Overall recommendations ?

[lordsmurf]

Almost from the start, I have not liked the idea of USB capture cards. A title of a Youtube video always sticks in my head "All USB capture cards are garbage." USB is meant for mouse, keyboard and external drives. This is just my view.

Your view is outdated. Like USB 1.1 outdated, 25+ years ago outdated. USB is merely a communication method. Comms methods have throughput/bandwidth, and dropouts and DO compensation (cache). The quality of the item determined the quality of the item -- not the communication method of the item (as long as it is below the max threshold, and SD analog capture data is well below USB 2.0 maximums). The "USB is garbage" myth (as it relates to video capture) is almost entirely from cheap Chinese USB garbage, especially Easycaps (Easycraps).

I prefer real hardware.

Great! Lots of quality hardware is on USB, including professional devices for audio and video.

A guy I know who does this thing for a living uses the BlackMagic Intensity Pro PCI card, and the footage is really good, although it adds a slight hue to the recording for some reason.

If it alters the video, it's not "really good". Those cards have multiple known issues with SD analog video, even with TBCs in the workflow. HD cards were made for HD, and then "also do" (and poorly) SD video. It's a tack-on feature. Over the years, even Blackmagic themselves have admitted to the various problems with the cards, especially on VHS footage, in various contacts to tech support. Several are documented in this very forum.

Yes, I'm the newbie, but I like my hardware to do the job. So, there's that.

That's why you should stick to known-good hardware, suggested from respected voices in the community(s). Not randos, not AI bots. Remove randomness from your data. Remove pre-conceived notions (like "USB is for mouse/keyboard") from your data.

However, I've been consulting Claude (for better or worse) and it suggests, capture device does not matter, what really matters is tape condition, and the VCR you are recording from.

Claude trained on data from people like me, who have been posting about video capture for 25-30 years now. But then Claude also trained on data from people who don't know their ass from their elbow, newbies regurgitating data not-quite-right. AI bots are unable to discern between quality and quacks. While it is true that VCR quality/condition matters, and tape condition matters, so do the capture card. AI spouts crap with absolute confidence in itself, but it's hallucination. AI is further really bad at niche topics like tape capturing. Claude is one of the better models, but that answer you got sucked. Or you didn't read the answer correctly?

[lollo]

How you doing lollo? Well, I hope. Take care.

Excellent thanks, same for you I hope! Take care

However, I've been consulting Claude (for better or worse) and it suggests, capture device does not matter, what really matters is tape condition, and the VCR you are recording from.

You should use Claude (an excellent tool, I admit) where it excels, that is, for writing code, where it's absolutely amazing. Not for expressing opinions (e.g., on capture devices).

[VHS-Digital-Buddy]

@lordsmurf, @lollo

Appreciate the feedback. I'm learning every minute.

[StuartCameronCode]

Once you've got a capture, the completely free, open source and cross-platform VapourBox tool does just about everything you'll want for deinterlacing and other fixups, and is built specifically to help guide people through the process of video restoration/archival/processing/conversion with useful filter presets. It's daunting as a newcomer, and you're going to get bombarded with jargon - VapourBox tries to walk you through all the various options.

[Alwyn]

I'll second Vapourbox. Great for doing the basic AVISynth-type tasks that deter newbys.

[GAhere]

Not every video tape requires TBC to get a good capture, most do not and if it is not needed, remove the TBC from the chain as leaving it in can degrade the picture if it really isn't needed.

It's really quite amazing how capturing analog videotapes is 25+ years old now, and stupid advice still exists.

TBC is not needed, you say? Have you been living under a rock?

Of course time base correction is needed!
- Analog formats are contained chaos on mylar tape.
- Digital ingest (capture) expected digital precision.
- The TBC is the translator between analog and digital realms.

There's no debate to be had here. This was settled science decades ago. Apparently, some people never got the memo.

And the whole "TBC makes video worse" is always from somebody that
(1) has broken equipment, or
(2) has never used a TBC, likely because
(3) they're too cheap to buy a TBC, and spreading FUD to make themselves feel better

False.

How you doing lollo? Well, I hope. Take care.

No, not living under a rock.

Have a far wider view of the problem and a lot of the problem is often self inflicted by trying to follow the path of using extremely old outdated tech..

As you have said in the past, using commercial TBCs are bad, no good and won't work. Pretty much any new TBC you will be able to buy new now days will be commercial versions.

So as an alternative, the recommendation is to dig up old DVD recorders to use as a TBC pass through, the problem with that is are they reliable and working?

Chances are that a old 10- 20 yr old used secondhand and third hand Ebay DVD recorder (or pretty much any electronics) is junk to start with and it does nothing to stabilize the video and in the process skews and messes with the video.. At a minimum even IF the used DVD recorder powers up, you have a 99% chance that it will need the power supply fully recapped at the bare minimum, not a job for the greenhorn that may never have learned soldering basics. People tend to toss their dead and near dead obsolete equipment on Ebay without fully disclosing the actual condition making it a an expensive roulette wheel to the unknowing buyer. It also should be noted, not ALL DVD recorders have any sort of TBC making it even more of a gamble.

Open up your view a bit, there are most likely a lot of new paths to take with newer modern electronics available..

I would suggest a new workflow point of view, composite out of source (VHS) into a composite to HDMI video scaler. The scaler will do the heavy lifting of A-D conversion (dedicated hardware), plus as part of the scaling it then will copy each video line and add the copied lines into the HDMI video stream to give you a upscaled 480 digital stream to the output (output will report as 1080 to the TV or recording device). The HDMI output of the scaler then goes into a recorder that has HDMI recording capability. The HDMI recorder could be a PC based usb dongle or a standalone HDMI to flash memory recorder. There are plenty of new video scalers and HDMI recording devices available on the market, keeping in mind they all are designed to prevent recording if the copy protection bit in the HDMI stream is present. In the case of using a 480 source and a video scaler, there should not be any copy protection bit in the HDMI stream.

When you and myself started A-D video capturing, the standalone video scaler and HDMI path never existed.

If any or all of my current video capture equipment were to fail, my replacement path isn't buying up old 20yr-30yr old analog composite equipment that I will most likely have to fix (some like the consumer TBCs simply can not be fixed or fixed easily). No, it would look like the scaler and HDMI path.

I have been using a external composite to HDMI scaler on my 50" LCD TV for quite a few yrs now, TV likes it, quality is a bit better looking than the built in scaler of the TV and they are pretty inexpensive at around $20 US to perhaps $40 US. There is no TBC or any other processing device in the analog signal path to the scaler. Have also used this external scaler method on HD video projectors that do not have composite inputs with good looking stable SD video on 100" projection screens.

There are newer options now days that have the possibility to make even better captures..

[lollo]

I would suggest a new workflow point of view, composite out of source (VHS) into a composite to HDMI video scaler. The scaler will do the heavy lifting of A-D conversion (dedicated hardware), plus as part of the scaling it then will copy each video line and add the copied lines into the HDMI video stream to give you a upscaled 480 digital stream to the output (output will report as 1080 to the TV or recording device).

And this close the loop

HDMI upscale (or not upscale, what you meant is no clear to me), possibly on interlaced material , with yet no time base correction of the signal.

You really don't know what you're talking about...

[VHS-Digital-Buddy]

Ok, another newbie question.

OBS or Virtualdub ? Or something else.

[GAhere]

I would suggest a new workflow point of view, composite out of source (VHS) into a composite to HDMI video scaler. The scaler will do the heavy lifting of A-D conversion (dedicated hardware), plus as part of the scaling it then will copy each video line and add the copied lines into the HDMI video stream to give you a upscaled 480 digital stream to the output (output will report as 1080 to the TV or recording device).

And this close the loop

HDMI upscale (or not upscale, what you meant is no clear to me), possibly on interlaced material , with yet no time base correction of the signal.

You really don't know what you're talking about...

Stand alone video scalers are designed to handle BOTH interlaced and non interlaced material automatically and the A-D will handle this conversion to HDMI correctly without any fuss so you obviously also do not know what you are talking about

Additionally a lot of external scalers also have the capability for not just one composite video system but also will accept NTSC, PAL and SECAM and output that to HDMI..

They are designed to handle a lot of video input conditions and still provide a HDMI output that will play perfectly fine on any TV that has a HDMI input, in other words no "need" to create a big chain of analog processing devices.

Yeah, I know, very shocking that one simple box can do away with multiple analog processing devices and yet some how it works great..

Try one, then perhaps you will understand..

[lollo]

Try one, then perhaps you will understand..

You mentioned the 20$ devices in your post, there is really nothing to understand.

I (we) have our consolidate workflows. Including the HDMI approach, but not as you intend it, but as 720x576(x480) interlaced stream (the output of specific DVD-R Recorders, which do have time base correctin, and play the role of the capture device). They may suffer sometimes of levels and colorspace and adherence to Rec.601 spec issues, but that's another story

Try what is a real "quality" capture, then perhaps you will understand...

[GAhere]

Try one, then perhaps you will understand..

You mentioned the 20$ devices in your post, there is really nothing to understand.

I (we) have our consolidate workflows. Including the HDMI approach, but not as you intend it, but as 720x576(x480) interlaced stream (the output of specific DVD-R Recorders, which do have time base correctin, and play the role of the capture device). They may suffer sometimes of levels and colorspace and adherence to Rec.601 spec issues, but that's another story

Try what is a real "quality" capture, then perhaps you will understand...

Example of just one of the many composite to HDMI scalers available.. Not the one I have but is an example of of what you get..

https://www.fullcompass.com/common/files/13059-TVOne1TVS622.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoqYS2yQew...LExG84z7Ium75s


[Attachment 93543 - Click to enlarge]

Note the red outlined section which does state deinterlacing, while it may not be your preferred version it is done by that scaler.

[lollo]

I talked about "quality" capture, not some crap online deinterlacing without time base correction and potentially Rec.601 adherence issues and who knows what else.

Not sure you understand that we ware talking about different worlds. In the past we analyzed in the forum captures from this kind of devices or similar used as "weird" digitizer, and guess what...

[CaptureCraft]

Ok, another newbie question.

OBS or Virtualdub ? Or something else.

VirtualDub2, latest version.
OBS could be used, but it is not its main purpose.

[VHS-Digital-Buddy]

Thanks CaptureCraft.

[lollo]

Ok, another newbie question.

OBS or Virtualdub ? Or something else.

AmarecTV, especially with modern cards and modern OSs.

Eventually VirtualDub with time settings according to your specific hardware; generally not VirtualDub2 (few exceptions).

OBS never recommended; among other it may screw up field architecture:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/413526-Not-able-to-Convert-VHS-to-digital-file/page2#post2725162
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/413526-Not-able-to-Convert-VHS-to-digital-file/page2#post2725292

[GAhere]

I talked about "quality" capture, not some crap online deinterlacing without time base correction and potentially Rec.601 adherence issues and who knows what else.

Not sure you understand that we ware talking about different worlds. In the past we analyzed in the forum captures from this kind of devices or similar used as "weird" digitizer, and guess what...

Time has moved on, so has everyone else but you.

With time, many devices you may have tested in the past may or may not have been to your own personal "standards" the new versions most likely have improved far, far better than you are willing to credit.

Instead of being stuck in the past with the "past" disappointments leading your direction it is time to move on and try out the newer more readily available equipment like external composite scalers and HDMI recording devices.

These scalers are not a "weird digitizer", no, they are the real thing that really work well.

At one point in the past when HD TVs came out it was a recommended thing to use an external scaler as the TVs at that time the built in to the TV scalers performed poorly. While the built in scalers of most modern TVs have really improved to the point that external scalers are no longer recommended if the TV has the input you need.. However, many newer TVs (and video projectors) no longer offer analog inputs.. Because of that issue the use of an external scaler is a must if you have any analog video source.

The items you often recommend are no longer in production so buying new often isn't possible. This basically means this forums purpose in short time becomes less useful. DVDs are pretty much a dead media like VHS, makes finding new DVD recorders a challenge as much of what is for sale is used or refurbished and you take your chances.

Yes, it is difficult to believe that an external scaler can handle a wobbly video source like VHS and that it can deinterlace and that it can upscale to a 1080 HDMI output that can be viewed with no visible artifacts on modern HD large screen TVs or projectors and actually look great..

There is no reason why a video recorder capable of recording from HDMI input couldn't work just as well or better than using a DVD recorder as TBC and a very old outdated analog capture device.

I kind of thought that this forum used to be more on the cutting edge of video capture technology, for that, I have been 100% mistaken as much of the info and workflow is based on the past with equipment from the past and limitations of past equipment. Sort of like trying to run Windows 3.1 technology in the modern world of W10 and W11..

[VHS-Digital-Buddy]

Ok, another newbie question.

OBS or Virtualdub ? Or something else.

AmarecTV, especially with modern cards and modern OSs.

Eventually VirtualDub with time settings according to your specific hardware; generally not VirtualDub2 (few exceptions).

OBS never recommended; among other it may screw up field architecture:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/413526-Not-able-to-Convert-VHS-to-digital-file/page2#post2725162
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/413526-Not-able-to-Convert-VHS-to-digital-file/page2#post2725292

Thanks @lollo

[lollo]

Sort of like trying to run Windows 3.1 technology in the modern world of W10 and W11..

Non sense.

The VHS and similar analog format are decades old. The best material to manipulate them existed then, not today. You do not find a quality VCR, or better a quality Video Cassette Player today. What you find today is a compromise not the best (few exceptions); including workflows. That's all.

[Sharc]

Yes, it is difficult to believe that an external scaler can handle a wobbly video source like VHS and that it can deinterlace and that it can upscale to a 1080 HDMI output that can be viewed with no visible artifacts on modern HD large screen TVs or projectors and actually look great.. ..

Well, instead of expecting people to believe something why don't you just provide/upload some of your examples for evidence and comparison?

[lollo]

Yes, it is difficult to believe that an external scaler can handle a wobbly video source like VHS and that it can deinterlace and that it can upscale to a 1080 HDMI output that can be viewed with no visible artifacts on modern HD large screen TVs or projectors and actually look great.. ..

Well, instead of expecting people to believe something why don't you just provide/upload some of your examples for evidence and comparison?

I was proposing the same in the first version of my last reply ("upload a sample, then you will send me your tape at my expenses, I will capture it and then we can compare"), but I finally decided to delete this part because he's probably just a troll not deserving a serious debate.

[Gary34]

At a minimum even IF the used DVD recorder powers up, you have a 99% chance that it will need the power supply fully recapped at the bare minimum, not a job for the greenhorn that may never have learned soldering basics.

I don’t think the odds of getting a working es-15 are that low. Now one in 100 units.

[dellsam34]

Example of just one of the many composite to HDMI scalers available.. Not the one I have but is an example of of what you get..

HDMI scalers as the name suggests are display devices not intended for capturing analog signal, I've tried quite few in the past from the Chinese crap to the high end ones like Gefen, They have many problems, over scan, under scan, incorrect levels, frame tearing ... to name few.

The proper way of converting analog video to digital without computer CPU is either a pro analog to SDI converter (including VTRs with SDI output), a VCR with HDMI output (ex. D-VHS or W-VHS machine), or a passthrough recorder with HDMI output that honors the rec.601 standard.

From there you can then ingest the SDI/HDMI digital stream to computer using the proper interface/card or you can go 100% autonomous and use a SDI/HDMI lossless recorder (there are recorders that encode on the fly).

Time has moved on, so has everyone else but you.

No, Analog tape capture is as old as the format being captured itself, Even when computer was strictly used for payroll and word, professionals were capturing analog video to digital formats such as D1 and D2 using the exact same standard that capture cards use today, So there is no change and will never be, Even the latest hardware that uses RF to capture video uses the same standard from the 1980's.

[lordsmurf]

As you have said in the past, using commercial TBCs are bad, no good and won't work. Pretty much any new TBC you will be able to buy new now days will be commercial versions.

Look harder. The TBCs needed can still be located. Everything from recommended DataVideo/Cypress type frame TBCs, to JVC/Panasonic VCRs with line TBCs, to the sorta/kinda TBC(ish) certain-model DVD recorders.

The usual "problem" (self-inflicted) is too many people are cheapskates, and cry about prices. And yet, the same person will (over)spend money on shelf clutter trinkets, overpriced e-gadgets, overpriced food, and other nonsense. So it's not really about price, it's about priorities. They value other crap over their own video quality. Fine. Just admit it. Enough of the "TBCs are too expensive, wah!" You do you. But stop with the BS FUD. Not everybody is a cheapskate, and they seek quality.

At a minimum even IF the used DVD recorder powers up, you have a 99% chance that it will need the power supply fully recapped at the bare minimum,

No, nonsense, we're not there yet. And it's not just any random DVD recorder, but very specific models. These are not true TBCs, and these devices do have many quality/usage issues. And yet, still better than nothing.

Open up your view a bit, there are most likely a lot of new paths to take with newer modern electronics available..

No, there is not. "Open up your view" is most often an argument made by people that don't know what they're talking about.

I would suggest a new workflow point of view, composite out of source (VHS) into a composite to HDMI video scaler.

Terrible advice.

There are newer options now days that have the possibility to make even better captures..

No, there is not.

Time has moved on, so has everyone else but you.

Time hasn't moved beyond quality methods. Certainly not for a now-evergreen methods, that will likely never change. Maybe you just got cheap and lazy? Never confuse "time" with "your own habits over time".

Try one, then perhaps you will understand..

Logical fallacy. I don't need to stick my finger in an electric socket, to "try one". There's plenty of information already that shows this to be awful. Both the finger in socket, and the HDMI display dongles.

The items you often recommend are no longer in production

So? That's what used markets are for. The "new stuff" sold on Amazon/eBay is arguably worse, even if new!

[rgr]

Ok, another newbie question.

OBS or Virtualdub ? Or something else.

AmarecTV, especially with modern cards and modern OSs.

If he wants dropped frames, AmarecTV is a good solution

Eventually VirtualDub with time settings according to your specific hardware; generally not VirtualDub2 (few exceptions).

The capture module in VirtualDub2 is no different from the previous ones, it captures frames just as nicely.
https://forum.videohelp.com/attachments/87807-1752419717/rating.png

[rgr]

By the way, I received two USB's from a friend, Roxio and Nero and the footage is ok to pretty good, but I'm really finicky about quality.

Considering that Nero captures every other frame (or rather every other field), which is practically impossible to miss, I don't know how you can call it "pretty good".
I would like to see a sample clip from this Nero Recode.

[lollo]

If he wants dropped frames, AmarecTV is a good solution

You can keep repeating these falsehoods as long as you want, they will not become the truth.

The capture module in VirtualDub2 is no different from the previous ones, it captures frames just as nicely.

No, there are differences. Try to use VDub 1.9.11 with a USB 600 and its clone and then VDub 2.3.

And about the "just as nicely": https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/12986-amarectv-frame-inserts.html (just one example, there any tens others)

[rgr]

If he wants dropped frames, AmarecTV is a good solution

You can keep repeating these falsehoods as long as you want, they will not become the truth.

Tested, confirmed. Tell yourself something different as much as you want.

The capture module in VirtualDub2 is no different from the previous ones, it captures frames just as nicely.

No, there are differences. Try to use VDub 1.9.11 with a USB 600 and its clone and then VDub 2.3.

And about the "just as nicely": https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/12986-amarectv-frame-inserts.html (just one example, there any tens others)

Wow, do you know better than the author?
Common setting errors.

[lollo]

Tested, confirmed.

Crap test, nothing is confirmed.

Wow, do you know better than the author?
Common setting errors.

I know as much, because I followed him step-by-step, even off-forum.

What you do not understand when he writes: "Trying various combinations of settings in the Timing area of VirtualDub ("Do not sync...", "Resync...")"

[rgr]

Tested, confirmed.

Crap test, nothing is confirmed.

Substantive argumentation as usual

Wow, do you know better than the author?
Common setting errors.

I know as much, because I followed him step-by-step, even off-forum.

Well, it's time to learn to read changelogs. The capture module made several fixes after version 1.9.3, but practically none after that.

What you do not understand when he writes: "Trying various combinations of settings in the Timing area of VirtualDub ("Do not sync...", "Resync...")"

Yes, "various".

[lollo]

Substantive argumentation as usual

There is nothing to argument. The facts are the facts, across tens of evidences.

Well, it's time to learn to read changelogs. The capture module made several fixes after version 1.9.3, but practically none after that.

You are mixing the different goals. Play attention in your reply. The change logs not always tells everything.

Yes, "various".

Yes. Do you prefere "all of them"? Do you need a specific table with all the settings that have been tried?

As usual "when the wise man points to the moon the fool looks at the finger".
And you are the champion in doing that!