what capture software for firewire & win 7 32 bit please

[ballboy]

hi folks
trying to convert old vhs tapes to digital, did a few about 6 yrs ago, but need to get them all done now

got old pc with firewire connect using win 7 32 bit,
going from VCR to Sony handycam then form that to pc
tried windv but file sizes are big,
think when i did it all those years ago i used either sony vegas or pinnacle software, tried looking for sony vegas for win 7 but can't find one for 32 bit

any help for what is the best capture software to try with this system
thanks

[Barrythecrab]

At the risk of being corrected...you are going from VHS, a subpar format, to DV compression using the camera as the capture device.
In the UK, this is less of an issue (PAL) than over here, but still I think you would be better off capturing lossless with VirtualDub and a USB dongle.
Files will be huge, but will not be crippled with DV compression, and you can readily fix and alter the captured file to prepare for final file type delivery.

[ballboy]

I tried using one of those easycap usb things, but the picture/sound was poor
the stuff i did a few years back was/is better
going the usb dongle way means buying a better one than the easycap device, that's ok iff it gives me good/great video's but if not that's more money wasted

[rrats]

You should reencode the interlaced file you've got to a more modern format such as AVC or HEVC (still interlaced).

[rrats]

VirtualDub2 workflow:

Since I had never worked with DV files I am not sure if they are top field or bottom field first. I recommend you load the deinterlacing filter (video->filters->deinterlacing), then select "bob" -> double frame rate, top field fist. if the motion on the second video window looks weird (jiggering), then it means that your video is bottom field first.

The last thing that you should do is to encode the video. Use the x264 10-bit and these settings

[Attachment 65214 - Click to enlarge]

[Barrythecrab]

I believe DV is BFF.

[rrats]

Same but I'm never sure enough

[rrats]

going from VHS, a subpar format, to DV

VHS is hot rubbish

[ballboy]

thanks
I'm waiting on a new scart connector and will have a play around in a few days

[DB83]

going from VHS, a subpar format, to DV

VHS is hot rubbish

Anyone who writes this does not appreciate what it was when it was.


One can not compare current systems to legacy ones.

[rrats]

Perhaps I was a bit to harsh. Still, regular VHS wouldn't really benefit from a better capture device.

[Barrythecrab]

In response to DB83, I love VHS for what it stores, millions of memories, accessible to the masses.
Though awkwardly worded I only meant a low-resolution format and then a round of DV compression.
Maybe that’s still awkward…

[DB83]

^^ My comment was not directed at you !

Like I said, it was what it was. A format for its time. I still own tons of cassettes that, maybe, one day I will get around to digitising.


And as for the process of VHS to DV, I actually champion it.

[usually_quiet]

Perhaps I was a bit to harsh. Still, regular VHS wouldn't really benefit from a better capture device.

There are members here who would disagree with that statement but their idea of what a better capture device would be probably isn't the same as yours

[dellsam34]

Perhaps I was a bit to harsh. Still, regular VHS wouldn't really benefit from a better capture device.

Yes it does, Greatly, compare these two choices:
1- You take a "hot rubbish VHS" tape and keep it the way it is or as close as possible to its original condition using a good VCR via Y/C connection, better capture device, better bandwidth (4:2:2 lossless AVI).
Or
2- You take a "hot rubbish VHS" tape played with a mediocre VCR via composite, capture it with EasyCrap into compressed DV or mpeg-2 with all playback issues baked in and compressed.

Youtube is filled with videos of both methods, Take a look and tell us which rubbish is hotter?

[rrats]

Does 4:2:2 really make a difference?

[ConsumerDV]

VHS is dead rubbish now, it was dying rubbish twenty years ago, and it was hot rubbish forty years ago along with Video 8, Betamax and all other consumer video formats. But it was all that was available, and it was acceptable for home video when watched on a 20-inch CRT TV.

Umatic was the lowest quality format to get one's video on broadcast TV. SVHS and Hi8 were somewhat better than their progenitors, and some professional outlets used these formats for origination, meaning no editing was done in these formats. This was similar to what forum members do now: offload VHS from tape and edit digitally, this is the only reason VHS digital dubs look somewhat decent.

@ballboy, if you want to keep your equipment and your process but you do not like the bitrate, then you have to re-compress. Using a different capturing program will make no difference aside of a possibly different container. Whether you want to do other processing besides re-compression, like deinterlacing, depends on the intended usage.

[dellsam34]

Does 4:2:2 really make a difference?

Why don't you experiment yourself, Try to learn than ignore.

[Alwyn]

S-MP, I'm having all sorts of trouble with those settings of yours:

- You haven't mentioned the file extension for saving.

- "-bff" (or as you have it "-tff") throws an error; remove it and the export works (and yes, PAL DV, at least, is BFF)

- I get FFMpeg error messages every time I try your X264 parameters

- Your QF 10 gives a file size 30% larger than DV

- You've not mentioned what to do with the audio. For example, MP4 will not accept PCM.

I suggest that, if you are going to propose solutions, you cover all bases so the newbys don't get even more bamboozled.

Does 4:2:2 really make a difference?

I see you're using 4:2:2 in your export.

[Alwyn]

But it was all that was available, and it was acceptable for home video when watched on a 20-inch CRT TV.

And it is still acceptable on a 55" OLED TV today, more than acceptable. No need to catastrophise something that isn't that bad and in any case is all that we have.

[ConsumerDV]

But it was all that was available, and it was acceptable for home video when watched on a 20-inch CRT TV.

And it is still acceptable on a 55" OLED TV today, more than acceptable. No need to catastrophise something that isn't that bad and in any case is all that we have.

Catastrophise? Oh, no. It is just rubbish.

[dellsam34]

But it was all that was available, and it was acceptable for home video when watched on a 20-inch CRT TV.

And it is still acceptable on a 55" OLED TV today, more than acceptable. No need to catastrophise something that isn't that bad and in any case is all that we have.

VHS or any consumer analog tape format from back in the day if shot or recorded right originally on tape, it can look as good as an original SD digital file after a good capturing. What makes those formats look worse is the bad or wrong methods of capturing, inadequate playback equipment, low quality or wrong capture hardware, Video compression, bad de-interlacing, bad resizing, and so on. It's ignorance that makes people think if the video quality is limited it's okay to butcher it, while in fact it's the other way around, High quality videos such as 4K HDR takes a lot of butchering before it start loosing quality.

[rrats]

- You haven't mentioned the file extension for saving.

.avi

- "-bff" (or as you have it "-tff") throws an error; remove it and the export works (and yes, PAL DV, at least, is BFF)

that is a warning not and error, and it states that interlaced video in x264 does not have same power like progressive, which mean some optimisations like weightp have no effect.

ALSO ITS --bff and --tff with two dashes, not one.

- Your QF 10 gives a file size 30% larger than DV

Change CRF to 13 or 14 and compress the audio. go into the audio dropdown menu and select full procesing mode. when exporting change the audio format to something like ACC.

I see you're using 4:2:2 in your export.

i've had some terrible experiences exporting interlaced 4:2:0 files in h264. not sure if they are caused by this

VHS or any consumer analog tape format from back in the day if shot or recorded right originally on tape, it can look as good as an original SD digital file after a good capturing.

Seeing lollo's videos it seems that S-VHS can produce a high quality video stream, close to digital. As for the normal VHS, well one time I recorded DVD onto a PC with a capture card, going out from an analogue port of the DVD player, then I recorded the same video onto a VHS tape, and recorded that tape's playback onto my PC. VHS had a worse quality. Picture was still intact and it was relatively sharp but the colour reproduction and resolution were definitely worse

[Alwyn]

i've had some terrible experiences exporting interlaced 4:2:0 files in h264

You've deinterlaced it. Post 5.

I've never seen H264 AVIs. What is your reasoning behind encoding H264 as AVI as opposed to MP4?

[dellsam34]

As for the normal VHS, well one time I recorded DVD onto a PC with a capture card, going out from an analogue port of the DVD player, then I recorded the same video onto a VHS tape, and recorded that tape's playback onto my PC. VHS had a worse quality. Picture was still intact and it was relatively sharp but the colour reproduction and resolution were definitely worse

Off course the quality will be mediocre, You're recording with a consumer VCR using probably composite and capturing it back using the same VCR and the same composite connection with who knows what capture hardware or method used, That's not how you test things.

Here is a recording someone sent me that he recorded from a digital file in VHS on tape (using S-Video but in VHS only), I received the tape and captured it back using my VCR (via S-Video and line TBC on), Note that the original capture looks way better than youtube's version, It was part of an experiment that me and a member exchanged tapes to test capture devices:
https://youtu.be/yeEsMaRB-jQ

[rrats]

i've had some terrible experiences exporting interlaced 4:2:0 files in h264

You've deinterlaced it. Post 5.

I've never seen H264 AVIs. What is your reasoning behind encoding H264 as AVI as opposed to MP4?

that was just the test to see if the video was bff or tff.

should be brought back to the interlaced form factor

[rrats]

I've never seen H264 AVIs. What is your reasoning behind encoding H264 as AVI as opposed to MP4?

AVI and MKV support much larger variety of codecs and stuff

[lollo]

Seeing lollo's videos it seems that S-VHS can produce a high quality video stream, close to digital.

The key point is not the S- part of the S-VHS. The standard just increases the luminance bandwidth and then the Y resolution. All other problems are still there.

In my experience, what makes the difference are the conditions of the tapes and the VCR: when working with S-VHS recordings you are forced to use a high-end machine, with better components for playback compared to a standard VHS VCR.
Then the methodology and the capture card also plays an important role as dellsam34 properly pointed out.

And please consider that you are watching Youtube compressed videos, also upscaled and deinterlaced when needed to avoid Youtube's alghoritm heavy processing. dellsam34 and me use the same approach for that, original captured/restored files are slightly better.

Does 4:2:2 really make a difference?

YUV 4:2:2 is the closest scheme to the signal recorded on tape. Better to use it.

ALSO ITS --bff and --tff with two dashes, not one.

I never use a GUI for x264 compression, but a simple command line. For interlaced materials I add

-x264opts interlaced:tff=1

do not know if that helps when using VD2 ot other.

[rrats]

I see. I'm not an expert in this field, and while i might have some good ideas, I don't really know how to execute them in a most efficient way.