Help a Newbie Capture Home VHS Videos

[Sharc]

....Plus since we have not really decided what we need ... I do not know yet what the ' videos ' look like. Someone asked about the VCR .. it was wrapped in bubble wrap and sealed inside 2 blanket plastic containers I am sure it is fine...

You won't know until you try. The result can be shockingly poor or surprisingly good, or something in between. Early Funais/Magnavox were not just bad tape eaters. What you are getting depends very much on the tapes as well.
Connect the Magnavox to your TV which will give you a first coarse impression and can help to decide for the next step(s). No rush. Learning by doing .... even bad experience is a valuable experience.

[lollo]

In your own posts, you make exclusionary statements along the lines of "but don't use bad source, it will give you problems"

False. Add a link to a post where I wrote that.

My recommendation is to feed the card (any card, actually) with a proper SD analog signal, time base corrected. Preferably in its native Y/C source when the source is VHS.

All the rest is your raving.

It's simply a wimpy capture card. Hauppauge was neve a great card maker, with very few exceptions. Live2 ain't it.

Prove it with facts, not your usual blah blah blah to put smoke in the eyes.

Back to the original question from the OP (sorry for the off-topic):

• the most important element for a good capture are the conditions of the tape (where you have non control) and the player. Put the effort in getting the best player you can, ideally a high-end S-VHS VCR with TBC. As lower quality alternative, add to a standard good quality VCR a specific DVD Recorder in passthrough mode to stabilize the signal and to provide a Y/C signal to the card, as Alwin suggested.
• there is no "best" VCR for all kind of tapes. Often you need several models to deal with different problems. But that's another story.
• use a IOData GV-USB2 or a Hauppauge USB-Live 2 for capturing, working flawless with Windows10/11, as Alwin suggested, together with AmarecTV 310.
• capture YUY2 4:2:2, 720x480, interlaced, lossless.
• optimize your workflow to avoid inserted/dropped frames not depending on the tape.
• learn some basic AviSynth processing to deinterlace/denoise/sharpen (and eventually mitigate some defects).

Read the forum. There are many topics covering all these aspects, with valuable contributions from expert members to obtain a good outcome.

Post here some sample of your captures once done, and we can help to improve if needed, with analysis, scripts, suggestions, etc. and not with blah blah blah

[Sharc]

[*]there is no "best" VCR for all kind of tapes. Often you need several models to deal with different problems. But that's another story.

Right - although "several models" may not be feasible for everyone.
On a sidenote keep in mind that VCRs have not been designed to optimize the capturing of tapes. Especially the high-end ones used to put much emphasis on providing the "cleanest" viewing experience for viewing the tapes on CRT TVs. Unfortunately, the cleanest viewing experience does not necessarily coincide with the "best" capture quality, because a perfect capture should "catch" everything which is found on the tape IMO, which includes fine details (desired) and noise (usually less desired, eventually) - a typical conflicting requirement. And that's the reason why it is normally recommended to disable any VCR picture "cleaning" functions (except TBC) and leave all these improvements to post processing. And it is also unfortunate that some high(er)-end VCRs do not allow to totally disable all of its sophisticated (1980...1990 technology) internal "pre-processing" functions (despite their "Edit" mode). In the end one might be surprised that a not-so-promoted ordinary (S-)VCR is on par - or even excels - a high(er) end model in certain aspects . It's one of the reason I usually encourage users to try and assess what they already have on the shelf, before rushing into buying adventures.

After all, good advice has been given - hopefully not too much technobabble, dicouraging newbies

[Darryl In Canada]

I think I'd like to get a Retrotink but the price tag seems pretty high.

The Retrotink is the best of the HDMI digitizers. It is aimed at gamers who want to connect their old Nintento to an LED television via HDMI. That means it deinterlaces on the fly. The results are excellent for games. It's a very well regarded product. But for video capture of VHS, it's average. Because it is deinterlacing on the fly, it is not as good as using software in post to deinterlace. The Soundbeast device you linked is in the same family as Retrotink but not as good.

For both devices, you need to get the HDMI video into your computer. That means you also need to buy an HDMI-to-USB adapter. Unless you want a Retrotink for retro-gaming (and then do some video capture on the side), I wouldn't suggest one for your use case.

UDPATE: I forgot to mention that Retrotink can capture interlaced video, too, if you change the settings. So that issue can be resolved. RetroRGB has a few good videos on home video capture with the Retrotink. He compares it to results from an Osprey, which I understand to be comparable to the well-regarded ATI devices. The results look very similar, at least once it's on YouTube. So, if someone gave me a RetroTink, I think I would be okay with it. But given that RetroTink5X is $325 USD in July 2025, you can get better results with less costly new or pre-owned devices.

[The 14th Doctor]

I think I'd like to get a Retrotink but the price tag seems pretty high.

The Retrotink is the best of the HDMI digitizers. It is aimed at gamers who want to connect their old Nintento to an LED television via HDMI. That means it deinterlaces on the fly. The results are excellent for games. It's a very well regarded product. But for video capture of VHS, it's average. Because it is deinterlacing on the fly, it is not as good as using software in post to deinterlace. The Soundbeast device you linked is in the same family as Retrotink but not as good.

For both devices, you need to get the HDMI video into your computer. That means you also need to buy an HDMI-to-USB adapter. Unless you want a Retrotink for retro-gaming (and then do some video capture on the side), I wouldn't suggest one for your use case.

Depends on what you have, I do agree that it is not at all suited for analog tapes if you want them properly archived.

Since it deinterlaces on the fly, what about a tape that is meant to be telecined, or a tape that has blended fields from a bad PAL to NTSC conversion? Can't do crap about it with the Retrotink, you're screwed. You are also screwed if the brightness and contrast is clipped and crushed respectively from the get go.

The Smuggler made a video about it, it is extremely long but the section I'd like to highlight is an hour and 40 minutes in where he deals with a laserdisc that has really bad combing and telecine artifacts and was able to deal with using his raw capture and some avisynth filters. The Retrotink would fail to properly handle such a bad source and you wouldn't be able to fix it.

[lordsmurf]

I will see if I can find something.

I look forward to it.

On a sidenote keep in mind that VCRs have not been designed to optimize the capturing of tapes. Especially the high-end ones used to put much emphasis on providing the "cleanest" viewing experience

The low-end cranks up sharpness and contrast, often with a luma shift side effect, which is worse.

The results look very similar, at least once it's on YouTube.

And Youtube is a meat grinder to analog video captures. You can make a garbage Easycap appear "not much worse" than a better card, because Youtube is obliterating all the quality.

I have never come across any issues with the ES series.

Then clearly you don't do much capturing. Last I knew, you only did a few daytime airplane videos, here and there, not anything with any sort of volume or difficulty. That's probably why you've "not come across it". Lack of experience.

Panasonic ES10/15 type DVD recorders have posterization, bad luma gain, AGC issues, dropped/repeat frame issues, audio skew issues, etc. It has them all --- but it can be mitigated, avoided, lessened -- just not 100% removed. These were never meant to be half-baked "TBC replacements", but did excel an anti-tearing and similar. When you attempt to force it to act as a TBC, stuff happens. That's like forcing a car to tow another car, rather than use a tow truck (the proper tool). It might work, until it doesn't. Not suggested. But it is a least-worst option.

False.
All the rest is your raving.
Read the forum. There are many topics
blah blah blah

I don't have the time, energy, or desire to quarrel with you. We just disagree.

[lollo]

I don't have the time, energy, or desire to quarrel with you. We just disagree.

It is not a question of disagreeing, everybody reading us understands that while having and suggesting the same basic ascpects of the caturing we have different opinions on some specific topics, and is not a problem at all.
But when you post something, you must write the truth and support your statements with facts and evidences.

[Sharc]

On a sidenote keep in mind that VCRs have not been designed to optimize the capturing of tapes. Especially the high-end ones used to put much emphasis on providing the "cleanest" viewing experience ....

The low-end cranks up sharpness and contrast, often with a luma shift side effect, which is worse.

It was kind of "choose your poison" situation in my case: The cleaner "high-end" capture missed picture details which could not be recovered in post. As one doesn't miss what one didn't see, I discovered it in direct comparison with an "ordinary" VCR player only. As I knew the object's details structure I concluded that the "high-end" was apparently too ambitious with cleaning (spatial/temporal smoothing with weak ghosts even, despite having switched off its internal filters). Cleaning the "ordinary" capture in post using Avisynth filters preserved the details nicely.

Panasonic ES10/15 type DVD recorders have posterization, bad luma gain, AGC issues, dropped/repeat frame issues, audio skew issues, etc. It has them all --- but it can be mitigated, avoided, lessened -- just not 100% removed. These were never meant to be half-baked "TBC replacements", but did excel an anti-tearing and similar. When you attempt to force it to act as a TBC, stuff happens. That's like forcing a car to tow another car, rather than use a tow truck (the proper tool). It might work, until it doesn't. Not suggested. But it is a least-worst option.

The internal "TBC" of my JVC player is also not without any doubt. I noticed occasional scanline glitches (upwards shifts) with the internal TBC where the external ES-15 "TBC" was rock stable (reproducible). Another "choose your poison" situation in my case.

I am not pleading for simply using cheap and inferior gear, just clarifying my observations

[lollo]

As I knew the object's details structure I concluded that the "high-end" was apparently too ambitious with cleaning (spatial/temporal smoothing with weak ghosts even, despite having switched off its internal filters).

Can please specify wich VCRs have you been using? I compared captures from high-end JVC/Panasonic S-VHS devices (edit mode, obviusly) with basic Samsung/Panasoni/JVC/Philips VCRs and did not find additional details present.

The internal "TBC" of my JVC player is also not without any doubt. I noticed occasional scanline glitches (upwards shifts) with the internal TBC where the external ES-15 "TBC" was rock stable (reproducible).

Yes. JVC internal TBC is not transparent: while excellent for (most of the) dropouts, it occasionally introduces vertical jitter, Also its N.R. (non-detachable from TBC) is introducing ghosting, especcially at scene change. Both aspects have been discussed and documented several times in the forum.

However, when possible I still prefer to use the internal TBC of a VCR than an external device like the Panasonic ES15. YMMV

[willow.traveler]

Thanks for starting this thread — I'm also just getting into VHS transfers and figuring things out. I’ve seen a lot of mixed opinions about using combo units vs. separate VCR and capture cards. Did anyone here have decent results using more budget-friendly gear? Especially curious if anyone skipped using a full-frame TBC and still got acceptable quality.

[lollo]

Especially curious if anyone skipped using a full-frame TBC and still got acceptable quality.

One of the most difficult questions.

Someone like me, dellsam34 and others use an external additional TBC only when needed because the conditions of the tape, to avoid a (possibly) useless element in the capture chain marginally degradating the signal.

Others like lordsmurf do not capture at all without an external TBC in addition to the time base correction inside the VCR.

According to the condition of your tapes the external TBC can be absolutely required (most of the cases) or you can avoid it if they are in pristine shape.

[Sharc]

As I knew the object's details structure I concluded that the "high-end" was apparently too ambitious with cleaning (spatial/temporal smoothing with weak ghosts even, despite having switched off its internal filters).

Can please specify wich VCRs have you been using? I compared captures from high-end JVC/Panasonic S-VHS devices (edit mode, obviusly) with basic Samsung/Panasoni/JVC/Philips VCRs and did not find additional details present.

As far as I remember from when I did the comparison I used
- JVC HR-S9500E or JVC HR-S9600E, both with internal TBC (and still working Dynamic Drum )
- SONY SLV-SE220 and Panasonic NV-HV61
Tapes were VHS-C from JVC,TDK, Scotch. PAL SP home videos shot with JVC VHS videocam 30+ years ago.

Thanks for confirming the "internal TBC issues" of the JVC. I couldn't totally avoid slight residual ghosting with 3D DNR OFF or ON.

[Alwyn]

Especially curious if anyone skipped using a full-frame TBC and still got acceptable quality.

Absolutely. I've never used a full-blown TBC. I've always used a DVD recorder in passthrough (Panasonic ES-15, EH-57, Pioneer DVR-645H). With AmarecTV, audio in-sync 99% of the time, easily corrected in POST and the occasional dropped/inserted frame (the current tape I'm doing has 2 drops after 1hr 36min). And I don't do canned TV ads recorded on SVHS, I do real-world home-video tapes that are, probably half the time, second-generation compilations.

[cholla]

I will see if I can find something.

I look forward to it.

Here are 2 I did yesterday & today.
The PetDub.vob is from a RCA VHS camcorder I had at the time.
The VHS tape is from 1999.

The T2.vob is from a commercial VHS tape.
I did use a Grex to remove the Macrovision.

The VCR combo unit used a Magnavox ZV450MW8 (To Play the VHS tape).
The DVR recording unit a Magnavox H2160MW9.
First to the HDD & from there dubbed to DVD.

Clips done with FFMPEG.

[Sharc]

The PET has badly blown out and clipped brights, loosing all details in the cat's fur.
Not sure whether it is like this from the videocam or from the digitization process.
Otherwise with the typical mpeg2 DVD recorder artefacts.

The Terminator is half-D1 (352x480) telecined film.

[cholla]

@Sharc,
The cat is very close to the same on the VHS & if anything the DVD looks a bit better.
Also the VHS video was made in 1999.

The half-D1 is the way the Magnavox records.

Actually there are a double set of the same on the recording.
If I'm suppose to merge them or DVD players merge them.
I have never checked this I usually just use one of the vob sets.
This is what it looks like in Windows Explorer:

[Attachment 87762 - Click to enlarge]
This is in CloneDVD2

[Attachment 87763 - Click to enlarge]

[lordsmurf]

I concluded that the "high-end" was apparently too ambitious with cleaning (spatial/temporal smoothing with weak ghosts even, despite having switched off its internal filters).

- JVC HR-S9500E

This is probably why you reached that conclusion. The 7500 and 9500 are/were aggressive at NR.

The trade-off is the stability of the 9500, a very well made machine. Most 9500 DD are indeed still working. It's the 9600-9911 that have mostly all failed by now.

[Sharc]

I concluded that the "high-end" was apparently too ambitious with cleaning (spatial/temporal smoothing with weak ghosts even, despite having switched off its internal filters).

- JVC HR-S9500E

This is probably why you reached that conclusion. The 7500 and 9500 are/were aggressive at NR.

The trade-off is the stability of the 9500, a very well made machine. Most 9500 DD are indeed still working. It's the 9600-9911 that have mostly all failed by now.

Yep, exactly. And the 9500 is an excellent tape player. I really like it. It is for CAPTURING (and subsequent post processing) only when I would wish "less is more" with respect to its "native" NR.
(From this point of view I wish the VHS decode project every success .... )

[Sharc]

@cholla
Thanks for your examples. Now the OP has at least a hint of what about he can expect from his Funai/Magnavox DVD recorder. And later compare with what he may eventually get with better setups (viewing it on a large TV screen). Learning by doing, gaining experience.

[cholla]

I have seen the Funai connected with Magnavox.
I guess Phillips is also because CloneDVD2 reports this:
"Fixed Philips DVD Recorder generated IFO files"

I'm going to try a few different settings on the Magnavox & see if I can get just one vob set.
Maybe 720x480

I had the combo "mothballed" It did not want to play a VHS at first.
I had to go inside & "limber" it up a bit.
It is working good now. I had it stored in a bedroom.
I can't imagine storing one in my attic.

Other than some VHS of family including pets I only have 3 commercial VHS tapes.
I disposed of all the rest. I mostly use DVD & a few blu rays.

[Sharc]

@cholla: It should be no problem to merge the .VOBs of your DVD structure into one file (per title) using MakeMKV, or Avidemux, for example.
We are getting off topic I am afraid .....

[cholla]

@ Sharc,
I now do not believe merging the vobs will help.
This still produce two videos that are the same.It would just be on a single vob.

If the OP posted the model of the combo unit he has I missed it.
I will try to have some more information about my Magnavox ZV450MW8.
To help the OP.
I can say this the OP will need a digital video stabilizer Like the Grex.
Or something better. To remove the Macrovision if he ever trys to copy a commercial VHS.
There are instructions for connecting a Grex to a combo unit to use just the one unit.
I believe I tried this long ago & got it to work at least OK.
I have always had better results using a separate DVD recorder to do the recording of a commercial VHS tape.
Much simpler to do the cable connecting.
On my Magnavox ZV450MW8 the s-video out is only for DVD not VHS.
VHS out is composite only. It will accept s-video in to a VHS tape.

[Sharc]

On my Magnavox ZV450MW8 the s-video out is only for DVD not VHS.

Which is typical for such VHS-DVD recorder combos, I am afraid.
Using the Composite Out one depends on a subsequent decent Y/C separating filter (like a 3D comb filter). Still this can deliver good results, depending on the performance of the filter. Lot of "it depends ...."

[lordsmurf]

Yep, exactly. And the 9500 is an excellent tape player. I really like it. It is for CAPTURING (and subsequent post processing) only when I would wish "less is more" with respect to its "native" NR.

There are certain other models you should try, but condition has to be excellent. It cannot be a unit that was left to decay, abused, etc. That's exactly why I started refurb'ing units in the 2010s.

(From this point of view I wish the VHS decode project every success .... )

vhs-decode is simply attempting to recreate a VCR in software, by splaying open a VCR, soldering in some homebrew doodads, and connecting it to a computer. There's nothing magic happening there. It's having the same troubles as low-end VHS VCRs, especially when it comes to halo/ringing. The project "leadership" (an immature 23-year-old) considers the project "done", and dismisses the issues that all of us at VH blatantly see and/or have experienced. Don't get your hopes up.

[cholla]

I had an Insignia combo that had component out but it failed a few months ago.
With a few different settings this is a full D-1 720x480.
I set the Progressive Scan to off & started the dub from HDD to DVD from the DVD side instead of the HDD side.

[Sharc]

@cholla: It is what these combos deliver, encoding to mpeg2 on the fly, with the typical artifacts. VHS home shot videos are much more of a quality challenge, as you have seen.

[cholla]

I agree on the home shot videos .
I had an RCA camcorder that held full size VHS tapes.
I do not remember the model as it died many years ago.
I sure will not brag on the quality of this camcorder.
It was bulky & heavy to carry.

Now My cell can take video like almost all modern cells.
I prefer my Fuji digital camera for any video I want good.
Even better when I use it's tripod.

[lordsmurf]

Now My cell can take video like almost all modern cells.
I prefer my Fuji digital camera for any video I want good.
Even better when I use it's tripod.

The main differences in modern cameras are the sensor size, dynamic range, and quality of the glass (thus resolve). There's not a lot of comparison to old analog/film cameras.

[cholla]

@ lordsmurf ,
I've never taken any analog/film motion camera footage.
My dad did & I still have his old camera. I do not believe it has been used in over 50 years.
I have some of the old home movies it shot but I don't have a projector to watch them.
Some of the film was never developed & probably too late now.
I do have an analog/film Canon of good quality but it has been a long time since I used it.
It is a still shot camera.

I don't take many pictures with my cell.
The camera I usually use is a Fuji Finepix XP140 Series.
It does video or still photos.

That being said I would not compare the RCA VHS camcorder to any of the above cameras.
I wish I had taken it back to where I bought it for refund.

[lordsmurf]

@ lordsmurf ,
I've never taken any analog/film motion camera footage.

You should!

Spending some time shooting video would really help some folks understand the nature of analog/film camcorder footage.

The camera I usually use is a Fuji Finepix XP140 Series.
I wish I had taken it back to where I bought it for refund.

That Fuji looks like something from 15 years ago, a good point-and-shoot just before smart phones existed.