv.

3: What resolution should I request my 8mm Tapes to be recorded at?
I believe normally they have a resolution of about 240 lines, but it seems DigitalFaq indicates here (for VHS I know its different) to use a higher resolution. Should I be doing 720x480? Wouldn't that be up scaling?

4: If I should do a higher resolution conversion of my 8mm, do I need to request that at the conversion business, or do they know to do that by default?

5) Do I need to be asking each of these businesses if they have a TBC? Will they be using a TBC?

6) Which place would you pick?

[DB83]

My two cents on replies:

1. AVI,MOV and MP4 arer all container formats. So you should be asking the transfer firm what codecs they can supply.


2. No. At that size it is not lossless. They state 'uncompressed' so there is no codec involved.


3. No need to over-complicate this. An analog to digital transfer is a standard 720*480 although I believe AJAs also support 720*486 (full resolution)


4. I doubt whether they will upscale (from SD to HD) unless you are prepared to pay extra


5. 'Broadcast equipment' should not require a TBC


6. Neither. Since you have 20 tapes, you are looking at a cost of $500-900. At that money you can aquire decent hardware yourself. Have more control over the capture process and re-sell the hardware afterwards.

[PacificSurfer]

2. No. At that size it is not lossless. They state 'uncompressed' so there is no codec involved.

^ I thought "lossless" methods were considered the top notch best way. Using a TBC> capture card >Virtual Dub, would be keeping it as original as it can be.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/j4rwk1/the_how_do_i_digitizetransfercapt...e_video_tapes/

[Attachment 71401 - Click to enlarge]

So is "Uncompressed" (100gb/ hour) considered even more superior than the lossless Capture Card method? Is that even better since there is no compression at all?

Thanks

[Alwyn]

1. MP4, definitely. I can't imagine it would be anything other than using the H264 codec.

2. 10bit uncompressed is certainly lossless (meaning no loss). 35gb per is also lossless and the normal size/format for video capturing and post-processing. Uncompressed is generally just too be for practical handling. I'd be wary of ProRes; I understand it's a good lossless codec but may not be compatible with consumer video editors if you want to edit it yourself later. One of the big issues with home video is the endless hours of footage.

Should I question them if they use VirtualDub and what Codec? Such as Huffyuv.

It's probably not relevant. VDub isn't the be-all and end-all. It would be worth asking what codec you'll get for your lossless files (although that would be covered by question 2).

3. They will almost certainly be capturing at 720x480.

4. As per DB83.

5. Yes, stir them up. It will show them you know what's what and they will be less inclined to pull the wool over your eyes.

6. Give each one the same tape to compare. If you're not into torturing yourself with mind-boggling workflows, rabbit holes and questions, don't do it yourself. $500 will be a good price to pay to maintain your sanity for only 20 tapes. I'm serious.

If, on the other hand, you are a bit geeky, have a bent for computers and looking for a challenge with some time on your hands and prepared to spend a lot of time researching, then it is an incredibly interesting hobby and very rewarding.

I don't subscribe to this buy-use it-resell it idea as a justification for DIY. Unless you snaffle a bargain, you will lose money. And in today's increasingly nasty world, you're exposing yourself to issues with buyers, not to mention the potential rigmarole of posting large boxes of stuff. If you buy stuff for DIY, then be prepared to lose money when you resell.

[Bwaak]

#1 - Depends on their computer. If Mac, then MOV, if Windows then AVI. Because they will be capturing DV into either DV-MOV or DV-AVI respectively.

#2 - They have offered you a choice of either ProRes or some uncompressed. It is up to you what to choose. You need to choose wisely so that your editing apps could read it, and you would be able to open it in, say, 5, 10, 20 years.

#3 - Standard Rec. 601 resolution: 720x480 @ 29.97i for NTSC or 720x576 @ 25i for PAL.

#4 - Sure, you have to be explicit with your request.

#5 - Yes, ask them. If they use Digital8 camcorder as a deck, it will likely have built-in TBC.

#6 - I cannot tell you which one I would pick as a customer. But if I were offering a service like this, it would be something like the first one: one machine to play Video8, Hi8 and Digital8 as well as to use it for converting other analog stuff like VHS if it has A/D passthrough. Store it in an industry-standard format that will be supported for years to come. No need to think about all the settings - easier for me, easier for customers.

[Alwyn]

if Windows then AVI.

Re point 1: why are you suggesting AVI over MP4, given that AVI (at least in my experience) can't be directly played on TVs.

[jagabo]

1: If I went with Place #1, What is the best Output option to choose from between AVI, MOV, and MP4?

Since they are capturing with a firewire device they are capturing DV compressed video and uncompressed audio. You want that preserved in an AVI or MOV container (generally AVI for Windows, MOV for Mac). You will incur no further losses by that muxing. Note that outside a PC few devices play DV. So you will end up further converting this yourself if you want to watch via the media player built into your TV or some external media player. Most likely something like h.264+aac in an MP4 or MKV container for the widest compatibility.

2: It sounds like Place #2 is offering a lossless conversion based on that file size?
10 bit uncompressed - Approx. 100 GB/hour

That size corresponds to YUV 4:2:2 with 10 bit samples and no compression.

Should I question them if they use VirtualDub and what Codec? Such as Huffyuv.

Note that uncompressed video still needs an identifier to indicate what data the format is. That is often referred to as a "codec" even though there's no COmpression/DECompression involved. You just need make sure whatever software you plan to use recognizes the code and can deal with the data.

3: What resolution should I request my 8mm Tapes to be recorded at?

720x480 or 720x486 (the extra 6 pixels vertically usually won't have anything useful, not more valid picture content) for NTSC video. That's the international standard.

I believe normally they have a resolution of about 240 lines

Note that an analog video engineer saying that means one can distinguish about 240 dots across a horizontal scanline segment equivalent in length to the height of the frame. Since analog video was essentially all 4:3 that means 240 dots across 3/4 the width of the frame, or about 320 dots across a full scanline. And that's for the absolute best VHS recording and playback devices. Most consumer devices don't match that. Other technical issues mean you still need more that 320 pixels in the width of your capture. And the industry standard for capturing analog NTSC video is 704 or 720 pixels wide. The inner 704 pixels of a 720 cap correspond to the 704 cap, there is just a little extra at each end in case the recording or capture is slightly off center. The 480 or 486 pixels tall standard is similar -- the inner 480 lines of the 486 cap corresponds to a 480 line cap, just a little extra is captured above and below. There usually isn't any useful picture there but it may give you access to closed captions and other information just above the 480 cap. Not likely in consumer camcorder video.

4: If I should do a higher resolution conversion of my 8mm, do I need to request that at the conversion business, or do they know to do that by default?

Answered above.

5) Do I need to be asking each of these businesses if they have a TBC? Will they be using a TBC?

VHS always requires a horizontal time base corrector for best quality, and a full frame TBC for long term A/V sync. VHS was generally not used for broadcast (a news show might occasionally import a VHS clip from a consumer recording or surveillance system). Maybe they're using S-VHS decks with a built in line-TBC or a standalone line TBC + frame buffer. You should ask how they assure clean horizontal time base, A/V sync, and how they avoid dot crawl artifacts.

6) Which place would you pick?

It depends on how much time and effort you plan to expend and how picky you are. DV isn't that bad for NTSC VHS as long as you use the right software (you need to smoothly interpolate the 4:1:1 chroma, not simply duplicate it). But if you must have the absolute best you want uncompressed. You may be able to tease out a little more detail, and get slightly better noise reduction from uncompressed. But you will be spending a lot of time and effort to do so.

I recommend you send one tape and ask for both DV and uncompressed. Decide which you prefer after seeing what you get and experimenting with it.

[dellsam34]

For half that budget get yourself a Hi8 camcorder with built in TBC and one of the well known to work USB capture devices and capture it yourself via S-Video, 8mm format is not as problematic as VHS, A line TBC helps iron out some of the problems that a capture card may struggle with. Capture into HuffYUV and encode later to h.264.

[AVR2]

If the source material is standard-def domestic video, there is no point going to the sheer hassle of uncompressed video. You will see no visual difference - none at all - between DV and uncompressed, and DV will be far easier to work with as the file sizes will be so much smaller.

I write that as someone who has worked for over 25 years in professional broadcast video. Virtually no broadcasters bother with uncompressed video as there is simply no meaningful benefit; it generates vast files that difficult to work with because of their size, and are impossible to distinguish from much more useable compressed files unless you're literally pixel-peeping frame by frame. At normal play speed at normal viewing distance? Forget it.

DV is ideal for domestic video. It's only 5:1 compression, it's visually lossless, it works out at about 9GB/hour, and you can always generate your own MP4s from the DV files for easier viewing on non-computer screens.

It's also worth pointing out that it's impossible to tell the difference, just by looking at the picture, between DV and professional broadcast-quality standard-def video from Digital Betacam, which was the industry standard for SD broadcast video for 20 years. DigiBeta video dubbed to DV looks identical to the same material played directly from DigiBeta.

[Cornucopia]

No. As someone who has also worked for decades in the industry, I completely disagree.

Dv, even Dv50, is NOT visually lossless. Adam Wilt's dv site has long shown generation losses of dv, with macroblocking degradation becoming noticeably objectionable at ~9th gen, but visible degradation appearing even in 1st gen.
Industry best practices has long recommended not to use Dv when doing color correction work or when overlaying/compositing, due to the inherent color smearing.

Yes, consumer video doesn't have much to work with - all the more reason to treat the result of a capture with kid gloves in order to maintain as much remaing quality as can be.

Uncompressed is large files, but these days even they don't break the bank, either capacity or bitrate/bandwidth - wise. And most here recommend real lossless or virtually lossless formats for working with capture masters. They are much more reasonable.

Also, Dv is noticeably lacking with color when dealing with NTSC due to its 4:1:1 subsampling. PAL doesn't have this degree of problem, so maybe you weren't aware.

Dv is CONVENIENT (or used to be, before firewire capability & dv capture apps became a legacy rarity). That has been its forte for the last decade or 2.

My 2¢.


Scott

[lollo]

You will see no visual difference - none at all - between DV and uncompressed,

False. Difference is minimal, but is there.

and DV will be far easier to work with as the file sizes will be so much smaller.

Size is not important here. When planning a restoration, a lossless compressed file is more adequate than a DV file, because it gives a better quality, avoiding DV compression (in the source) and decompression (while restoring).

On the other hand, DV flow is an easier approach for consumer analog conversion with a small loss of quality compared to lossless, and may fit the needs of many.

[AVR2]

Dv, even Dv50, is NOT visually lossless

Unless you're pixel-peeping frame by frame, it is.

Adam Wilt's dv site has long shown generation losses of dv, with macroblocking degradation becoming noticeably objectionable at ~9th gen

Oh, please. Who's talking about taking anything to the 9th generation, or anywhere close?

Industry best practices has long recommended not to use Dv when doing color correction work or when overlaying/compositing, due to the inherent color smearing

Which is an *entirely* different proposition to archiving low-band domestic video.

Yes, consumer video doesn't have much to work with - all the more reason to treat the result of a capture with kid gloves in order to maintain as much remaing quality as can be

Nobody's going to see any difference at all between DV and uncompressed at normal viewing distance and at normal play speed. It's nonsensical to suggest otherwise. DV was a completely acceptable capture medium for broadcast work for over a decade; the captured video was typically transferred to an intermediate codec (for non-linear post) or DigiBeta (for linear post), but that doesn't negate the fact that the DV codec met broadcast quality standards for acquisition.

Indeed, even nowadays when DV has long since been abandoned for broadcast production, reality and obdoc shows in the UK typically still refer to the director (usually a self-shooter) of the location material as the "DV director", even on the credits.

Uncompressed is large files, but these days even they don't break the bank, either capacity or bitrate/bandwidth - wise

Still a huge amount of overhead for domestic computer setups, generating needless terabytes of data for no meaningful improvement in perceived image quality.

I know people like to affect "videophile" credentials, but the idea that you'd see any difference between a DV capture of low-band domestic video and an uncompressed one without putting your nose up against the screen and pixel-peeping as you frame-step slowly is faintly ridiculous.

[lollo]

I know people like to affect "videophile" credentials, but the idea that you'd see any difference between a DV capture of low-band domestic video and an uncompressed one without putting your nose up against the screen and pixel-peeping as you frame-step slowly is faintly ridiculous.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/376837-DV-conversion-vs-lossless-capture-compariso...uto-load%21%5D

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/360804-DV-vs-lossless-capture-of-VHS

[Bwaak]

As someone who have never worked in the industry, but who have read about it a lot and who is, like everyone else, a viewer, I can say:

When everyone in the industry has the same equipment, the industry does not care much about quality. As long as the image is stable, and the viewers' TV sets are not thrown out of sync, it is all good. This is why TBC was a godsend in the early 1970s, this is why news departments, and later even EFP adopted crappy 3/4-inch machines (at least in the U.S.; I know that the BBC used 16-mm film through 1980s), which had been originally designed as consumer VCRs, and which were barely better than VHS or Betamax. But they were cheap, and with TBC they produced stable image. Profit.

On the other hand, networks wanted to stand out when HTDV hoopla started, they tried their best to showcase their HD chops, despite that broadcasters did not care about HD one bit in the 1980s, they cared only about advertisers' money.

Nowadays, when the spectrum has become scarce, while the greediness has grown, broadcasters use 5 Mbit/s where they used to have 15 Mbit/s, so the quality went down the tubes, but they don't really care. Actually, the quality started going down the drain a decade earlier with "HD Lite", but broadcasters like the BBC claimed that it was ok to use lower bitrate because they used AVC instead of MPEG-2. Sure, but they still reduced number of pixels across from 1920 to 1280.

Regarding DV, this is the similar story as 3/4-inch in the 1970s - broadcasters saw that a consumer-grade digital format looked good when broadcast on analog TV, so they embraced it. As long at the viewers' TV sets show the picture, it is all good.

Nevertheless, I agree that using uncompressed improves the picture marginally if one knows what they do, and can ruin it if they don't. So I am a proponent of simple hardware-based solutions that use equipment from established names in the business. In particular, feeding all analog stuff like Video8, Hi8, Digital8 and VHS into a Digital8 camcorder, get DV out and not bother about settings.

Moreover, I am thinking now about capturing into MPEG-2 and saving 60% of bitrate compared to DV. No reason to spend 100+ Mbit/s for something that looks like garbage whichever way you capture it. Instead, I wish more attention was spent on correct aspect ratio, frame rate and deinterlacing. When someone uploads to Youtube a native TV program directly from professional tape in 25p or 30p, pillarboxed into a 16:9 frame, all I can do is throw my hands up in the air. These people are pros, who have worked in the industry. Number of years spent fiddling with dials does not mean they know what they do, and does not mean they know what should be done when the delivery platform changes.

[dellsam34]

For an average person DV quality is not that bad for direct captured files playback, However DV at 13GB an hour is not a shareable format not to mention that most modern devices don't recognize it, So in most cases a conversion to a modern format/codec is an unvoidable step, and that's where the losses can stack up. Besides, DV is not a friendly format, most people don't know what to do with it (with the exception of UK according to video99.co.uk a business owner).

DV served a purpose in the era of Pntium computing where files are big enough to be considered as editable and not big enough to overfill the HDD in one capture job, We have better hardware, better software, bigger storage, speed is not an issue, rendering and encoding is still slower but if the customer is asking for a playback version anyway, let it render overnight and have a quality as close as possible to what's on the tape avoiding an unnecessary DV encoding-decoding step, The business owner don't have to sit next to it while rendering or encoding, I see some business offering lossless options now which is a good news.

Business owners have to do what it takes to make the job profitable, so don't listen to their marketing BS. However most of us here are hobbyists and enjoy what we are doing, so we may steer you towards the hobby side and give you some advice that otherwise a business owner sees as non prifiteable approach.

[Bwaak]

Ask yourself questions as the archiving business owner

For a business, the quicker the better, while ensuring decent - not the best, but good enough - image quality. Your note regarding DV not being a user-friendly format is also true, most people prefer something like H.264, progressive, in MP4 container. And this is exactly what 12voltvids is doing by using the Cloner Alliance box, which seems to be updated since the time I've bought a similar box: now it supports 4:3 without pillarboxing, it supports 59.94, its levels are correct, its deinterlacer is decent, etc. So, it takes as long as playing a tape. After the tape finished, you get the deliverable. If I were starting a digitizing business, this is the way I would go. Also, it would incur fewer questions regarding why I have chosen this or that setting, I would just say, "I use this box, and all the settings are pre-programmed". Easy-peasy.

For personal use, I capture into Cineform, but the longer I am doing this, the more it seems like a waste of bits. I cannot play it on hardware devices, I cannot upload it to Youtube because it is interlaced and the files are huge. I am not sure about long-term support. In fact, about 10 years ago I converted half of my DV tapes into 720p60 H.264 to future proof them, to offload the deinterlacing task from my NLE, and to be able to upload them to Youtube. I think this was the right decision, which is confirmed by 12voltvids workflow. I need to finish with another half.

[dellsam34]

First I though the OP is asking questions as a business owner, then quickly realized that he was asking questions as a customer, so I edited my last post accordingly.

[PacificSurfer]

Sorry for the delay, Thanks everyone for your replies, Ive gone through and read everyone's! I mostly plan to play these videos off a laptop, connected to a TV via HDMI. So I would just use VLC to play the videos which should handle about any format.. If I needed to send them to someone, I would use the MP4 copies.


I did learn a few things from the two businesses noted since. Neither are using built in TBC's, they are both external TBC's. I thought built in was more ideal, but w/e.


Place 1: HiCam8 or Hi8 Deck > Svideo > External TBC > S-Video > External Capture Card > Firewire > PC. It will be a DV-AVI file, and then they use H.264 to convert to MP4 as standard.

Since it's firewire, I believe it will have to be a DV compression at it's best as jagabo noted above. Requesting them to use a different lossless Codec wouldn't do any good if I understand correctly.
The Mp4 is standard at $25 /hr, and then if I want copies of the DV-AVI files too, that is an extra $10 per hour. Most of my tapes I think are 120 mins. So that's $50-$80 per tape. X20.


Place 2: Broadcast Equipment > External TBC > PC > Uncompressed MOV or ProRes 422 HQ, + MP4 copies.
Given that ProRes 422 HQ is practically lossless, and 1/3 the file size, Id probably go with that IF I was to go this route. Otherwise I'd need a 2TB drive.


Forgot to ask about cords being using and specific equipment, like is it a VHS with TBC or a dedicated TBC, but w/e. At this point I think I have enough, its just more out of my curiosity.


Looked at a lot of TBC Handycams on Ebay and ATI capture cards to consider doing it myself, but just so many issues with compatibility of these cards, and Windows, and Vdub issues, and all the issues Ive read of other posts here on VideoHelp and DigitalFaq, etc... It'd be fun to attempt, but Im not sure i have the time to deal with it right now.

[lordsmurf]

Place #1 Setup:
Price: $25 per total hrs of video content total.
Setup: "We capture through our decks that are linked to capture cards (firewire) and then into our PCs using DV codec and then we output to the desired format."
Output options: AVI, MOV or MP4 output options.

Yuck. DV compression ingest + re-compress output. It's like bird dropping a bomb on a cow pie, double shitty.

Place #2:
Price: $35 per 30 minutes of content.

That's excessive.

3: What resolution should I request my 8mm Tapes to be recorded at?

720x480 (or 720x576 PAL) max SD res, if lossless. No upscaling to HD! Borks quality!

4: If I should do a higher resolution conversion of my 8mm,

Again, do not upscale.

5) Do I need to be asking each of these businesses if they have a TBC? Will they be using a TBC?

Yes. And sadly, many don't even know what that is.
If yes, what model?
Go further, ask why they use that model. I'd bet Benjamins you get no answer, bad answer, or snarky answer.

6) Which place would you pick?

Neither.

2. No. At that size it is not lossless. They state 'uncompressed' so there is no codec involved

Cannot assume based on file size.

5. 'Broadcast equipment' should not require a TBC

Wrong. Nothing special about "broadcast".

6. Neither. Since you have 20 tapes, you are looking at a cost of $500-900. At that money you can aquire decent hardware yourself. Have more control over the capture process and re-sell the hardware afterwards.

Maybe. It's not a given here, and I'll expand on that in a bit...

^ I thought "lossless" methods were considered the top notch best way.
Using a TBC> capture card >Virtual Dub, would be keeping it as original as it can be.

Yes.

So is "Uncompressed" (100gb/ hour) considered even more superior than the lossless Capture Card method? Is that even better since there is no compression at all?

No. Just larger.
In fact, often worse, processing overhead that eats into I/O, RAM, CPU. Uncompressed files suck in almost every way.

2. 10bit uncompressed is certainly lossless

And overkill. Measurebating. "Mine bits are bigger than yours!" Mean, the input source is like 6-bit dithered, not even 8, much less 10.

I'd be wary of ProRes; I understand it's a good lossless codec

It's lossy, not lossless. But can be a "good lossy", if set to right depth. "ProRes" is sort of like stating "AVI", it really doesn't say that much. You're correct to be wary, it's not ideal for SD, mostly for Mac and HD. Compatibility issues abound.

It's probably not relevant. VDub isn't the be-all and end-all.

No, but you don't want to ask what software. If they're using crap like OBS or Pinnacle Studio, run away fast. Amateurs.

5. Yes, stir them up.

Yep.

6. Give each one the same tape to compare.

Just be aware that some places reject single-tape projects, due to PITA customers. The single-tapers are too often needy and demanding.
Same for the "I just want to send a test tape now" ploy, with carrot-and-stick promises of more work later. Often with a request for a discount, though not always. The "more" almost never comes, even if the person gushes about how awesome the conversion looks.
It can take a lot of effort to setup projects, so a single tape simply is not worth the hassle.
Either that, or there's a minimum order dollar amount for orders.

$500 will be a good price to pay to maintain your sanity for only 20 tapes. I'm serious.

Yep.

I don't subscribe to this buy-use it-resell it idea as a justification for DIY. Unless you snaffle a bargain, you will lose money.

Nah, works great for many folks. The "losing money" is just the rental fee. But some folks profit on resale.

And in today's increasingly nasty world, you're exposing yourself to issues with buyers,

Don't sell (or buy) on eBay. When it comes to video gear, that site is full of lying dicks.

#5 - Yes, ask them. If they use Digital8 camcorder as a deck, it will likely have built-in TBC.

Good question. However, you should avoid Digital8 cameras for Hi8 tapes, as it adds DV loss compression.

one machine to play Video8, Hi8 and Digital8 as well as to use it for converting other analog stuff like VHS if it has A/D passthrough.

And that's amateur work using low quality 1990s DV transfer.

Re point 1: why are you suggesting AVI over MP4, given that AVI (at least in my experience) can't be directly played on TVs.

Archive as lossless AVI, encode out copy for viewing MP4.

VHS always requires a horizontal time base corrector for best quality, and a full frame TBC for long term A/V sync. VHS was generally not used for broadcast (a news show might occasionally import a VHS clip from a consumer recording or surveillance system). Maybe they're using S-VHS decks with a built in line-TBC or a standalone line TBC + frame buffer. You should ask how they assure clean horizontal time base, A/V sync, and how they avoid dot crawl artifacts.

And sometimes it's obvious when a person doesn't know a TBC from a toaster.

For half that budget get yourself a Hi8 camcorder with built in TBC and one of the well known to work USB capture devices and capture it yourself via S-Video, 8mm format is not as problematic as VHS, A line TBC helps iron out some of the problems that a capture card may struggle with. Capture into HuffYUV and encode later to h.264.

The only problem here is that Video8 and Hi8 can excessively drop frames, line TBC is simply not adequate. Even the non-TBC frame sync in ES10/15 type can choke. Trying to avoid frame TBC is generally in vain. Quality suffers, sanity suffers.

If the source material is standard-def domestic video, there is no point going to the sheer hassle of uncompressed video. You will see no visual difference - none at all - between DV and uncompressed, and DV will be far easier to work with as the file sizes will be so much smaller.

False for NTSC.
Sort of true with PAL, like DVD-Video.

Virtually no broadcasters bother with uncompressed video as there is simply no meaningful benefit; it generates vast files that difficult to work with because of their size, and are impossible to distinguish from much more useable compressed files unless you're literally pixel-peeping frame by frame. At normal play speed at normal viewing distance? Forget it.

Yep.

It's only 5:1 compression, it's visually lossless,

No. You lose 50% of the color data for NTSC, and it's obvious even to laymen. Color is lost, detail is lost, tints are altered. "Why does he have a sunburn?" It was "fine" during the era of bad CRTs when it was invented. Often unacceptable for any sort of modern usage, like viewing on larger pixel perfect HDTVs. Even badly calibrated ones, too.

It's also worth pointing out that it's impossible to tell the difference, just by looking at the picture, between DV and professional broadcast-quality standard-def video from Digital Betacam, which was the industry standard for SD broadcast video for 20 years. DigiBeta video dubbed to DV looks identical to the same material played directly from DigiBeta.

Pfft. No. There difference is generally obvious. A/B it, then simply find the dull blurrier one. There's you DV compressed video.

No. As someone who has also worked for decades in the industry, I completely disagree.
My 2¢.
Scott

Correct. And your cents are worth dollars.

Yes, consumer video doesn't have much to work with - all the more reason to treat the result of a capture with kid gloves in order to maintain as much remaing quality as can be.

Yep.

Uncompressed is large files, but these days even they don't break the bank, either capacity or bitrate/bandwidth - wise.

No, it still pisses off software and systems. Too much data, everything is bogged. The irony here is larger HD files are fine. It's all about expectations, and what the CPU is tuned for (AVX, etc).

Dv is CONVENIENT (or used to be, before firewire capability & dv capture apps became a legacy rarity).

Yep. Even the "easy" factor is now gone. Good riddance.

Difference is minimal,

Even that's not always true. Sometimes it's quite stark. Depend on source. It can get really bad with VHS.

On the other hand, DV flow is an easier approach for consumer analog conversion .

Not really, not anymore. It's outdated 1990s legacy tech, and gets dropped from software now.

Unless you're pixel-peeping frame by frame, it is.

No.

Which is an *entirely* different proposition to archiving low-band domestic video.

No.

Nobody's going to see any difference

No.
And you're calling yourself a "nobody" here.

at normal viewing distance

Still obvious.

and at normal play speed.

Color loss is not transitory. In fact, it's best noticed in motion.

in the UK typically still refer to the director (usually a self-shooter) of the location material as the "DV director", even on the credits.

And? Lost of titles in credits are derived from a century ago, long gone actualities.

I know people like to affect "videophile" credentials,

Those people are nuts. Half blind grandmas can see the loss and tint changes.

Regarding DV, this is the similar story as 3/4-inch in the 1970s - broadcasters saw that a consumer-grade digital format looked good when broadcast on analog TV, so they embraced it. As long at the viewers' TV sets show the picture, it is all good.

That's it. Little CRTs. If you watch video only on a tiny cell phone, it's probably equally "fine".

Moreover, I am thinking now about capturing into MPEG-2

You must be careful. It can be better at broadcast depths/bitrates, especially @422. Or far worse, blurry and blocky.

No reason to spend 100+ Mbit/s for something that looks like garbage whichever way you capture it.

Apparently you need better VCRs and cameras. Consumer formats are not garbage, but players certainly are.

Instead, I wish more attention was spent on correct aspect ratio, frame rate and deinterlacing. When someone uploads to Youtube a native TV program directly from professional tape in 25p or 30p, pillarboxed into a 16:9 frame, all I can do is throw my hands up in the air.

Yep.

These people are pros, who have worked in the industry. Number of years spent fiddling with dials does not mean they know what they do, and does not mean they know what should be done when the delivery platform changes.

Yep. Sadly, yep.

Business owners have to do what it takes to make the job profitable, so don't listen to their marketing BS.

Yep. Noting that some business are run correctly for quality.

For a business, the quicker the better, while ensuring decent - not the best, but good enough - image quality.

I hate the phrase "good enough". It usually just an excuse, a lie told to yourself or others.
"That turd is purty! Look at them deep brown shades! Unique smell, too!"

Cloner Alliance box,

That thing is a POS.

First I though the OP is asking questions as a business owner, then quickly realized that he was asking questions as a customer, so I edited my last post accordingly.

Still good to understand, to realize you're not always getting quality, you're getting what they want you to think is quality.

I did learn a few things from the two businesses noted since. Neither are using built in TBC's, they are both external TBC's. I thought built in was more ideal, but w/e.

That's a nonsense reply, internal vs. external means nothing.
What matters is line and frame.
No line, run away.
No frame, run away.
Something is clearly missing in both.

Place 1: HiCam8 or Hi8 Deck > Svideo > External TBC > S-Video > External Capture Card > Firewire > PC. It will be a DV-AVI file, and then they use H.264 to convert to MP4 as standard.

DV aspect not great. Rest can be fine.
Depends on model of frame TBC.
Depends on Hi8 cam/deck having line TBC.

The Mp4 is standard at $25 /hr, and then if I want copies of the DV-AVI files too, that is an extra $10 per hour.

That's so backwards. They must capture to DV, so the file exists. The "MP4" (not specified!) is man hours to convert. Priced to screw.

Place 2: Broadcast Equipment

Meaningless. Models needed.
And again, which frame TBC?

Given that ProRes 422 HQ is practically lossless, and 1/3 the file size, Id probably go with that IF I was to go this route. Otherwise I'd need a 2TB drive.

Do you have a Mac? Trying to use ProRes on Windows is video hell/purgatory.

Forgot to ask about cords

You mean s-video?

Looked at a lot of TBC Handycams on Ebay and ATI capture cards to consider doing it myself, but just so many issues with compatibility of these cards, and Windows, and Vdub issues, and all the issues Ive read of other posts here on VideoHelp and DigitalFaq, etc... It'd be fun to attempt, but Im not sure i have the time to deal with it right now.

This is why I refurb gear into workflows. Buying random gear, random places, does give random issues. Not fun.

[dellsam34]

Place2 seems like the only choice, just ask them what VCR or camcorder they are using and if they are using S-Video cables across the entire workflow. I'm not entirely sure that a 8mm broadcast player ever existed, But if they have a Hi8 or D8 (analog out) camcorder or consumer VCR with built in line TBC thats all what is required anyway.

[Bwaak]

I'm not entirely sure that a 8mm broadcast player ever existed

Sony EVO-9800/9850. SVideo IN/OUT, but DUB is only OUT, cheeky Sony wanted people to use this machine for ingesting Hi-8 and bumping to Umatic SP, but not the other way around. I don't think that any of the professional features (connectors, timecode, audio overdub, etc) matter if one wants just to play a tape. Maybe the machine is easier to open, service and repair than a tightly-packaged camcorder.