The rise of OBS

[Bwaak]

Warning: if you confuse an impersonal argument with trolling, or a discussion about a tool with a promotion of the tool, please leave the thread immediately.

--

Anyway, please allow me to reiterate some of my points from the Not able to Convert VHS to digital file thread:

• People prefer using the equipment they already have.
• People prefer using the software that is currently popular.
• They look for tutorials online.
• Young people prefer video tutorials to writeups.
• Youtubers making tutorials want to reach as wide audience as possible.
• The share of Windows is decreasing, the share of Mac is increasing, at least in the U.S.
• Most free video-capture tools have been developed for Windows.
• OBS is multiplatform (Win, Mac, Linux) and multirole (analog capture, screen capture).
• Thus, usage of OBS is increasing.
• Thus, the number of OBS tutorials is increasing.

Suggesting a Mac user to use VirtualDub or AmarecTV is akin to suggesting a Tesla driver to use octane booster.

Alwyn's capture proves that it is possible to capture decent-looking footage with OBS. Sharc's comments here and here may be a deal-breaker for a perfectionist, but for someone who thinks that this looks great, Alwyn's results are perfect.

I do not have a stake in OBS, I don't like it and don't use it. I managed to use it once for its primary purpose - to capture my computer screen, and I was not able to set it up correctly ever since. I use Corel ScreenCap instead. I've never used OBS for analog video capture and I don't plan to - my Windows 7 machine works fine for me to run VDub and AmarecTV. All I am saying, this forum will see more questions related to OBS.

Those who participate in this forum to offer useful advice need to learn and then explain to others how to tweak OBS for a decent if imperfect capture. I applaud Alwyn for his efforts.

I am tempted to make my own OBS tutorial, but I neither know nor like the software well enough

[lordsmurf]

Some people also have a diet of pure McDonald's. That doesn't make it good, or not bad. It makes it lazy, not quality (aka crap), and will not end well for that person longer term.

OBS is the wrong tool for video capture, period. It turns video in compressed mush, and silently allows dropped/inserted frames (and thus also audio sync issues). OBS was never created for, or intended, for analog videotapes. It treats all video like a webcam.

That Youtube tutorial is a perfect example of dreadful video.

[dellsam34]

As funny as it is, I'm wondering what's the title of the next thread going to be? "The rise of Easycap"?

[lollo]

Sharc's comments here and here may be a deal-breaker for a perfectionist

Sharc's comments apply to everyone wishing to capture analog video.

Alwyn's results are perfect

Alwin's captured example is showing the opposite, except if you love dropped and inserted frames.

I understand this is just 1 single test, but thanks to Alwin and Sharc for this!

[DB83]

My only comment about this thread.

Those that take the time out to assist do so as a shared experience. NOONE should take time and effort to learn ANY software that they have NO intention to use on a regular basis just to even attempt to help others.


Maybe OBS is the perfect name for the program - I'll leave you to work out another expansion of the letters.

[Bwaak]

Those that take the time out to assist do so as a shared experience. NOONE should take time and effort to learn ANY software that they have NO intention to use on a regular basis just to even attempt to help others.

No one is forced to provide help, but those who want to continue doing so will need to learn new tricks, because recommending octane booster to a Tesla owner or to a bicycle rider will not help.

As funny as it is, I'm wondering what's the title of the next thread going to be? "The rise of Easycap"?

Sure, why not. Some of these easycaps are better than other despite the same appearance, and even the crappiest ones can deliver better result that what I've linked above, and I cannot help linking to it again, it is just so amazing. Mind you, it has been posted by someone who shot a documentary for Netflix.

[aedipuss]

lol. the video you linked to looks like crap. oooh he shot a doc for netflix, hope it wasn't as shitty as the linked crap.

[Bwaak]

Here is someone who specializes "on bringing obsolete historical videotape formats back to life" and "in repairing your video decks. Over 30 years of experience." He has tons of equipment. He converts analog video into 960x720p60 for YT. Everything is peachy.

"Absolutely beautiful video transfer as usual"
"this is way better than that exercise video"
"Amazing transfer. The 80's never looked so much better than today"

Right.

He could as well use EasyCap. Or OBS. Or EasyCap + OBS. And he would be able to get better results.

[dellsam34]

Having tons of equipment has nothing to do with doing a proper capture. 60p with interlacing artifacts? That's OBS for you and also the side effect of resizing from 480 to just 720, very destructive.

[lordsmurf]

Youtube is often a perfect example of "better to let people think you're stupid, that to speak and remove all doubt".

His videos are a mess.

[oln]

That guy isn't using OBS if you check the videos where you see his computer ,and he has earlier videos without interlacing artifacts. Not claiming he's doing a pristine job but I think he's capturing in a somewhat reasonable format, but just doing a sloppy job with his youtube uploads.

As for the original post here, if you want a suggestion for people who find virtualdub or amarectv too complicated I would rather suggest just going all the way and getting one of these standalone recorder boxes than OBS. The cloneralliance box pro seems to be the better option of those. They're not great but at least they don't screw up the framerate I guess.

I wish there was some better application to recommend but for now it seems we're stuck with ancient and very janky windows-only virtualdub/amarectv, not at all designed for this purpose obs, very restricted variable and usually crappy vendor-provided capture apps or usable and cross platform but command line only ffmpeg

[Bwaak]

if you want a suggestion for people who find virtualdub or amarectv too complicated

I think it is less about complexity and more about not being able to run these tools on Mac or Linux.

I would rather suggest just going all the way and getting one of these standalone recorder boxes than OBS. The cloneralliance box pro seems to be the better option of those. They're not great but at least they don't screw up the framerate I guess.

For $160-$200 I expect a near-perfect result. If only the manufacturers of these boxes stopped thinking in terms of computer scan rates on the one hand, and rigid broadcast TV formats on the other hand. The Cloner box has a decent deinterlacer, if the manufacturer added a TBC-like image processing, 960x720 and 1440x1080 frame sizes and proper 59.94 rate instead of 60.00, it would be a very compelling turnkey product. Anyone from Cloner Alliance reading this forum?

[Bwaak]

Ok, I guess I can share the links to the popular tutorials, because why not.

The 7-year old EasyCAP + VirtualDub tutorial
The 1-year old OBS tutorial

I followed his OBS tutorial. The last version that works on Windows 7 is v.27. He does not tell what capture device parameters to use. If you set 59.94, you get weird skipped frames pattern. When I set capture device frame rate to 29.97 and render frame rate to 59.94 and deinterlacing to Yadif 2X, I got full 59.94 fps. Not a lot of choices for encoders (I have only H.264) or deinterlacers. Also, I haven't figured out yet how to crop exactly 16 pixels on the sides yet to scale it to the 960x720 window. I guess I can use 982x720 output window if I want to keep the black borders.

Overall, it is a very decent tutorial.

[Alwyn]

You're wasting your time, Bwaak. OBS is up to 30.0.2. The people who are going to use OBS will not be using dinosaur Win 7.

[Bwaak]

You're wasting your time, Bwaak. OBS is up to 30.0.2. The people who are going to use OBS will not be using dinosaur Win 7.

I am using Win7, I tried it for myself, it works. Of course, it is very limited: H.264 + Yadif, and no processing. I usually crop, shift chroma, sometimes correct color and levels, sometimes add motion smoothing. I cannot do all of this in OBS. On the other hand, it it an almost one-click solution after you create a preset. I would not use it in its current state for something I really care about, but if I ran a digitization business, I would consider it.

[Sharc]

Ok, I guess I can share the links to the popular tutorials, because why not.

The 7-year old EasyCAP + VirtualDub tutorial
The 1-year old OBS tutorial

I followed his OBS tutorial. The last version that works on Windows 7 is v.27. He does not tell what capture device parameters to use. If you set 59.94, you get weird skipped frames pattern. When I set capture device frame rate to 29.97 and render frame rate to 59.94 and deinterlacing to Yadif 2X, I got full 59.94 fps. Not a lot of choices for encoders (I have only H.264) or deinterlacers. Also, I haven't figured out yet how to crop exactly 16 pixels on the sides yet to scale it to the 960x720 window. I guess I can use 982x720 output window if I want to keep the black borders.

Overall, it is a very decent tutorial.

If the attached file is an example of "if anything CAN go wrong, it WILL go wrong" you hit the nail on its head
Looks like upscaling before deinterlacing/bobbing.
OK, I understand the restrictions you mentioned .....

[oln]

if you want a suggestion for people who find virtualdub or amarectv too complicated

I think it is less about complexity and more about not being able to run these tools on Mac or Linux.

ffmpeg is an option in that case at least on linux, though it is command line only. I believe it works with the macos video frameworks too so it should work with devices that work with obs but I've not used it myself.

[Bwaak]

If the attached file is an example of "if anything CAN go wrong, it WILL go wrong" you hit the nail on its head
Looks like upscaling before deinterlacing/bobbing.
OK, I understand the restrictions you mentioned .....

I don't see egregious artifacts usually caused by scaling before deinterlacing. Diagonals are not very smooth, typical Yadif, but not awful-awful. It is 60 fps. The proportions are more or less correct. Compared to horrible combed and stretched and blown out mess I linked above, this looks quite decent.

Not archival quality, but good enough for most people, IMO, and going directly to H.264 saves time and disk space. I wish I could shift chroma to the left though.

[Sharc]

I don't see egregious artifacts usually caused by scaling before deinterlacing.

Agree. This would look different (worse).

Diagonals are not very smooth, typical Yadif

Typical Yadif? It looks more like the fields got separated and then just upscaled. Whatever ....

Not archival quality, but good enough for most people,.....

Candidates to come here and ask for help how to fix it

[kissvid]

So I am informed by this thread as well as so confused. I just did a 50 tape transfer job using obs and the method in the link to the 1 year method with obs and yadiff etc. Now I am doubting that I am going to give my client is a good product. My question is..

I have Panasonic AG-1980's.
IF I capture with my iodata gv usb
and use amarectv with the lagarith or ut codec....What would I then use to upscale and deinterlace if necessary. I know all about the qtmc etc avisynch script but I have 50 tapes to do. So I'm looking for a easier 2nd step if there is one.

This is where I get very confused. With OBS method it's less steps and pretty much done and then I put through handbrake to decrease the file size.

Thank you for the time and help...please don't yell at me..just want to learn.

[Sharc]

So I am informed by this thread as well as so confused. I just did a 50 tape transfer job using obs and the method in the link to the 1 year method with obs and yadiff etc. Now I am doubting that I am going to give my client is a good product. My question is..

I have Panasonic AG-1980's.
IF I capture with my iodata gv usb
and use amarectv with the lagarith or ut codec....What would I then use to upscale and deinterlace if necessary. I know all about the qtmc etc avisynch script but I have 50 tapes to do. So I'm looking for a easier 2nd step if there is one.

This is where I get very confused. With OBS method it's less steps and pretty much done and then I put through handbrake to decrease the file size.

Thank you for the time and help...please don't yell at me..just want to learn.

The first - a bit more involved method - is generally recommended for obtaining decent results, and as you say you know all about QTGMC etc. and Avisynth it shouldn't be a problem for you. But why don't you just try both methods, compare the results and keep what you think is good and easy enough for you? Or you may want to upload samples of your experiments here (snippets of a few second duration with motion) and collect comments.

And take a look here, if this helps:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/415507-The-GV-USB2-capture-card-and-OBS-for-VHS-and-the-settings
(Post#2 and#3 there actually says it all, but you have to find out yourself).

I just did a 50 tape transfer job using obs and the method in the link to the 1 year method with obs and yadiff etc. Now I am doubting that I am going to give my client is a good product.

Your client may tell you. But since he/she has no comparison why or what should he/she complain about?

[kissvid]

I Might just try that. I have a small business doing transfers and it's items like this that I will hopefully stand out to others.

[lordsmurf]

method with obs and yadiff etc.

You just destroyed the quality by 50%+, losing temporal data, as well as adding jaggy/alias artifacts.

Now I am doubting that I am going to give my client is a good product.

No.

I have Panasonic AG-1980's.

Good VCR.

IF I capture with my iodata gv usb
and use amarectv with the lagarith or ut codec....

Some here like this card, but it has issues with NTSC, where you obviously are. Mostly PAL users like it. VirtualDub is overall better, it's mostly the fact the the GV-USB2 doesn't work properly with it.

- Lagarith has byte issues on capture. You will see it eventually, probably long after the capture. Corrupted data.
- Ut is meh.
- Huffyuv is still best for analog capturing. Use the hoffmand MSI installer for newer Win OS.

What would I then use to upscale and deinterlace if necessary.

Upscale is rarely needed.
Deinterlace is only needed for streaming non-TV playback.

I know all about the qtmc etc avisynch script but I have 50 tapes to do. So I'm looking for a easier 2nd step if there is one.

Use Hybrid. It's really easy. I don't even code Avisynth for basic tasks anymore, I just use selur's Hybrid GUI.

This is where I get very confused. With OBS method it's less steps and pretty much done and then I put through handbrake to decrease the file size.

Less steps because it outputs inferior quality. Consider a hamburger. Not cooking the meat is "less steps". Do you think raw meat is better?

Capturing VHS has a tried-and-true formula that works. Certain quality gear, certain software, certain OS, and capture away. Deviating just makes it harder on yourself, more issues, more work.

I notice you lack any frame TBC. That won't end well.

Your client may tell you. But since he/she has no comparison why or what should he/she complain about?

So your answer here is to provide lousy work, and hope they won't notice? That's the problem with the world right now. People compete to see who can do the cheapest shittiest job. That's why we outsource so much to China, they're great at it.

[lollo]

IF I capture with my iodata gv usb
and use amarectv with the lagarith or ut codec....

Some here like this card, but it has issues with NTSC, where you obviously are. Mostly PAL users like it.

I captured many NTSC tapes with the Hauppauge USB-Live 2 and the IOData GV-USB. Never had any problem. If you had issues show them here.

VirtualDub is overall better, it's mostly the fact the the GV-USB2 doesn't work properly with it.

No, AmarecTV is better. Overall, and specially with modern cards and modern OSs.

[Sharc]

- Ut is meh

meh in which respect?

- Huffyuv is still best for analog capturing. Use the hoffmand MSI installer for newer Win OS

Often quoted, long proven and widely used yes, but "best" in which respect?

So your answer here is to provide lousy work, and hope they won't notice? That's the problem with the world right now. People compete to see who can do the cheapest shittiest job. That's why we outsource so much to China, they're great at it.

No. It's all about comparison. If one has nothing to compare how should one know where on a quality scale one is? And in a business case it matters what you have to pay for what you get, and compare it with what you get from another supplier. Hobbies are different though: Time (a key cost factor in any business) is usually just taken out of the equation.
A quality comparison between OBS and the recommended capture method has been made a couple of times and the result is still the same. I didn't see an OBS capture yet which would have convinced me that it is on par (or nearly on par but much simpler and faster) compared to the recommended VHS capture method (lossless interlaced 4:2:2).

[lordsmurf]

Ut requires more resource/CPU overhead. Capturing is still single-core process, and core speeds have often actually gotten worse over the years. Huffyuv is lower use, because it doesn't try to force the most "efficient" compression. (None of it is really efficient anyway.) There's also too many versions to confuse newbies.

AmarecTV is just as old as VirtualDub. There's nothing newer/better about it. In fact, I'd argue it's much older in design. It simply works differently, and not necessarily for the better.

[Alwyn]

There's also too many versions to confuse newbies.

Huh? There's only one that's used for VHS capture, being ULY2 or the UtVideo YUV422 BT.601 VCM option. Once people know that, it's not confusing at all. Certainly not as confusing as Virtual Dub.

[lollo]

AmarecTV is just as old as VirtualDub. There's nothing newer/better about it. In fact, I'd argue it's much older in design. It simply works differently, and not necessarily for the better.

We are all using old devices (VCRs and TBCs) and old capture software, because capturing VHS is a "legacy task" (but we can use modern devices and OSs with excellent outcomes). And in that respect, AmarecTV is much better than VirtualDub, whose internal engine is worse, as proven by many results.

About lossless codec, I have a preference for HuffYUV as well, beause its low load on computing, then less prone to drop frames (theoretically, because with modern hardware it is unlikely to happen). But Lagarith and UT are excellent alternatives with close to zero regression.

[Sharc]

About lossless codec, I have a preference for HuffYUV as well, beause its low load on computing, then less prone to drop frames (theoretically, because with modern hardware it is unlikely to happen). But Lagarith and UT are excellent alternatives with close to zero regression.

Long time ago (I can't find the discussion, probably over at doom9?) there have been some doubts about the stability of Lagarith. Lagarith hasn't been updated since, so this - possibly theoretical only - instability may still exist. I don't know. Just wondering why I haven't seen or learned about any real instability cases with Lagarith since .....

[lollo]

I do not use Lagarith, but in all sample I checked and the few experiment I did I had no problems. I don't know what to say...