Problems Digitizing VHS Cassettes...

[Alwyn]

I also prefer not to use DV because I can't control the brightness and contrast of the "capture", which sometimes is off. Even the capture from DV tapes can be off a little.

[cholla]

@ Alwyn,
My Magnavox devices are not supposed to have any stabilization system. Much less a TBC.
If I connect from the VCR to the DVD recorder(Two separate devices) & record to a DVD disc.
Would this have the same result as a pass through?
Or do I need a second DVD recorder to do the recording to a DVD disc.
Passing through the first DVD recorder.
I hope I explained this well enough.
I have not done any VHS to DVD for a long time.
I always did it just a VHS tape played in a VCR & that to a DVD recorder.
I only used a GREX in the cables if it was a commercial VHS tape.

[Kong]

To answer Alwyn’s question, I do not know if it’s a “dropped” frame. I’m just gonna call it a stalled frame. The audio continues, and it picks up where it would have been had it played properly. I’m sure there’s a more correct term for this, but I know not what.

[Alwyn]

To answer Alwyn’s question, I do not know if it’s a “dropped” frame. I’m just gonna call it a stalled frame.

It would be interesting to play that on your TV to see if it is on the original tape. I've seen duplicate frames during captures, but not many actual drops like that; Facebook videos are full of them.

My understanding is if a frame is missed by the capture software, it will insert a duplicate to maintain the frame rate. But on a DV passthrough, I don't know if that applies to Scenalyzer or WinDV.

That waviness would almost certainly be straightened up with an ES-10/15 type DVD recorder.

My Magnavox devices are not supposed to have any stabilization system. Much less a TBC.
If I connect from the VCR to the DVD recorder(Two separate devices) & record to a DVD disc.
Would this have the same result as a pass through?
Or do I need a second DVD recorder to do the recording to a DVD disc.

Only way would be to try. The Magnvox might have internal stabilisation (since it needs to produce a DVD) which may not be in the passthrough circuit but will produce a stable DVD. I have VCR-DVD combos that will burn DVDs from a tape but which don't have and outward stabilisation; Samsung and LG combos to name a couple.

Otherwise, VCR to a known stabilising DVD recorder; no need for two (unless you specifically needed to use the Magnavox for burning). Remember, the majority of us are using these only for passthrough, not burning DVDs.

[cholla]

I would be using the Magnavox combo just for the VCR.
Then to a Magnavox DVD/DVR .
I could go to the HDD in that I believe.

Remember, the majority of us are using these only for passthrough, not burning DVDs.

When you do pass through is that to a capture card to a computer?
Is this why you would not be burning a DVD?

I thought the video might actually need to pass through the DVD recorder to activate a stabilization filter.
So the output would be stabilized.
Then that recorded by another DVD recorder.
In my case this would be another Magnavox DVD/DVR because these are what I have.

My older devices failed. They were a Insignia combo with component out to a Poloroid DVD/DVR with component in.
Component is correct not composite.
These could also do composite or s-video.
Neither had TBC.

[Sharc]

If you mean the Canon HV30, it can do a fine job of digitization, via its DV passthrough mode.

On bad tapes, it doesn't, IMO.

The HV has no stabilising properties at all; it simply passes-through all the bad details that are on the tape. It might keep the AV in sync, but it certainly doesn't improve any defects in the image. Check waves at the top of the frame.

The stabiliser used here is a Panasonic EH-57. Both of these were captured with Scenalyzer.


[Attachment 93213 - Click to enlarge]

I know you want to show the flagging (waves), but it looks like the EH57 has significantly less noise (less details?) than the HV30 variant. Has any filter been involved?

[Alwyn]

but it looks like the EH57 has significantly less noise (less details?) than the HV30 variant. Has any filter been involved?

I did notice that so I turned the EH57 NR off, but it still smoothed it out.

When you do pass through is that to a capture card to a computer?

Yes.

I thought the video might actually need to pass through the DVD recorder to activate a stabilization filter.
So the output would be stabilized.
Then that recorded by another DVD recorder.

I suspect the passthrough stabilisation is more by accident than design; if the machine has it, you'll get it on the DVD recorder you burn with it.

[Sharc]

deleted

[rgr]

Post a short clip of one of the problem videos as is.
In a video format like .mp4 or.avi .So members posting can see the problem.

Sure thing, and thanks.

Done!

"top-of-frame distortion : waviness.mp4"

How was this captured? Good tape for testing the effectiveness of TBC.

It won't. The DV approach does not play the functionality of a TBC.

Of course he has. Of course it also depends on other factors.
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/383020-In-depth-TBC-comparison-with-bad-VHS-(video-samples)

So.... Using my VCR + HV30 through to my computer (iMovie, hypothetically), will NOT guarantee me no dropped frames? I hope I’m misunderstanding, because that would seem make moot a lot of this thread.

No one will guarantee this You won't know until you check.

The waviness at the top of the screen I just took to be an artifact of the VHS medium, and therefore was unavoidable (some of my tapes have that, and some do not). This can be prevented??

Of course, that's exactly what TBC does.

This is because you're capturing in better quality lossless AVI at around 55mb/sec as opposed to lossy DV, which is around 25mb/sec.

The 25mb/s guaranteed by DV is completely sufficient, especially with non-SVHS material.

[lollo]

It won't. The DV approach does not play the functionality of a TBC.

Of course he has.

Another of your bullshit!

The 25mb/s guaranteed by DV is completely sufficient, especially with non-SVHS material.

One more!

[rgr]

It won't. The DV approach does not play the functionality of a TBC.

Of course he has.

Another of your bullshit!

I gave you a link and you couldn't even read it

The 25mb/s guaranteed by DV is completely sufficient, especially with non-SVHS material.

One more!

Of course you can move on with your misguided fanaticism
But how do you explain that the D8 capture were so good? Maybe something like "crap test"?

[Sharc]

The 25mb/s guaranteed by DV is completely sufficient, especially with non-SVHS material.

Just to remember:
- DV's tendency for blockiness in dark scenes
- DV's often elevated black level and excessive brights > 235 luma, requiring post processing
- DV's inferior color subsampling (4:1:1 for NTSC or 4:2:0 for PAL) as opposed to 4:2:2 for recommended lossless analog VHS captures.

Yes, "it works", but to each his own.

[lollo]

I gave you a link and you couldn't even read it

Of course you can move on with your misguided fanaticism

I am the first to suggest the DV approach for people looking for an easy and fast solution. But the final quality is lower compared to the lossless approach, especially if you plan a restoration.
I will let you discover why, once you abandon your crappy tests.

You do not really want me to post the tens of links comparing the DV versus lossless approach, right?

And no, the DV approach has no intrinsic TBC capabilities by its own, if not implemented in the player/camera.

End of the story.

[rgr]

The 25mb/s guaranteed by DV is completely sufficient, especially with non-SVHS material.

Just to remember:
- DV's tendency for blockiness in dark scenes
- DV's often elevated black level and excessive brights > 235 luma, requiring post processing
- DV's inferior color subsampling (4:1:1 for NTSC or 4:2:0 for PAL) as opposed to 4:2:2 for recommended lossless analog VHS captures.

Yes, "it works", but to each his own.

1. With such noisy material as VHS, the problem basically does not occur and disappears in postprocessing.
2. And that's even great because we get a wider range of luma. Of course, this is easily corrected before/after post.
3. At chrominance resolution in VHS, the significance is practically zero.

After the test I am quite happy with the result:

[rgr]

I am the first to suggest the DV approach for people looking for an easy and fast solution. But the final quality is lower compared to the lossless approach, especially if you plan a restoration.

Still too hard to read the link?

I will let you discover why, once you abandon your crappy tests.

I have the equipment on the table, someday (if I want) I will show you what illusion and fanaticism you live in :P

[lollo]

I will show you what illusion and fanaticism you live in :P

My fanaticism is the quality of my captures

[rgr]

I will show you what illusion and fanaticism you live in :P

My fanaticism is the quality of my captures

I know the quality of JVC SVHS + AmarecTV (both video and audio). Never again

[lollo]

I know the quality of JVC SVHS + AmarecTV (both video and audio). Never again

Both are the top for me. Ever and forever!

[The_Doman]

Here we go again.
With these kinds of heated discussions popping up again, I always bring up these quotes:

The old "war of opinion" - Capture 8mm tapes in DV or lossless?

Capturing as DV is about getting reliable results, while capturing through SVideo is about trying to squeeze the maximum quality. As such, it is apples and apple crates - the optimization criteria are different.

Totally agree with Bwaak. His post, especially his second paragraph is really well-stated.

Most people don't get into trouble capturing with DV, and can often really screw up when using higher-quality equipment ... but ... if they are willing to learn how to use the better equipment, they can get better results.

DV provides decent results, but it has two downsides: compression noise and limited colorspace (especially NTSC). For most people who aren't perfectionists, given that they are starting with VHS/SVHS/8mm/Hi8mm which are all pretty lousy to begin with, the damage done by DV's limitations are often the least of the problems in the capture.

I personally don't think that a lossless codec is absolutely required for consumer analog. A modern lossy codec, if used at a reasonably high bitrate, can do a pretty good job. Having some compression sure makes the workflow and final storage a whole lot simpler.

And no, the DV approach has no intrinsic TBC capabilities by its own, if not implemented in the player/camera.

End of the story.

It depends on the DV device/camera.
I can see my Sony DVD8 TRV120 (PAL) does stabilizing when using the passthrough DV feature.
This I wrote way back in 2005 before i had my DVD recorders/passthrough option available:

WinDV, Sony camcorders pass through and signal stabilization

Depends on what you mean by unstable, consumer cams will never be able to correct as well as a full frame TBC. Matter of fact I would think most would offere little correction. They simply record what they are fed, once recorded it's stabilized since it's now a digital stream but it has only stabilized what it was fed. If the siganal is bad you're going to see little if any improvement. May even look worse.

Of course there is no full featured TBC there, but all my VHS stuff I feed through my Sony Camcorder come out great.
All horizontal movement/jitter often present when when capturing a unstable (VHS) source is removed resulting in a rock steady picture.
I can clearly see the difference when I use my other capture devices (BT848 card, Hauppauge PVR150).

But when I compare today i can see the passthrough/stabilization result when using my Panasonic DVD recorders is much better.
Maybe the Sony TRV120 has also degraded after all those years, who knows?

[lollo]

DV is a codec, and is worst than a Lossless codec.
The DV workflow is a nice alternative to the lossless 4:2:2 workflow, with a (small) penalty in term of overall quality.
Period.

A VCR/Camera/Player may have or not an internal TBC.
As my "friend" lordsmurf says, it cleans the image. The DVD-Recorders have somehow stronger correction than embedded TBCs (but adding some disadvantage) so you may want to use them replacing the internal TBC if needed or if the device does not have it.

An external TBC (not always needed) as my "friend" lordsmurf says cleans the signal and is mandatory for tapes in bad shape.

Clear enough?

[Sharc]

The 25mb/s guaranteed by DV is completely sufficient, especially with non-SVHS material.

Just to remember:
- DV's tendency for blockiness in dark scenes
- DV's often elevated black level and excessive brights > 235 luma, requiring post processing
- DV's inferior color subsampling (4:1:1 for NTSC or 4:2:0 for PAL) as opposed to 4:2:2 for recommended lossless analog VHS captures.

Yes, "it works", but to each his own.

1. With such noisy material as VHS, the problem basically does not occur and disappears in postprocessing.
2. And that's even great because we get a wider range of luma. Of course, this is easily corrected before/after post.
3. At chrominance resolution in VHS, the significance is practically zero.

After the test I am quite happy with the result:

Colorspace 709 for SD video?

[lollo]

The 25mb/s guaranteed by DV is completely sufficient, especially with non-SVHS material.

Just to remember:
- DV's tendency for blockiness in dark scenes
- DV's often elevated black level and excessive brights > 235 luma, requiring post processing
- DV's inferior color subsampling (4:1:1 for NTSC or 4:2:0 for PAL) as opposed to 4:2:2 for recommended lossless analog VHS captures.

Yes, "it works", but to each his own.

1. With such noisy material as VHS, the problem basically does not occur and disappears in postprocessing.
2. And that's even great because we get a wider range of luma. Of course, this is easily corrected before/after post.
3. At chrominance resolution in VHS, the significance is practically zero.

After the test I am quite happy with the result:

1. They are there. And you may need to de-block the DV video before processing.

2. The wider range of luma has no benefits.

3. It is the opposite, because 4:2:0 reduces color resolution both horizontally and vertically (by half in both directions).
This can be problematic for formats that already have little color information such as VHS and S-VHS, as the chrominance is further reduced. Pratically 4:2:0 is taking away color from a signal that already has very little of it causing blurred colored edges, color bleeding, aliasing, loss of fine saturation and banding.
Of course with poor sources the difference is minimal, but for nice VHS and S-VHS is not so small.

[rgr]

Colorspace 709 for SD video?

Yes, I converted.

[rgr]

2. The wider range of luma has no benefits.

A bold but completely wrong statement.
Then capture in a narrower range, preferably 16-64 (then expand to 16-235). Let me know if this made the picture worse, but apparently it doesn't matter

[lollo]

2. The wider range of luma has no benefits.

A bold but completely wrong statement.
Then capture in a narrower range, preferably 16-64 (then expand to 16-235). Let me know if this made the picture worse, but apparently it doesn't matter

Are you serious?

Sharc was talking about range 235-255. Capturing in 16-235 or 16-255 does not matter, assuming the procamp of the card is not touched. For the second in post you shirnk to 16-235 if a RGB conversion is needed.

The basics, rgr, the basics!

[Kong]

Trying to cut through the noise of argumentation…

"top-of-frame distortion : waviness.mp4"

How was this captured? Good tape for testing the effectiveness of TBC.

Good tape, eh? I did something right? Ha ha

This was (obviously) a television recording and was captured via the VidBox hardware / software. You may recall that, after learning that little box and its software companion do not have a TBC as part of their deal, I chucked it. As it turns out, this may have been premature.

So.... Using my VCR + HV30 through to my computer (iMovie, hypothetically), will NOT guarantee me no dropped frames? I hope I’m misunderstanding, because that would seem make moot a lot of this thread.

No one will guarantee this You won't know until you check.

Hmm… alright, noted. Ugh.

The waviness at the top of the screen I just took to be an artifact of the VHS medium, and therefore was unavoidable (some of my tapes have that, and some do not). This can be prevented??

Of course, that's exactly what TBC does.

Okay, understood. Unfortunately, as you say, this is still not guaranteed since I will not be integrating a dedicated device equipped with TBC. I’ll only be increasing my odds by introducing some digital links into the chain.

To answer Alwyn’s question, I do not know if it’s a “dropped” frame. I’m just gonna call it a stalled frame.

It would be interesting to play that on your TV to see if it is on the original tape. I've seen duplicate frames during captures, but not many actual drops like that; Facebook videos are full of them.

My understanding is if a frame is missed by the capture software, it will insert a duplicate to maintain the frame rate. But on a DV passthrough, I don't know if that applies to Scenalyzer or WinDV.

That waviness would almost certainly be straightened up with an ES-10/15 type DVD recorder.

I can tell you that it is not in the original tape, because I went back to re-digitize a “patch” to composite over that position later in AE or Premiere, and this patch recorded just fine. So, it would seem to be a function of the limited VidBox device.

[Kong]

So guys, it seems that perhaps the best way for me to do this would be to create one of the following chains:

Regular VCR + Canon Vixia HV30 into FW-equipped computer and iMovie or Premiere;

or...

Regular VCR + [one of those DVD recorders mentioned in this thread] into FW-equipped computer and iMovie or Premiere.

Is this correct, or did I miss something? (The thread’s become a bit overwhelming at this point, so I may have glossed over something important.)

Tanx.

[cholla]

Trying to cut through the noise of argumentation…

@ Kong,
I agree this topic has gotten sort of "off topic".
Maybe starting a new topic would be a good idea.
If I contributed to the "off topic" My Apologies.

[Kong]

Trying to cut through the noise of argumentation…

@ Kong,
I agree this topic has gotten sort of "off topic".
Maybe starting a new topic would be a good idea.
If I contributed to the "off topic" My Apologies.

Oh I’m not offended and felt no need for an apology. I understand that in human conversation, one main vein can easily change direction and / or break up into tributaries. I’m just trying to get those tributaries, at least temporarily, reunited into one river going in its original direction

I’m only seeking the easiest and least expensive way to get the best capturings possible. There are $300 capturing devices that up-rez and everything else, but that’s almost prohibitively expensive for me. So, the easiest — but most effective chain — is what I seeketh.

[rgr]

2. The wider range of luma has no benefits.

A bold but completely wrong statement.
Then capture in a narrower range, preferably 16-64 (then expand to 16-235). Let me know if this made the picture worse, but apparently it doesn't matter

Are you serious?

Sharc was talking about range 235-255. Capturing in 16-235 or 16-255 does not matter, assuming the procamp of the card is not touched. For the second in post you shirnk to 16-235 if a RGB conversion is needed.

You gave you a fishing rod, all you had to do was think, you couldn't do it.
Of course the 16-255 range is better because it contains more luma levels.
The D8 camera is not a grabber - there will be no holes in the graph, the entire range will be filled.

The same as the level above will be capturing in 10-bit depth.

The basics, rgr, the basics!

The basics, and you still don't understand.